Fantastic review of the book and the movie. My parents were lifelong friends with Tom Savage and left his entire collection of 13 novels, most out of print, written over the 1944-1988 period. The Power of the Dog is a superb book, but so are his 12 other highly acclaimed novels: the critics loved the books, but the public ignored them. Tom’s careful and subtle story and sentence construction in all of his books is a joy to read and a great way to understand the remote West and their ranches and small towns.
Thank you for this really great and nuanced reading of both the book and the film! I think the film is close to being perfect, but I do agree that if you've read the book you end up missing a lot of the finer details and backstories that Savage included in the movie. I especially loved how Savage captured the wider social and class dynamics of the people living on the farm beyond just the main characters. It was so interesting how much time he devoted to talking about what sort of magazines the farmhands and Lola were reading, and you could really tell Savage's own lived experiences informed the novel here. Although it was sad to see those details go, I ultimately think Campion made a smart choice with what she chose to cut. By centering the film on just Phil, Rose, and later Peter, and by making the gay subtext of the novel the text of the film, I think she focuses the narrative so that it works for such a literal medium as film. I also think her being a very tactile filmmaker really enhances Savage's narrative-- all the sensuous shots of hands, Bronco Henry's saddle, the rope, the cattle etc. brought some great simmering tension to the movie and really honed in on its themes.
I do agree that Campion's changes were very smart. I don't know if she'll win Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars but in my mind she really deserves both.
I really loved the movie, and hearing this analysis kind of made me realize how impressive it was given how dense and detailed it really is. It definitely makes me want to read the book before watching the movie again
Thank you for sharing this comparative study of the book and movie! The book's layered background and the movie's softer, reedited approach make it hard for me to decide which one I prefer. The detailed depictions in the book create a multi-dimensional, eerily realistic tone. In contrast, the movie has toned down the creepier, more ruthless, and brutal aspects, leaving me with an impression of its melancholy characters
I absolutely agree with your excellent analysis of the book/movie. I’m so glad I read the book first so that I had all of the backstory to bring to my viewing of the movie. I think the movie is brilliant but I do believe if you haven’t read the book, the movie doesn’t shine as bright. I also really enjoyed the scene where Phil and Peter went out together. The way Phil responded when Peter told him his father was worried he “wasn’t kind enough” and “too strong” by basically telling him he got that really wrong was an awesome but of foreshadowing. Since I knew what was coming I was like “JUST YOU WAIT PHIL”. I also do feel that with bringing the relationship of Phil and Bronco Henry to the forefront the way Campion did, with the shrine and the tenderness he showed when alone with the fabric, it gave me more empathy for his character than I just had from the book. I also agree with the stories missing. I understand why they had to cut them, but I won’t say I didn’t miss them. I could have watched an entire movie about their parents, their relationships with Phil, and the reasons they stayed away from the ranch. Basically I loved both but the movie doesn’t have the same impact for me. Without the backstory of the book, you definitely lose something in the movie.
I agree--the movie is great but having read the book adds so much more to the experience. I know it would be impossible to get it all into a movie but I still miss it a great deal.
I agree with all your points. I read the book first. I loved it. Then, I immediately read the Sheep Queen by Savage. There is a Phil character in that book as well. When I watched the movie, I was very disappointed, and angry, I suppose. I was confused about the story even though I knew the details. I thought the casting and the acting was excellent in the film, but the story was too different in precisely the ways that you describe. Thank you for pleading for people to read the book.
Interesting that there was a Phil character in Sheep Queen as well. I do think Power of the Dog is a great movie, it's just surprisingly not a great companion to the book.
Your experience with the movie mirrors mine, even though I read the book AFTER I saw the movie- angry and disappointed. The book is so powerful and subtle as it peeks into Phil's mind. I just missed that in the movie.
Thank you for a thorough explanation of how the book and movie differ and are the same. My main critique of the movie when it comes to exposition, I didn't quite believe that Rose could so easily brought down by what little Phil did. I knew there had to be more. I loved this movie. My hope is that success at the Oscars will cause Netflix to rerelease it theaters. I also have committed myself to reading this book.
I don't think Rose was easily brought down at all. Phil was a master of inflicting venomous put-downs and crushing people's hearts, whether Peter's flowers and constant humiliation using the cowboys to crush him even more. But Rose doesn't have a husband she can communicate her feelings with and she is weak. He is literally driving her insane, and it was good that she collapsed so she had a chance to recover. George really loved her, and so did her son, but she was stuck. She couldn't ask George to move from his home, but Phil made it impossible for her to thrive in that environment. He literally crushed her with every jab, the hatred in his eyes, anyone would cower, yet Peter doesn't it turns out/
I waited to watch your video until I had read the book, and I'm glad I was able to do so without any pre-knowledge. I read the book this past week in one sitting, and I'm still devastated by the experience. How has this novel flown under the radar for so long? This is a brilliant and beautifully observed book that I'm already thinking of as my best read of the year. I do want to see the film now, though I think I'll wait until I've had some time to process the novel. Your analysis is, as always, thoughtful and incisive. Thank you for this.
I can only imagine the hard work that you must have put into this video! Thank you for that. Really made my understanding of the film more nuanced! And someone please shut up Sam Elliott for a moment!
I love Jane Campion's work and The Power of the Dog was my top favourite film that I watched in 2022. I didn't know it was originally a novel until I saw your review. Really interested in Tom Savage's work now. The novel is in the local library so I'll borrow it at some stage. The film was so quietly ominous and being filmed in the South Island of NZ was fascinating, in the way it was depicted as Montana. I was actually wondering what you thought of the setting? As someone who lives in Montana? Part of what I love about the film is that Peter keeps defying Phil's assumptions. Phil has contempt, not just for himself, but for almost everyone else.... making the hero worship of Bronco Henry even more of a contrast. Gradually, Peter begins to earns his respect in surprising ways (quick dispatch of a rabbit was one moment- Phil was pretty quietly shocked by someone he'd branded as a 'sissy' doing that). Then Peter getting away with what could be said to be the perfect crime to protect his mother. It was just brilliant.
