Kodi Smit-McPhee and Raven Smith

When we first encounter Peter in Jane Campion’s exquisitely composed The Power of the Dog, he’s meticulously crafting delicate paper flowers at the boarding house he and his mother Rose run. As Jonny Greenwood’s tense horn composition blares, we watch Peter press the flowers into the ground at his father’s grave. Without emotion, he stands and combs his hair, turns to watch the approaching ranchers — Phil and George Burbank’s crew.

Through these brief moments, actor Kodi Smit-McPhee begins to cultivate the mystery of Peter, the enigmatic aspiring doctor who both coldly performs necropsies in his bedroom and tenderly fills scrapbooks with his dreams for the future. “Peter, he’s quite a challenge reading off the page, since he has so much internalized,” says Smit-McPhee. “He has to leave a lot for the audience for the second time they watch the movie. But also he has to hide all of that through the first watch.” Smit-McPhee’s subtle dance has earned him two BAFTA nominations — for Best Supporting Actor and EE Rising Star — and an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor.

Smit-McPhee’s not alone; The Power of the Dog’s compelling story, adapted from Thomas Savage’s 1967 novel of 1920s Montana ranchers, has won over critics, resulting in 12 total Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Direction (Campion), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Campion). For his searing performance as intellectual and menacing cowboy Phil Burbank, Benedict Cumberbatch is up for Best Actor; Kirsten Dunst, who devastates as Peter’s tormented mother Rose, vies for Best Supporting Actress; and nominated alongside Smit-McPhee in the Supporting Actor category is co-star Jesse Plemmons, who plays Phil’s stoic brother George and Rose’s husband. The film is also technically breathtaking, earning nods in Cinematography, Original Score, Production Design, Film Editing, and Sound.

To unpack The Power of the Dog’s success and his pivotal performance, Smit-McPhee sat down with Vogue columnist, cultural critic, and author of Trivial Pursuits Raven Smith. 

Raven Smith: Kodi, how does it feel to be an Oscar nominee? The New York Times has described your performance as scene-stealing. 

Kodi Smit-McPhee: It’s a really magnificent feeling and it’s very satisfying, but I still don’t know how to express myself. I’m elated, I’m ecstatic, I’m everything. I’m everything that I hoped and wished this feeling would be. This has just really been the gift that keeps on giving, that has been so critically acclaimed worldwide. But specifically at the Academy, to see all of us up there, with Jesse in the same category — and he and Kirsten got a his and hers — and Jane and [Director of Photographer] Ari Wegner, another fellow Aussie, that really brought me a lot of joy.

RS: What first drew you to Peter?

KSM: I was attracted to this role because it’s such an amazing story, and working with Jane and the cast, that’s a no-brainer. And as much as there is a great deal about Peter that is super far away from who I am, there also is a lot of him that I relate to. I think he enjoys being isolated. He kind of thrives in that. He has a great deal of responsibility from a very young age and that has solidified him in this pseudo-maturity. He’s always keen on learning, and he’s such a curious being. I loved all that about him, and that was something that I was very comfortable with. The rest was unexplored territory for me.

RS: I was so touched at the beginning of the film when he is ridiculed for having the napkin over his arm, then it just cuts to him hula-hooping outside. It felt like, in that situation, what do you do with your frustrations when you have so few avenues? It says so much about Peter’s vulnerability, but also odd strength.

KSM: That actually started in the rehearsals — when it was just Jane and I, we got to really go into that internalized world of Peter and his secret mission. She would always bring a hula hoop with her, and she just randomly asked me, “Can you do the hula hoop?” I’m like, “No, I’m not really that coordinated.” And it turns out, I’m a natural. So one day, we had this little bit of time left, and we just quickly got this B-roll of me angrily, furiously doing a hula hoop. It was amazing watching the movie the first time through, where they inserted that in editing. I was pleasantly surprised.

RS: How did you first get involved with the project? Were you already aware of Thomas Savage’s novel?

KSM: No, I wasn’t aware of the novel. And I’m a bit shocked that more people aren’t because he was way ahead of his time. It’s still so relevant today in its values and its message, and I think more stories should be told like this. But no, I had just received the script and read it on my lonesome.

