Thursday
Dec092021
SPOILERS: The Endings of "Passing" and "Power of the Dog"
Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 12:30PM by Deborah Lipp
So, the title says “spoilers.” And it says “endings” which makes “spoilers” somewhat redundant. Stop reading now unless you’ve seen both of these movies.
Okay. Coast is clear...
Did I just see the same movie twice?
I saw Passing on Saturday night, and The Power of the Dog on Sunday night. It seems to me that I saw a period piece, set in the 1920s, in which a charismatic but dangerous character forms a homoerotic connection with the other main character, who, in the final moments, kills the dangerous character, making it look like an accident, despite their deep connection, in order to protect their family.
And then the next night, I saw the same thing.
Did you?
Reader Comments (16)
SPOILERS FOLLOW (of course):
I see what you mean, but Passing keeps it ambiguous, unlike The Power of the Dog, where it's not explicit but it's also unambiguous. After the screening I attended last night, neither Negga nor Thompson would not commit to a version of how Clare goes out the window. There seem to be at least four options, including two homicidal and one suicidal ones. I think it was accidental, with A Place in the Sun overtones.
I think Reenie and Peter are very different characters, so I think this comparison doesn't quite hold up.
Also, I think Peter's motives are fairly direct and we undertand that he kills Phil. Reenie doesn't. She's moving to protect Clare when she falls. Even if you assert the film isn't as decisive as that, I think we're meant to see the moment of Clare's death as a sort of accident.Even if Reenie did push her intentionally in that moment, it's not something that was long plotted, and it can be seen as an act that's far more complicated, emotionally, than what Peter does. Reenie's actions are filled with complications of jealousy, love, a desire to protect, and a desire to preserve. Not just for her family, but for Clare. Peter's actions are far more straightforward (at least how it's played in the film).
Also, it's hard to say these films are the "same." Sure there's something homeoerotic happening, but the racial passing theme and themes of masculinity and repression in POTD are quite different. I don't think POTD has Phil, Peter, or Rose experience the same level of danger that Reenie experiences.They're tense films in very different ways.
Also, I think what's interesting about Passing and POTD is their central characters. In Passing, Reeenie exist in almost a fugue state, especially as she gets closer to Clare. Peter doesn't, and from the moment we meet him, he's clear about who he is, even if he doesn't verbalize that.
Interesting thesis here, and agree with the comment above. I would say that both films also share a certain sense of poetic inertness -- long, wordless scenes/setpieces where purpose/motives aren't always clear until later in the film.
In the case of Power of the Dog, I started the movie and got up to get a drink while the credits were running thinking I wouldn't miss anything, and on a whim when I sat back down, decided to restart the previous 30 seconds. Glad I did! Otherwise I would've missed Peter's voiceover to the effect of "I'll do anything it takes to protect mother" which you kinda need to know for the final sequence to make complete sense.
Wouldn't it be great if Negga and McPhee both won supporting Oscars for these films!
Deborah - i was surprised reading this because, like working stiff, i think it's ambiguous. I thought it was accidental but her husband pushing her to her death but i was talking later to a friend and they said. no she jumped. And here you are with a third version of what happened.
Joe -- i love this idea of the fugue state.
paranoid -- yeah, i think that's why seeing adult themedd films in theaters is so important. they tend to be more subtle and everyone (including myself) while watchinng at home has breaks or distractions whether it's going to the bathroom or the phone or whatever.
Its an homage to Kristen Johnston in Sex and the City.
So interesting. Neither Prof. Spouse nor I thought the ending of Passing was that ambiguous; we both saw Reenie push Clare.
Paranoid, I think I missed that voiceover as well! That's incredible.
I acknowledge that my reading is partly superficial, I don't think these movies are really the same, to Joe G.'s point. I think the undercurrents are very different, and part of that is expressed by the different characters who are (or may be) the murderers.
It's Rose who is in a kind of "fugue" state, albeit not the same as Reenie's. Rose's oppressor is one specific person, and she reaches for drink to get into the state she needs to cope with it. Reenie's oppressor is institutional. She escapes by disassociation, while her husband Brian escapes by dreams of *actually* escaping -- leaving the country.
Not having read the novella, when Clare's husband burst into the party, I thought we might be getting...
*
*
*
*
BIG LITTLE LIES SPOILER AHEAD
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
...a repeat of Alexander Skarsgård's fate in the miniseries. Right fate, wrong character...
This is a good discussion. Hooray for films where everything isn't spoon fed to the audience.
I rewatched that window scene from Passing several times, and it appeared to me that Irene intentionally moved Clare. What I couldn't tell was whether it was to move Clare behind her in order to protect her, or to intentionally push her out the window.
I love this!
I was literally just thinking that Passing ending is an homage to that SEX AND THE CITY SCENE lmaoooo
And Love the BLL reference too!