Thank you so much for this review! I love that you dove so deeply into the book as well as the movie. You put all of my thoughts that I couldn’t properly express into words. Very cool :)
Very well done and thought out deep dive of both the novel and the movie. I do recall earlier in the book the mention of anthrax because where it came from in terms animals and that it killed cattle and humans by contact was new information for me and it stood out in the text. That previous mention and then multiple mentions of Phil’s hubris in refusing to wear gloves were then at the end of the novel amazing literary allusions being drawn tight like threads, or one could even say woven together - anthrax, injured hands, intent by Savage. He provided the information earlier and then gathers it for sinister use at the end. And while the gloves were part of the backstory of the Native Americans, the wife had made them for sale and any small income to help provide for them to survive, Jane, in her telling uses them in a whole new way. Needing the hides to make the gloves sets up a perfect justification for the Native American father and son wanting to acquire them from the ranch. Then what blew me out of the water was the symbolism of having Rose be given them with the cash. If gloves symbolize protection in this story, she now has beautiful ones to adorn herself with and protection alluding further to the fact that Phil does not. That something even seemingly frivolous and showy to Phil would have nonetheless protected him adds irony to what is about to happen on an even deeper level. Rose has protection, Peter, where Phil does not. In the book Savage spent time introducing the gloves and I think the Native American father offers to sell them to Phil when he’s being berated and thrown off the property, so they act as foreshadowing in his refusal, but to me what Jane does is very powerful and in a little way was reinforcing that Rose would be all right and safe. One of the most startling images to me in the movie that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere is Phil’s reaction when he walks into the rented room in the Red Mill and sees the fire escape rope beneath the window. Campion lingers on it for just a beat too long and then shows a just perceivable shudder by Phil. It reminded me of a “someone is walking on my grave” moment, but in this case it’s foreshadowing to how he will die. Of course in the novel it is well known in town that these ropes were the same type that was used by Rose’s husband to hang himself and obviously Phil knows that and finds it startlingly. Perhaps even because he may have had some responsibility in driving him too it. But in the novel I never made the connection that a rope kills both the husband and Phil, in very different ways, but death by rope nonetheless. This scene reinforced that fact and made it obvious to me. Jane wanted you to remember Phil’s reaction to that rope in the movie and made it stand out. She is never showing you something without there being a reason for it. This is enhanced even more when you know that during filming the actors playing Rose and Peter, Kristen and Cody, came up with their own backstory that they didn’t share with the cast or director. They had decided that Peter had also killed his father as well, as a means to protect the mother, and she knew about it. It was part of what made their mother son bond so strong that they had that secret, and a bond for the actors as well. What’s great about the novel and movie is that they are both individually and together synergistically open to all kinds of interpretations and debate on both the macro level as well as the smallest details. Campion has always been a favorite filmmaker of mine and I can’t think of a better person to have brought this to the screen, except maybe Ang Lee. She knows how to do things with visuals and silences in her movies and storytelling that few directors can do with such ease and purpose. She was just what was needed to make the source material sing on screen and she’s great at choosing the the right actors and getting remarkable performances from them. I hope they all are wonderfully rewarded for this masterpiece.
Thank you so much for the very thoughtful comment. It hadn't even occurred to me that both Phil and Johnny die because of rope--or that Rose accepts the gloves that could have saved Phil (I'm pretty sure she accepts the gloves in the book as well, albeit under very different circumstances). Fascinating. I must have missed the initial mention of anthrax in the book. Oops! And what an interesting idea that Kirsten and Kodi came up with! I would have to look back to the book for specific references but I feel like it's more explicitly a suicide on the page, so their interpretation works for the movie but not as much for the book. I agree that Campion was the PERFECT choice to direct this movie. She really understands the source material and made choices that (for the most part) amplified them.
@@SupposedlyFun I have to admit, after posting this I did go back to my ebook and used the search feature for the very first time to confirm the prior mention of anthrax, it was a bit closer to the end then I remembered, but it it stand out for me when reading,
You convinced me I need to read the book. I was mesmerised by the film, and feel the cinematography would have deserved full theatrical release. I speculate Phil hated Rose for taking George away, creating him a more independent character from their boyhood dynamics. Also, Phil seemed unable to grasp that George's gentler, kinder masculinity could be intrinsically attractive to Rose. Peter was superbly acted, his callousness was very chilling to me. Peter essentially seducing Phil to the destruction was a great scene. I interpret that Peter's ability to be authentic made him the stronger of the two. He was what Phil wanted to be but channeled into rage against others, performative manliness and bullying. Look fwd to see how the book characterises these protagonists.
Great analysis. I read the book after watching the movie because the film was so good but the book is a chef’s kiss. I was surprised to find so little about the book after the movie was released when both works are amazing. Thank you for this great video.
Great analysis. I was intrigued by the title. Check out psalm 20:22. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. I was informed by a historian that to understand the psalm read the 5-10 psalms which proceed it, all of which take place during the passion of Christ. I think that Peter, who is a spiritual guy, has done is duty by delivering his mother from Phil, where a dog, in biblical times, was thought of not as a pet, but as a scavenger.
Your review of the book and movie is excellent. I feel cheated and many of the important back stories would have made this an even more powerful movie. We needed to know the circumstances of the parents not living in their house, Roses's story, Peter's dad's death and humiliation and the Indian man's heritage and humiliation to really appreciate the ending. I will certainly read the book. Thank you.
Fantastic video and comparison analysis. I haven’t read or seen either version of The Power of the Dog and yet I could tell from your descriptions of both that these are works worth my time. Once I’ve forgotten the summary (I couldn’t resist this video) I will definitely consider reading the book.
great analysis - just saw the movie - looked for a deeper analysis and your explanation really got to the subtle points which were difficult to find in the movie.
What’s in a name? Peter - the rock (the strong one); Phil - the lover (of Bronco Henry). Just a thought. Book and movie both amazing. IMO Campion’s alterations were judicious, necessary and clever.
This has definitely inspired me to read the book. Does the fact that it was filmed in New Zealand and not in Montana make a difference? Jane Campion is a filmmaker’s filmmaker. I think she will be the favourite to win the academy award for direction.
The natives are very significant in the movie if you know Jane Campion's previous films. They also provide the social context of cultural and power dynamics shifting that is typical of some of her films. I haven't read the book but listening to your comments, it seems like it is a brilliant film adaptation.
Excellent analysis! I saw the movie last week and thought it was brilliantly acted and paced. But now I want to read the book. And I NEVER watch the movie first!!! LOL! One thing I noticed in the movie and when Phil is teaching Peter how to ride. The scene when they are looking out to the hills and Phil asks him what he sees. Peter says that he sees a dog with an open mouth. It surprises Phil and he immediately looks at Peter in surprise. Another thing that would be interesting to discuss is the biblical reference in the title and how that applies to both Phil and Peter. We see Phil as this toxic masculine man, as you said, and we stereotype Peter into an effeminate teenage boy. But is that really the case in their dynamic, and who actually has the power to destroy?