Then I had an “audition” with Jane, and it was one of the most relaxed, laid-back kind of meetings that I’ve ever really had with a director, in terms of casting. She asked me . . . well, [she] asked Peter, questions. I thought, That’s an extremely good challenge for an actor — to be able to see how much they’re immersed within the character, as opposed to just being given lines. But it’s also extremely freeing for the actor because they’re not stuck to the line. 

RS: The Power of the Dog is this amazing kind of Western. Where Westerns are so traditionally about goodies and baddies, and getting stuff and ranching, this is a psychological drama playing out.

KSM: Yes. I mean, it’s a Western without guns. The slamming of doors and boots walking through a silent house, isolated, hugged by these giant fields and mountains. It’s magnificent in that sense, and I think it’s amazing that the play of the antagonist and protagonist seems to switch up throughout the movie. That’s the fantastic part, too — there are no definitive signs in terms of a twist or the character arcs; it’s all up to how the audience has been invited into the movie — which Jane does an amazing job of — and what interpretation they take from it. But Peter and Phil, I feel, walk this very fine line of initial judgment, Phil being hostile and cruel and Peter being quite the opposite, naive and frail. But slowly, they start to cross each other’s lines and switch sides.

RS: How was it working with Benedict? 

KSM: He completely committed to the Method approach. It was extremely necessary to have us walking on eggshells around him. We knew where the arc of our characters went, which was this sense of impending doom and somewhat of a duel with each other, but also we have this other layer of romance or some seemingly growing friendship, so I was the only other person that he had that elasticity with to laugh and have a good time when it was appropriate. I think it was a bit of a relief to him to not always be grumpy all the time because he is the apologetic, jolly Englishman under that. It was very cool to watch him work.

RS: But he does play this kind of authoritative rancher. He’s this vicious yet tragic figure. And for me, the film was about the dynamics of masculinity and how it manifests, whether it is toxic and how it can be toxic. But Peter is somehow stronger than Phil.

KSM: Yes. It was his environment of being completely isolated where he lived and losing his father in a very traumatic way when he was very young that made him deal with a great amount of trauma from a very young age. He had to jump into the shoes of his father and the responsibility of looking after his mother. I think that solidified him in that courageous, unwavering spirit in the face of adversity. 

On the other end of that spectrum, we have Phil, who was brought up in a very prestigious environment. He was always around whatever we’d think a masculine figure was back then. He had to live up to certain expectations with a secret within him that definitely wasn’t accepted. In a similar way to Peter, Phil was solidified in this toxic defense mechanism, until he found [his mentor] Bronco Henry, which also ended in a trauma and made him have to go back to his defense mechanism.

So they meet and unlock each other and go on this battle to peel back each other’s vulnerability. But at the same time that they’re doing that, they’re actually growing closer in a form of love. No matter how that ends, Peter has to protect his mother and sacrifice what he has in the name of that. But there are a lot of beautiful layers to explore within that.

RS: This was your first time working with Jane. What do you feel makes her unique as a director?

KSM: I don’t have the answer to that. If I did, a lot of people would be running away with those clues and trying to replicate them because she’s a genius. But from my direct experience with her and what I’ve bounced off of others, she has the same effect all over, to elevate everyone in her circle, in their expertise, in their craft. She does this by playing your antagonist at times. She can poke and prod you to get out of your cave, to get out of your comfort zone, to explore new territories, and even re-explore territory that you left in the past and you thought you’d mastered. She’s a fantastic reminder that we should always remain a student of our craft and of the world. She’s changed not only me as an actor, but me as a person and my outlook on who I want to collaborate with in the future. The main thing I’ve taken away is: I don’t want to feel comfortable with anyone I’m collaborating with, because now I see how absolutely rewarding it is to always try to elevate myself, my craft, and my approach.

RS: It must be quite painful, that growth, being pushed out of your comfort zone.

KSM: We have to be transparent in expressing something here, which is the key to creativity. It’s under the rock that we thought it wasn’t. It’s in the cave that we were scared to go in. Jane makes you question your ego and its defiance. When she first asked me to do the [breathing and relaxation practice known as] Alexander Technique or return to dialect coaching, which I’ve done for 16 years, and body movement . . . These are all things that usually are left up to the actor. She welcomes you into this place, but also she kind of intrudes. And you hear yourself just saying, “No, I don’t think I need this. I’ve done this before.” Then you separate yourself from that chatter and you see it as negative and stagnant, and very quickly you can identify that as not you and just keep going. It’s some kind of strange, enlightening, spiritual experience with Jane.