Anyway, I just realized the similarity but Passing is way more ambiguous and I don’t think Reenie actually wanted to kill Clare outright.
While for that demon twink Peter, you better work!
The first time I saw PASSING, there seemed no doubt that Claire's death was an accident. After reading this, I watched the scene again and my initial was reconfirmed, more or less. But then I watched it a few more times. It's a quick moment after all and you can rewatch it on Netflix over and over.
The more I watch, the more it seems unclear. Maybe that's just the BLOW UP effect, but.... interesting. Now I don't know what to think.
The first, and to date the only, time I watched Passing I was not interested to know how Clare died. That she died by defenestration is the one shocking event in the film.
However the more I read about people writing how she died the more I think that maybe Irene may have a hand in it (pun not intended). That the act of pushing Clare to her death is a loving coup de grâce to a dear friend, a favor really, so Clare will not have to endure the ugliness of being betrayed, humiliated, and exposed of the one thing that she kept hidden.
But ... is it possible she jumped to her death too. A way to end a life inorder not to shatter the illusion that she lives in a netherworld of color lines where her nimble navigation will no longer happen. Blanche du Bois was unable to sustain the magic either. But I don't know.
Although the temptation to watch this film again is great, I resisted. The first time I saw it, it refused to leave my mind. And in my book, that's a testament to the film's power.
So, I brought it up with Professor Spouse last night, and she said she could totally see Reenie's hand as "mom hand," intended to protect Clare.
But what sticks with me is that everyone ran downstairs except Reenie, and then the camera focuses, while Reenie is alone, on her hands behind her back. To me, those are complicit hands. To me, that's the camera showing us the murder weapon.
So, I brought it up with Professor Spouse last night, and she said she could totally see Reenie's hand as "mom hand," intended to protect Clare.
But what sticks with me is that everyone ran downstairs except Reenie, and then the camera focuses, while Reenie is alone, on her hands behind her back. To me, those are complicit hands. To me, that's the camera showing us the murder weapon.
I liked Joe G.’s concept of Irene being in a fugue state.
I was puzzled about why Irene was sleeping so much. It couldn’t all be sensual reverie and masturbation (could it?).
I liked what one reviewer said about how Irene had a burden of “passing” too, not only as straight, but as the African-American ideal of Mother and Wife. This perfect woman is responsible for the health and welfare of her family, the neighbourhood, the community, and in the parlance of the time, the “Uplifting of the Race”. Incredibly heavy responsibilities that would totally exhaust a person.
I also wondered if Irene was ill. Upholding the ideal doesn’t leave much room for self care. Overcome by the heat, slowness on the stairs, sleeping too much, only watching others dance, irritability and feeling that everything is just too much. Having cancer can be like a fugue state. Others shrug and ignore and are surprised when the woman dies. The irony of her husband being a doctor (the shoemaker’s children have no shoes).
Maybe both Irene and Clare are headed for death, one suddenly and dramatically, the other with grinding and inexorable illness.
But - - so many possible readings just speak to the richness of the material.
This is indeed a great discussion, and I find fascinating that everyone's seeing something different in that last scene in PASSING. Fwiw, I read the book and it is ambiguous there, too, but with a *strong* hint that Irene did push Clare. Some moments from the text that suggest as much:
"What happened next, Irene Redfield never afterward allowed herself to remember. Never clearly.
"One moment Clare had been there, a vital glowing thing, like a flame of red and gold. The next she was gone. There was a gasp of horror, and above it a sound not quite human, like a beast in agony." [This is Clare's husband.]
As in the movie, Irene stays frozen, in shock, while everyone rushes downstairs. This is part of her interior monologue:
"What would the others think? That Clare had fallen? That she had deliberately leaned backward? Certainly one or the other. Not---
"But she mustn't, she warned herself, think of that. She was too tired, and too shocked. ... But her thoughts reeled on. If only she could ... put from her memory the vision of her hand on Clare's arm!"
"'It was an accident, a terrible accident,' she muttered fiercely. 'It *was*.'"
" ...Should she go back out there to them? But there would be questions. She hadn't thought of them, of afterwards, of this. She had thought nothing in that sudden moment of action."
And she goes on to wonder if it looks suspicious that she stayed behind, and is suddenly paralyzed by fear at the thought that Clare might *not* be dead. (The implication being, you know, that Clare will be able to tell what happened. This, to me, was the most suggestive of her guilt. The film is more agnostic, and I do see how the movement of Irene's arm could have been seen as protective, since we don't actually see her push.)
Assuming she did push, my sense is that she did so without clear intention, rather almost subconsciously or reflexively. Much less cold-blooded planning involved than in THE POWER OF THE DOG. But the parallels are interesting, especially regarding the killer's desire to protect his/her family. But in PotD, it's weirdly less selfish - and not motivated by fear.