I feel like I could write an entire book about the dynamic between Phil and Peter: the relationship, the similarities, the differences--just all of it. It's fascinating. I absolutely LOVED the way Campion captured the mountain. I tried so hard to picture what it would look like when I read it and I worried that she would make the dog too obvious. I couldn't see it at all! Joel had to find a photo of the mountain and trace the dog with his finger for me to finally get it. Which means it was perfect. I'm sure there are a lot of religious underlayers that I am missing in the book since I'm not all that familiar with the bible, being honest.
@@SupposedlyFun SPOILERS!!! The title refers to the Bible verse at the end from Psalm 22: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” Peter is reading the verse having delivered his darling, his mother Rose, from the dog - Phil. Phil is the aggressive dog hounding Rose and Peter with his rage and scorn. Peter had the power and burden of the sword; he took Phils life. The dog also refers to the dog only Phil could see in the hills. He was the only one who could see it, which gave him power over the other ranch hands who were oblivious. It made him feel superior. Until Peter. The other character in the book/movie who wields the power of life and death.
This is the exact story/book/movie I'd absolutely hate experiencing, I just don't like this type of subtlety and the whole thing is not interesting enough. But your review was amazing, really well explained and interesting. I really liked this video, perfect way for me to consume this story that's not really for me in its "original" forms.
Did Peter make paper flowers in the novel? I liked how flowers played as a leitmotif in the film, Rose’s name, that she was a florist, that she wanted to create a garden, that Peter made paper flowers and the first bullying interaction in the film is Phil burning, destroying and extinguishing/ drowning the flower in water the paper flower, which I think was a rose. I felt that the paper flowers were Rose fragile and beautiful,the hate/disdain of Phil for the flowers and Peter’s artistry was the start of Peter’s dislike of Phil and a catalyst for Peter to destroy and remove the obstacle that is Phil. Phil crushes everyone’s happiness with his selfishness, self loathing, misogynistic and misandrist attitudes and hate. Phil had to go, he was Anthrax. I may read the novel. Thank you for your analysis!
You can tell watching the movie that there is a lot missing from the book, which I didn't realize existed until after watching the movie. After hearing your comparison, I definitely need to read the book now. As a character, I really dislike Rose. The fact that she doesn't stand up for herself at all irritates me in ways I didn't know I could be irritated. It really foretells the idea of social media and the role in keeping up appearances in today's world.
I think I like Rose because the dynamic between her and Phil pretty perfectly captures the theme of decency and cruelty, and how so often the person who tries to be decent gets trampled. If you do pick up the book, I hope you like it as much as I did!
Great compare & contrast I watched the movie but interestingly felt there was some parts that didn't make sense the arrival of the native man & his son..... & felt this could have been more powerful...your review confirmed this. The box hidden with signed mag I also right abit odd but yh let's go with it. With yr rv I'm inclined to agree one can never beat the intimacy of a book & the reader.
Fascinating analysis. It does appear that the book has more depth. But that is no surprise. (I hesitate to read the book only because I don’t know if I want to read about the animal dissection/killing that Peter engages in. I get why they are in the book but it’s definitely something that will make the book depressing)
I get that. I don't know if this helps, but the moments where dissection/killing happen are pretty quick bursts and described very dispassionately. But if it's a trigger it might be a lot.
I haven't seen the movie in a while now and I haven't reread the book recently, either--so I would have to do both in order to make it work, but that's a great suggestion. Thank you!
Fantastic job, Greg. I have to admit that I either missed or have forgotten Phil’s connection to Johnny. I will go back to the book to seek it out. I do miss the expanded presence of the indigenous father and son in the film. I actually wondered if Campion didn’t want to go as far as the book went with Phil’s ugly remarks to the father. It seems unlikely to me that she would shy away from it, but I’m still left wondering. I am very glad that she did not make the hide buyer the Jewish man. That was one of a few parts of the book that felt dated to me. I can’t say that I loved Savage’s writing. I did love the book for its characters and plot, but his writing seemed a bit basic(?) maybe in some sections. I was never going to read the book first considering Cumberbatch is my favorite actor. Without his presence in the film, I might have missed both the film and the book and it would have been a big loss. I loved both. But I feel like the film gave more to the possibility of some redemption for Phil and that was were it shined the absolute brightest. As we discussed on Twitter last night, the shared cigarette scene was a spectacular addition to the film and one that I won’t forget. The one major disagreement that I have with your analysis is that Peter is most definitely a psychopath. The animals prove that to me in the film. I would hate to have been a future patient of Dr Peter Gordon. 😉
I quite liked the book and Savage's writing. I think in the book it feels clear that the way Phil thinks about Jewish people is intended to come across as wrong--another instance of him being cruel or outdated in his thinking--but that nuance would have been very hard to get across in a movie, so I'm also glad that Campion left it out.
I saw the movie first and wished I had read the book prior to seeing the movie. As a result, I really didn't like the movie, because there were so many gaps and inconsistencies. I suspected that there was more character development and backstory in the book, which I have found to be true. I know that this movie is wildly popular, but for me, it falls flat without the nuances in the book. I enjoyed the book so much more.
I was intrigued by the revelation in the movie that Phil was Phi Beta Kappa at Yale. I can't even remember who said it. George? The old Gent? How did this fit into the novel, and as regards the movie, how does it advance anything besides showing the viewer another layer to the complexity of Phil's personality?
I don't remember the comment from the movie. I can't remember the college named in the book but George attends in Phil's senior year and while Phil spent four years doing well and burning bridges with the wealthy students who want to be buddies with him, George has a very tough adjustment and fails out after his first year.
Am I right when I say that Jane Campion did not acknowledge the book in her introductory credits to the movie? I couldn’t see it and I was disturbed by that.
Wonderful analysis. Like you, I loved both Savage's novel and Campion's movie adaptation. It is not surprising that the movie can not possibly match all the richness of character development & backstory & plot found in the original novel, but like you and the other commenters here, I think Campion added some intriguing layers, impactful visuals and unforgettable scenes that aren't in the book. I love that certain details about the complex, intriguing characters in the movie (and novel) are intentionally left open for interpretation. For instance, Peter's sexual orientation is not defined, perhaps not yet determined by the character himself. Peter might be gay, bi, str8, asexual, etc. If we assume Peter is straight, then his calculated seduction of Phil in the movie is 'impressive' & sinister, plus heartbreaking for Phil. In that moment, Phil is at long last letting down his guard, and choosing to be vulnerable with Peter. Phil, who lives in the past, never imagined feeling any degree of affection for anyone other than his mythical mentor, Bronco Henry. What I like about Peter being str8, is that it challenges our initial expectations and yes, our stereotypes. You truly can't judge a book by its cover, and Peter continues to confound our expectations throughout. The 'effeminate' boy is not at all who he seems to be. Another interpretation (one that I think is favored by both Jane & Kodi in their interviews) is that Peter, by the end of the film, feels some sort of attraction or at minimum a grudging admiration towards Phil, who is now genuinely reaching out to assist the boy (no longer just acting out in a diabolical way to torment Rose). But Peter sacrifices his own real need for a caring, skilled mentor/father-figure and instead makes the choice to be his mom's saviour - 'for what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? If I did not save her?' Peter's loss is felt when he hides the rope Phil had crafted for him, under his bed. Phil, in his death, becomes a 'Bronco Henry' for Peter. I'm not sure which of these two interpretations I prefer. Perhaps a bit of both. And of course, there are more than just these 2 possibilities. Which interpretation do you prefer?
