Best Supporting Actor 2021: Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog

Kodi Smit-McPhee received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Gordon in The Power of the Dog. 

Kodi Smit-McPhee portrays the son of Rose (Kirsten Dunst) who marries the milquetoast George Burbank (Jesse Plemons) brother of the bullying and domineering cowboy Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch). Smit-McPhee initially appears as potential just another victim of Phil as he is initially acting as a waiter in his mother's restaurant where Phil berates him for his general demeanor that is not what one would describe as a man's man, unlike Phil, or at least as Phil presents himself. Smit-McPhee's performance establishes the innate sort of uncertainty, even strangeness, at least within this atmosphere of Peter. As a man not ready to deal with Phil as his eyes filled with a discomfort upon in his reactions as he's mocked by Phil. There is something else that Smit-McPhee does though that perhaps speaks all the greater to who Peter is before the restaurant scene and afterward as he retires to a hula hoop of all things, and moving down his comb with his thumb in this repeated and unnerving intensity. We see Peter making specific flowers looking over detailed books, and Smit-McPhee accentuates this sort of stare and manner that is best described as methodological. In the moment of so carefully preparing his flowers and putting them at his father's grave, there is a way in his walk, and manner in his hands that has this strange kind of specificity. The specificity of someone who isn't exactly on the same wavelength of the average man in this old western town he inhabits. 

Smit-McPhee early on prods along like a man who is in his own world. The way he walks around it is with this almost zombie esque saunter, and when asking things of his mother it is with a detached matter of fact quality that Smit-McPhee speaks each word with. When she speaks of joining her at the ranch of George and Phil, Peter just asks for petals from her roses. A non sequitur statement, that frankly doesn't seemingly make sense if it weren't for Smit-McPhee's performance once again that speaks it as Peter living in his own experience. Now why this is so essential is what Smit-McPhee is doing is making sense of Peter as a figure who often seems enigmatic, however what he does is use every clue to craft this character as someone tangible by the end of the film. We see this as Peter first arrives late to the farm, and his physical manner while walking around the grounds is the perfect sort of awkwardness. He seems completely out of place yet Smit-McPhee walks with this intention that has a degree of eeriness by how out of place he is while doing so. When Peter captures a rabbit, seemingly at first just for fun, however he kills the rabbit and dissects it. Smit-McPhee's delivery in and around this act is with an unpleasant straightforwardness. This as he presents it not only that Peter has no hesitation towards the act, but more so sees no reason why anyone should either. 

Smit-McPhee presents for much of the film this directness of Peter as someone who is being himself with nearly this kind of detached zen quality, whether that be killing a rabbit, looking over homoerotic pictures or observing a naked Phil bathing in a stream. Smit-McPhee portrays this confidence, even if so differently from say Phil's, as someone who can act with specific intention and is a way wholly himself unlike so many. Eventually, and quite suddenly, Phil changes his tune towards Peter and invites him into his company. As much as Smit-McPhee was compelling as the seeming enigma, this is where the performance in many ways truly gets started. Smit-McPhee's performance in these scenes are fascinating. This as his delivery and manner still carries this observational quality even as he seems to become friendlier towards Phil. Smit-McPhee, as much as Phil sees him, isn't this young buck taking the lessons like a student, rather Smit-McPhee has still that watching quality towards Phil as he would less so a friend, a mentor, more so a specimen if reserved in this at first. Peter though appears ever the dutiful listener however, and takes on to the skills taught by Phil, though he never exactly loses that idiosyncratic nature. Smit-McPhee is never less than methodological, and notable is the moment where he captures a Rabbit with Phil killing the rabbit again. The calm in which Smit-McPhee speaks to the rabbit before snapping his neck, is unnerving as his performance reveals the truth of Peter.

The truth of Peter being essentially a psychopath and Smit-McPhee's performance is informed by this every step of the way. This as he speaks with his mother his intention to take care of her issues with Phil through this quiet certainty, an internalized emotion, though not a natural one, and alludes though to the thought of the psychopath determining his task essentially to assassinate Phil. Smit-McPhee creates the truth of the enigma by so effectively portraying this truth throughout, a truth though that you only slowly realize near the end of the film. When he speaks of his father's death via suicide, it is not of the grieving son, though there is some muted emotion, what is better defined is again the degree of detachment even with such a powerful emotion. In turn the relationship with Phil is that he is basically putting on and speaking whatever Phil wants to hear, that will turn to manipulation. The greatness of Smit-McPhee's performance being the way he unleashes his true nature it eventually when he basically enacts the final parts of his plan. When suggesting the poisoned hide Smit-McPhee is overly assured in saying he's doing it for Phil, in stark contrast against his peering eyes as he looks upon Phil, who is being sorta loving in the moment. As he gets closer to essentially killing Phil, Smit-McPhee looks upon him with this keen and really diabolical interest. While he is killing the man to save his mother, Smit-McPhee is genuinely chilling by showing the murderer slowly appreciating his dying prey. Smit-McPhee loses the sense of really any phony weakness, at least as to appear as the mentee to Phil, as he rolls a cigarette and questions essentially if Phil and his old mentor Bronco Henry were lovers. Smit-McPhee's simple way of saying "Naked?" is absolutely brilliant because he outwardly expresses the now control Peter has of the situation and no longer is faking that in the way he's made Phil his pet, or again more correctly specimen. Smit-McPhee delivers a terrific and dynamic turn here. The character of Peter could've been easy to muck-up, either making the truth of him too obvious, or to be too vague that the revelations don't work. Smit-McPhee never makes a misstep into slowing threading this atypical needle in order to create these developments. Every action of the character is given sense through this performance and Smit-McPhee does so in a way that is powerful, surprises you, yet feels wholly earned.