Wow, very astute interpretation. I didn't think of Peter as 'calculated seduction of Phil' but it was now that you have said so, I agree.. Touche! The rope under the bed was evidence of the murder but seems that will never see the light of day. Your first interpretation seems bang on, although I see the irony of Peter's protecting his mother at the loss of a possible viable relationship that could have levelled the playing field. Perhaps they could have developed a mutually respectful relationship which would take the pressure of Rose?
I wonder why there is no mention of possible Oedipus complex in Peter as possible backstory and if so did Peter hide the rope to perhaps use later on George? From the movie I felt everything was subject to interpretation and not totally tied up, which I like.
For the most part, it feels that Peter is being protective of his mother, especially in the wake of what happened to his father. Naturally, there are probably Oedipal aspects mixed into this but I think they're secondary to the primary motivators of masculinity and protectiveness. But there's certainly room (especially in the movie) to interpret it as more present.
Sorry but most of the things that you said aren't apparent in the movie are in fact very much apparent. I haven't read the book but I noticed 90% of them... But thank you for the great analysis!
Sorry but I don't think 90% would be accurate since a lot of the backstory I discuss in this video is not even remotely hinted at in the movie, but okay. And for the rest, I frequently comment that it is hinted at in the movie but there's just more in the book. But thanks for the great comment!
I disliked the movie mainly because Peter's action seemed insufficiently motivated. Sure he was bullied, and his mother driven to drink. But Phil's attitude softened, and in any case there seemed to be other options for dealing with Phil. As I suspected, the book gives a more robust sense of the conflicts, characters and events leading to the ending. I didn't hate the movie, but gave it 2½ out of 4 stars, not an Oscar best picture level.
It's hard for me to say since I read the book first, but I do feel that Peter's motivations come across in the movie. No one is doing anything about Phil, no one is going to do anything about Phil, and there's no reason to expect that he will leave on his own. Phil does soften as Peter gets close to him, but he continues to make moves against Peter's mother. That's not to justify what Peter does, but I do think there's a foundation for what he does--especially with the opening line Campion inserts into the movie.
I am probably an example of why you should read the book first. I watched the movie, with no intention to read the book. Also I'm Australian which may explain why I had no idea what actually happened in the end. It wasn't until I did some internet searching that I realised anthrax was the cause of Phil's death. I otherwise had no clue. It was like all this stuff was going on and then Phil just died. I could see that Peter was exploiting Phil's vulnerabilities but had no idea either about the context of Johnny's suicide. I just thought Peter was creepy. One thing more I noted from the movie, and don't know if it is a thing in the book, was the role of women. There was Rose, who was clearly flawed, then the housekeeper and maid who just pandered to the group of men's needs, and then the mother who was barely even a character in the movie. In the end, I didn't like the movie and I don't want to read the book...but maybe if I'd done the reverse who knows ??? Thank you for the review, it was very helpful.
I love both but definitely thought the movie was on such another level of mastery. Like Jane Campea is-I think-a better artist, so of course in terms of literal backstory and ideas the book has more, but just the complexity of the movie and its subtle use of images (when compared to other movies) is close to unparalleled in American Cinema. And the book, compared to other books, is not THAAAT great
Excellent review, though would have been so much more enjoyable if you had slowed it down, and not such a monotonous tone(flat). However, having not read the book, I feel like most of what was announced I had already experienced in the movie. The first time I didn't really get the ending, but finding commentary went back and listened in depth. Feeling each emotion, connection, trying to understand what each character was experiencing. I think it brilliant, the acting superb in each character, but between Phil and Peter, such opposites yet so similar, and Peter's sort of brave, but evil was of dealing with 'this threatening situation for him and his mother", murderous~! And although you say he is not a psychopath I don't get a sense Phil will be regretting things, with that smug look of victory on his face at the end. Phil was surprising, I mean he has experienced a life without love, in a male world where male masculinity rules. And so he becomes the mean, offensive, humiliating, hater than has to put everything weaker than him down, although few around him will challenge him as he is wealthy and rules. But Peter does...but I felt a sadness when Phil finally lets down his guard. Somehow when Peter enters his secret bathing place, regardless of sexual ideation going on there, Peter is drawn into his inner world. At first, he starts out slowly taking risks but soon embraces the role Broncho took on for him. Teaching him how to survive in the tough cowboy world on a ranch. And his finger scratch which turns into a deadly infection is paralleled in the sense that Peter changes from being the victim~the sissy, humiliated by all the ranchers as they gang up on him, as he casually walks through their ranks, seemingly untroubled, as if he's just there to watch the birds(eagles), but he doesn't cringe and nothing about his body language shows intimidation. Your start to wonder if he is a lot more intelligent and strong than one would think. Especially with his father's comment that 'he was too strong', which Phil rebuffs as being ridiculous, "silly child' or something. He has no idea what lurks within is growing like his cut. Part of me wonders if Peter hadn't intervened as he did if there was a chance of life without murder. Phil's waltz down the stairs with the first look towards the mother, as neutral instead of head-on assault, makes one wonder. If Peter had responded genuinely is there a chance something real could have been developed in their relationship that would make Peter's status more equal. Phil and Peter are both very intelligent, they both see the dog, they both don't miss a thing, and there was potential for friendship if not a relationship. He seemed to soften towards the mother, but since he was 'dressed' he had to have known he was going to die, and this was his exit. Touching that he sai,d "where's the boy" in the middle of lethal poisoning, how did he even walk? Didnt realize I had so much to say, the most thought provoking movie in years! Well done~! :)
This saving of the the rope puzzled me, as well. What with Phil dead, why would Peter save the murder weapon, and risk someone innocently finding it, touching it, and getting sick and die? I don't believe Peter would kill George, not with Rose relieved of Phil and her marriage with George now on the mend.
Fantastic review of the book and the movie. My parents were lifelong friends with Tom Savage and left his entire collection of 13 novels, most out of print, written over the 1944-1988 period. The Power of the Dog is a superb book, but so are his 12 other highly acclaimed novels: the critics loved the books, but the public ignored them. Tom’s careful and subtle story and sentence construction in all of his books is a joy to read and a great way to understand the remote West and their ranches and small towns.
Oh that's fascinating! It must be fun for you to see the book being rediscovered through the movie.
Thank you for this really great and nuanced reading of both the book and the film! I think the film is close to being perfect, but I do agree that if you've read the book you end up missing a lot of the finer details and backstories that Savage included in the movie. I especially loved how Savage captured the wider social and class dynamics of the people living on the farm beyond just the main characters. It was so interesting how much time he devoted to talking about what sort of magazines the farmhands and Lola were reading, and you could really tell Savage's own lived experiences informed the novel here. Although it was sad to see those details go, I ultimately think Campion made a smart choice with what she chose to cut. By centering the film on just Phil, Rose, and later Peter, and by making the gay subtext of the novel the text of the film, I think she focuses the narrative so that it works for such a literal medium as film. I also think her being a very tactile filmmaker really enhances Savage's narrative-- all the sensuous shots of hands, Bronco Henry's saddle, the rope, the cattle etc. brought some great simmering tension to the movie and really honed in on its themes.
I do agree that Campion's changes were very smart. I don't know if she'll win Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars but in my mind she really deserves both.
I really loved the movie, and hearing this analysis kind of made me realize how impressive it was given how dense and detailed it really is. It definitely makes me want to read the book before watching the movie again
I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did if you read it!
Thank you for sharing this comparative study of the book and movie! The book's layered background and the movie's softer, reedited approach make it hard for me to decide which one I prefer. The detailed depictions in the book create a multi-dimensional, eerily realistic tone. In contrast, the movie has toned down the creepier, more ruthless, and brutal aspects, leaving me with an impression of its melancholy characters
I absolutely agree with your excellent analysis of the book/movie. I’m so glad I read the book first so that I had all of the backstory to bring to my viewing of the movie. I think the movie is brilliant but I do believe if you haven’t read the book, the movie doesn’t shine as bright.
I also really enjoyed the scene where Phil and Peter went out together. The way Phil responded when Peter told him his father was worried he “wasn’t kind enough” and “too strong” by basically telling him he got that really wrong was an awesome but of foreshadowing. Since I knew what was coming I was like “JUST YOU WAIT PHIL”.
I also do feel that with bringing the relationship of Phil and Bronco Henry to the forefront the way Campion did, with the shrine and the tenderness he showed when alone with the fabric, it gave me more empathy for his character than I just had from the book.
I also agree with the stories missing. I understand why they had to cut them, but I won’t say I didn’t miss them. I could have watched an entire movie about their parents, their relationships with Phil, and the reasons they stayed away from the ranch.
Basically I loved both but the movie doesn’t have the same impact for me. Without the backstory of the book, you definitely lose something in the movie.
I agree--the movie is great but having read the book adds so much more to the experience. I know it would be impossible to get it all into a movie but I still miss it a great deal.
studying the movie in class right now and this comment is making me even more excited to read the book after the film study is over!!
WOW! Peter is creepier in the book? That is what left me so stunned after watching this movie. How ruthless Peter was.
Yes! He was ruthless. Watching the movie, with no background on his father's death, I thought Peter killed him.
I agree with all your points. I read the book first. I loved it. Then, I immediately read the Sheep Queen by Savage. There is a Phil character in that book as well. When I watched the movie, I was very disappointed, and angry, I suppose. I was confused about the story even though I knew the details. I thought the casting and the acting was excellent in the film, but the story was too different in precisely the ways that you describe. Thank you for pleading for people to read the book.
Interesting that there was a Phil character in Sheep Queen as well. I do think Power of the Dog is a great movie, it's just surprisingly not a great companion to the book.
Your experience with the movie mirrors mine, even though I read the book AFTER I saw the movie- angry and disappointed. The book is so powerful and subtle as it peeks into Phil's mind. I just missed that in the movie.
Thank you for a thorough explanation of how the book and movie differ and are the same. My main critique of the movie when it comes to exposition, I didn't quite believe that Rose could so easily brought down by what little Phil did. I knew there had to be more. I loved this movie. My hope is that success at the Oscars will cause Netflix to rerelease it theaters. I also have committed myself to reading this book.
I don't think Rose was easily brought down at all. Phil was a master of inflicting venomous put-downs and crushing people's hearts, whether Peter's flowers and constant humiliation using the cowboys to crush him even more. But Rose doesn't have a husband she can communicate her feelings with and she is weak. He is literally driving her insane, and it was good that she collapsed so she had a chance to recover. George really loved her, and so did her son, but she was stuck. She couldn't ask George to move from his home, but Phil made it impossible for her to thrive in that environment. He literally crushed her with every jab, the hatred in his eyes, anyone would cower, yet Peter doesn't it turns out/
I waited to watch your video until I had read the book, and I'm glad I was able to do so without any pre-knowledge. I read the book this past week in one sitting, and I'm still devastated by the experience. How has this novel flown under the radar for so long? This is a brilliant and beautifully observed book that I'm already thinking of as my best read of the year. I do want to see the film now, though I think I'll wait until I've had some time to process the novel.
Your analysis is, as always, thoughtful and incisive. Thank you for this.
I can only imagine the hard work that you must have put into this video! Thank you for that. Really made my understanding of the film more nuanced! And someone please shut up Sam Elliott for a moment!
It was a lot of work, thank you! And yes, please no more comments from Sam Elliott!
I love Jane Campion's work and The Power of the Dog was my top favourite film that I watched in 2022. I didn't know it was originally a novel until I saw your review. Really interested in Tom Savage's work now. The novel is in the local library so I'll borrow it at some stage.
The film was so quietly ominous and being filmed in the South Island of NZ was fascinating, in the way it was depicted as Montana. I was actually wondering what you thought of the setting? As someone who lives in Montana?
Part of what I love about the film is that Peter keeps defying Phil's assumptions. Phil has contempt, not just for himself, but for almost everyone else.... making the hero worship of Bronco Henry even more of a contrast. Gradually, Peter begins to earns his respect in surprising ways (quick dispatch of a rabbit was one moment- Phil was pretty quietly shocked by someone he'd branded as a 'sissy' doing that). Then Peter getting away with what could be said to be the perfect crime to protect his mother. It was just brilliant.
Thank you so much for this review! I love that you dove so deeply into the book as well as the movie. You put all of my thoughts that I couldn’t properly express into words. Very cool :)
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it.
Very well done and thought out deep dive of both the novel and the movie. I do recall earlier in the book the mention of anthrax because where it came from in terms animals and that it killed cattle and humans by contact was new information for me and it stood out in the text. That previous mention and then multiple mentions of Phil’s hubris in refusing to wear gloves were then at the end of the novel amazing literary allusions being drawn tight like threads, or one could even say woven together - anthrax, injured hands, intent by Savage. He provided the information earlier and then gathers it for sinister use at the end.
And while the gloves were part of the backstory of the Native Americans, the wife had made them for sale and any small income to help provide for them to survive, Jane, in her telling uses them in a whole new way. Needing the hides to make the gloves sets up a perfect justification for the Native American father and son wanting to acquire them from the ranch. Then what blew me out of the water was the symbolism of having Rose be given them with the cash. If gloves symbolize protection in this story, she now has beautiful ones to adorn herself with and protection alluding further to the fact that Phil does not. That something even seemingly frivolous and showy to Phil would have nonetheless protected him adds irony to what is about to happen on an even deeper level. Rose has protection, Peter, where Phil does not. In the book Savage spent time introducing the gloves and I think the Native American father offers to sell them to Phil when he’s being berated and thrown off the property, so they act as foreshadowing in his refusal, but to me what Jane does is very powerful and in a little way was reinforcing that Rose would be all right and safe.
One of the most startling images to me in the movie that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere is Phil’s reaction when he walks into the rented room in the Red Mill and sees the fire escape rope beneath the window. Campion lingers on it for just a beat too long and then shows a just perceivable shudder by Phil. It reminded me of a “someone is walking on my grave” moment, but in this case it’s foreshadowing to how he will die. Of course in the novel it is well known in town that these ropes were the same type that was used by Rose’s husband to hang himself and obviously Phil knows that and finds it startlingly. Perhaps even because he may have had some responsibility in driving him too it. But in the novel I never made the connection that a rope kills both the husband and Phil, in very different ways, but death by rope nonetheless. This scene reinforced that fact and made it obvious to me. Jane wanted you to remember Phil’s reaction to that rope in the movie and made it stand out. She is never showing you something without there being a reason for it.
This is enhanced even more when you know that during filming the actors playing Rose and Peter, Kristen and Cody, came up with their own backstory that they didn’t share with the cast or director. They had decided that Peter had also killed his father as well, as a means to protect the mother, and she knew about it. It was part of what made their mother son bond so strong that they had that secret, and a bond for the actors as well.
What’s great about the novel and movie is that they are both individually and together synergistically open to all kinds of interpretations and debate on both the macro level as well as the smallest details. Campion has always been a favorite filmmaker of mine and I can’t think of a better person to have brought this to the screen, except maybe Ang Lee. She knows how to do things with visuals and silences in her movies and storytelling that few directors can do with such ease and purpose. She was just what was needed to make the source material sing on screen and she’s great at choosing the the right actors and getting remarkable performances from them. I hope they all are wonderfully rewarded for this masterpiece.
Thank you so much for the very thoughtful comment. It hadn't even occurred to me that both Phil and Johnny die because of rope--or that Rose accepts the gloves that could have saved Phil (I'm pretty sure she accepts the gloves in the book as well, albeit under very different circumstances). Fascinating.
I must have missed the initial mention of anthrax in the book. Oops!
And what an interesting idea that Kirsten and Kodi came up with! I would have to look back to the book for specific references but I feel like it's more explicitly a suicide on the page, so their interpretation works for the movie but not as much for the book.
I agree that Campion was the PERFECT choice to direct this movie. She really understands the source material and made choices that (for the most part) amplified them.
@@SupposedlyFun I have to admit, after posting this I did go back to my ebook and used the search feature for the very first time to confirm the prior mention of anthrax, it was a bit closer to the end then I remembered, but it it stand out for me when reading,
@@bookofdust Either way--you were right!
Excellent synopsis. Happy to subscribe!
Thanks so much!
You convinced me I need to read the book. I was mesmerised by the film, and feel the cinematography would have deserved full theatrical release.
I speculate Phil hated Rose for taking George away, creating him a more independent character from their boyhood dynamics. Also, Phil seemed unable to grasp that George's gentler, kinder masculinity could be intrinsically attractive to Rose.
Peter was superbly acted, his callousness was very chilling to me. Peter essentially seducing Phil to the destruction was a great scene. I interpret that Peter's ability to be authentic made him the stronger of the two. He was what Phil wanted to be but channeled into rage against others, performative manliness and bullying.
Look fwd to see how the book characterises these protagonists.
Great analysis. I read the book after watching the movie because the film was so good but the book is a chef’s kiss. I was surprised to find so little about the book after the movie was released when both works are amazing. Thank you for this great video.
Thank you for watching!
BRAVO!!!! Awesome analysis!!!
Thanks so much!
Great analysis. I was intrigued by the title. Check out psalm 20:22. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. I was informed by a historian that to understand the psalm read the 5-10 psalms which proceed it, all of which take place during the passion of Christ. I think that Peter, who is a spiritual guy, has done is duty by delivering his mother from Phil, where a dog, in biblical times, was thought of not as a pet, but as a scavenger.
Thank you. The psalm is included in the book at both the opening and the end.
Thanks for clarifying this film for me!
Thank you for watching!
Your review of the book and movie is excellent. I feel cheated and many of the important back stories would have made this an even more powerful movie. We needed to know the circumstances of the parents not living in their house, Roses's story, Peter's dad's death and humiliation and the Indian man's heritage and humiliation to really appreciate the ending. I will certainly read the book. Thank you.
I am the granddaughter of Thomas Savage and I appreciate your video.
Thank you so much. I’m hoping to read The Sheep Queen before the end of the year because I loved The Power of the Dog so much.
Fantastic video and comparison analysis. I haven’t read or seen either version of The Power of the Dog and yet I could tell from your descriptions of both that these are works worth my time. Once I’ve forgotten the summary (I couldn’t resist this video) I will definitely consider reading the book.
I'm glad I could encourage you to read the book! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
great analysis - just saw the movie - looked for a deeper analysis and your explanation really got to the subtle points which were difficult to find in the movie.
Thank you!
What’s in a name? Peter - the rock (the strong one); Phil - the lover (of Bronco Henry). Just a thought. Book and movie both amazing. IMO Campion’s alterations were judicious, necessary and clever.
This has definitely inspired me to read the book. Does the fact that it was filmed in New Zealand and not in Montana make a difference? Jane Campion is a filmmaker’s filmmaker. I think she will be the favourite to win the academy award for direction.
A lot of movies and TV shows set in Montana film somewhere else, so it didn't bother me too much.
Peter has blonde hair in the book and black hair in the movie. Can't believe you didn't mention that :o
Welp, I guess I have to read the book now... Not going to lie, I didn't even know there was a book and now I feel silly. But, I am excited!
I hope you enjoy it!
The natives are very significant in the movie if you know Jane Campion's previous films. They also provide the social context of cultural and power dynamics shifting that is typical of some of her films. I haven't read the book but listening to your comments, it seems like it is a brilliant film adaptation.
That’s interesting-thank you for pointing that out.
Excellent analysis! I saw the movie last week and thought it was brilliantly acted and paced. But now I want to read the book. And I NEVER watch the movie first!!! LOL! One thing I noticed in the movie and when Phil is teaching Peter how to ride. The scene when they are looking out to the hills and Phil asks him what he sees. Peter says that he sees a dog with an open mouth. It surprises Phil and he immediately looks at Peter in surprise. Another thing that would be interesting to discuss is the biblical reference in the title and how that applies to both Phil and Peter. We see Phil as this toxic masculine man, as you said, and we stereotype Peter into an effeminate teenage boy. But is that really the case in their dynamic, and who actually has the power to destroy?
I feel like I could write an entire book about the dynamic between Phil and Peter: the relationship, the similarities, the differences--just all of it. It's fascinating. I absolutely LOVED the way Campion captured the mountain. I tried so hard to picture what it would look like when I read it and I worried that she would make the dog too obvious. I couldn't see it at all! Joel had to find a photo of the mountain and trace the dog with his finger for me to finally get it. Which means it was perfect. I'm sure there are a lot of religious underlayers that I am missing in the book since I'm not all that familiar with the bible, being honest.
@@SupposedlyFun SPOILERS!!! The title refers to the Bible verse at the end from Psalm 22: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” Peter is reading the verse having delivered his darling, his mother Rose, from the dog - Phil. Phil is the aggressive dog hounding Rose and Peter with his rage and scorn. Peter had the power and burden of the sword; he took Phils life. The dog also refers to the dog only Phil could see in the hills. He was the only one who could see it, which gave him power over the other ranch hands who were oblivious. It made him feel superior. Until Peter. The other character in the book/movie who wields the power of life and death.
@@MIDDLEoftheBookMARCH Thanks for the added context on that! I'm sure there are other biblical references in the book that went right over my head.
This is the exact story/book/movie I'd absolutely hate experiencing, I just don't like this type of subtlety and the whole thing is not interesting enough. But your review was amazing, really well explained and interesting. I really liked this video, perfect way for me to consume this story that's not really for me in its "original" forms.
Thank Youuuuu. I will be reading the book.
I hope you enjoy it!
Thank you so much , now everything makes sense
Happy to help!
Did Peter make paper flowers in the novel? I liked how flowers played as a leitmotif in the film, Rose’s name, that she was a florist, that she wanted to create a garden, that Peter made paper flowers and the first bullying interaction in the film is Phil burning, destroying and extinguishing/ drowning the flower in water the paper flower, which I think was a rose. I felt that the paper flowers were Rose fragile and beautiful,the hate/disdain of Phil for the flowers and Peter’s artistry was the start of Peter’s dislike of Phil and a catalyst for Peter to destroy and remove the obstacle that is Phil. Phil crushes everyone’s happiness with his selfishness, self loathing, misogynistic and misandrist attitudes and hate.
Phil had to go, he was Anthrax.
I may read the novel.
Thank you for your analysis!
You can tell watching the movie that there is a lot missing from the book, which I didn't realize existed until after watching the movie. After hearing your comparison, I definitely need to read the book now.
As a character, I really dislike Rose. The fact that she doesn't stand up for herself at all irritates me in ways I didn't know I could be irritated. It really foretells the idea of social media and the role in keeping up appearances in today's world.
I think I like Rose because the dynamic between her and Phil pretty perfectly captures the theme of decency and cruelty, and how so often the person who tries to be decent gets trampled. If you do pick up the book, I hope you like it as much as I did!
Great compare & contrast I watched the movie but interestingly felt there was some parts that didn't make sense the arrival of the native man & his son.....
& felt this could have been more powerful...your review confirmed this.
The box hidden with signed mag I also right abit odd but yh let's go with it.
With yr rv I'm inclined to agree one can never beat the intimacy of a book & the reader.
I love what Campion did with the movie but there are definitely some odd omissions from the book.
Fascinating analysis. It does appear that the book has more depth. But that is no surprise. (I hesitate to read the book only because I don’t know if I want to read about the animal dissection/killing that Peter engages in. I get why they are in the book but it’s definitely something that will make the book depressing)
I get that. I don't know if this helps, but the moments where dissection/killing happen are pretty quick bursts and described very dispassionately. But if it's a trigger it might be a lot.
This was great! Have you watched Call Me by Your Name? That would be a great iteration in this series
I haven't seen the movie in a while now and I haven't reread the book recently, either--so I would have to do both in order to make it work, but that's a great suggestion. Thank you!
@@SupposedlyFun 🤞🏾🤞🏾
Fantastic job, Greg. I have to admit that I either missed or have forgotten Phil’s connection to Johnny. I will go back to the book to seek it out. I do miss the expanded presence of the indigenous father and son in the film. I actually wondered if Campion didn’t want to go as far as the book went with Phil’s ugly remarks to the father. It seems unlikely to me that she would shy away from it, but I’m still left wondering. I am very glad that she did not make the hide buyer the Jewish man. That was one of a few parts of the book that felt dated to me. I can’t say that I loved Savage’s writing. I did love the book for its characters and plot, but his writing seemed a bit basic(?) maybe in some sections. I was never going to read the book first considering Cumberbatch is my favorite actor. Without his presence in the film, I might have missed both the film and the book and it would have been a big loss. I loved both. But I feel like the film gave more to the possibility of some redemption for Phil and that was were it shined the absolute brightest. As we discussed on Twitter last night, the shared cigarette scene was a spectacular addition to the film and one that I won’t forget. The one major disagreement that I have with your analysis is that Peter is most definitely a psychopath. The animals prove that to me in the film. I would hate to have been a future patient of Dr Peter Gordon. 😉
I quite liked the book and Savage's writing. I think in the book it feels clear that the way Phil thinks about Jewish people is intended to come across as wrong--another instance of him being cruel or outdated in his thinking--but that nuance would have been very hard to get across in a movie, so I'm also glad that Campion left it out.
I saw the movie first and wished I had read the book prior to seeing the movie. As a result, I really didn't like the movie, because there were so many gaps and inconsistencies. I suspected that there was more character development and backstory in the book, which I have found to be true. I know that this movie is wildly popular, but for me, it falls flat without the nuances in the book. I enjoyed the book so much more.
I still really liked the movie, but I don't feel it should be treated as a companion to the book. Rather, it feels like its own thing.
I was intrigued by the revelation in the movie that Phil was Phi Beta Kappa at Yale. I can't even remember who said it. George? The old Gent? How did this fit into the novel, and as regards the movie, how does it advance anything besides showing the viewer another layer to the complexity of Phil's personality?
I don't remember the comment from the movie. I can't remember the college named in the book but George attends in Phil's senior year and while Phil spent four years doing well and burning bridges with the wealthy students who want to be buddies with him, George has a very tough adjustment and fails out after his first year.
I think the Gov said that when he visited the ranch with his wife ... do you speak to your horses in Latin or something like that.
This is an amazing analysis!!! Can you do Dune now?
Am I right when I say that Jane Campion did not acknowledge the book in her introductory credits to the movie? I couldn’t see it and I was disturbed by that.
I don't remember if that is the case or not.
Wonderful analysis. Like you, I loved both Savage's novel and Campion's movie adaptation. It is not surprising that the movie can not possibly match all the richness of character development & backstory & plot found in the original novel, but like you and the other commenters here, I think Campion added some intriguing layers, impactful visuals and unforgettable scenes that aren't in the book.
I love that certain details about the complex, intriguing characters in the movie (and novel) are intentionally left open for interpretation. For instance, Peter's sexual orientation is not defined, perhaps not yet determined by the character himself. Peter might be gay, bi, str8, asexual, etc. If we assume Peter is straight, then his calculated seduction of Phil in the movie is 'impressive' & sinister, plus heartbreaking for Phil. In that moment, Phil is at long last letting down his guard, and choosing to be vulnerable with Peter. Phil, who lives in the past, never imagined feeling any degree of affection for anyone other than his mythical mentor, Bronco Henry. What I like about Peter being str8, is that it challenges our initial expectations and yes, our stereotypes. You truly can't judge a book by its cover, and Peter continues to confound our expectations throughout. The 'effeminate' boy is not at all who he seems to be.
Another interpretation (one that I think is favored by both Jane & Kodi in their interviews) is that Peter, by the end of the film, feels some sort of attraction or at minimum a grudging admiration towards Phil, who is now genuinely reaching out to assist the boy (no longer just acting out in a diabolical way to torment Rose). But Peter sacrifices his own real need for a caring, skilled mentor/father-figure and instead makes the choice to be his mom's saviour - 'for what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? If I did not save her?' Peter's loss is felt when he hides the rope Phil had crafted for him, under his bed. Phil, in his death, becomes a 'Bronco Henry' for Peter.
I'm not sure which of these two interpretations I prefer. Perhaps a bit of both. And of course, there are more than just these 2 possibilities. Which interpretation do you prefer?
Wow, very astute interpretation. I didn't think of Peter as 'calculated seduction of Phil' but it was now that you have said so, I agree.. Touche! The rope under the bed was evidence of the murder but seems that will never see the light of day. Your first interpretation seems bang on, although I see the irony of Peter's protecting his mother at the loss of a possible viable relationship that could have levelled the playing field. Perhaps they could have developed a mutually respectful relationship which would take the pressure of Rose?
I wonder why there is no mention of possible Oedipus complex in Peter as possible backstory and if so did Peter hide the rope to perhaps use later on George? From the movie I felt everything was subject to interpretation and not totally tied up, which I like.
For the most part, it feels that Peter is being protective of his mother, especially in the wake of what happened to his father. Naturally, there are probably Oedipal aspects mixed into this but I think they're secondary to the primary motivators of masculinity and protectiveness. But there's certainly room (especially in the movie) to interpret it as more present.
Was the book written explicitly as a hit piece on men or was that Campion's contribution?
Sorry but most of the things that you said aren't apparent in the movie are in fact very much apparent. I haven't read the book but I noticed 90% of them...
But thank you for the great analysis!
Sorry but I don't think 90% would be accurate since a lot of the backstory I discuss in this video is not even remotely hinted at in the movie, but okay. And for the rest, I frequently comment that it is hinted at in the movie but there's just more in the book. But thanks for the great comment!
Brilliant assessment. Thank you
Thank you so much!
I disliked the movie mainly because Peter's action seemed insufficiently motivated. Sure he was bullied, and his mother driven to drink. But Phil's attitude softened, and in any case there seemed to be other options for dealing with Phil. As I suspected, the book gives a more robust sense of the conflicts, characters and events leading to the ending. I didn't hate the movie, but gave it 2½ out of 4 stars, not an Oscar best picture level.
It's hard for me to say since I read the book first, but I do feel that Peter's motivations come across in the movie. No one is doing anything about Phil, no one is going to do anything about Phil, and there's no reason to expect that he will leave on his own. Phil does soften as Peter gets close to him, but he continues to make moves against Peter's mother. That's not to justify what Peter does, but I do think there's a foundation for what he does--especially with the opening line Campion inserts into the movie.
I am probably an example of why you should read the book first. I watched the movie, with no intention to read the book. Also I'm Australian which may explain why I had no idea what actually happened in the end. It wasn't until I did some internet searching that I realised anthrax was the cause of Phil's death. I otherwise had no clue. It was like all this stuff was going on and then Phil just died. I could see that Peter was exploiting Phil's vulnerabilities but had no idea either about the context of Johnny's suicide. I just thought Peter was creepy. One thing more I noted from the movie, and don't know if it is a thing in the book, was the role of women. There was Rose, who was clearly flawed, then the housekeeper and maid who just pandered to the group of men's needs, and then the mother who was barely even a character in the movie. In the end, I didn't like the movie and I don't want to read the book...but maybe if I'd done the reverse who knows ??? Thank you for the review, it was very helpful.
I'm glad the video was helpful. The female characters in addition to Rose have small parts in the book but are definitely more fleshed out.
I love both but definitely thought the movie was on such another level of mastery. Like Jane Campea is-I think-a better artist, so of course in terms of literal backstory and ideas the book has more, but just the complexity of the movie and its subtle use of images (when compared to other movies) is close to unparalleled in American Cinema. And the book, compared to other books, is not THAAAT great
Excellent review, though would have been so much more enjoyable if you had slowed it down, and not such a monotonous tone(flat). However, having not read the book, I feel like most of what was announced I had already experienced in the movie. The first time I didn't really get the ending, but finding commentary went back and listened in depth. Feeling each emotion, connection, trying to understand what each character was experiencing. I think it brilliant, the acting superb in each character, but between Phil and Peter, such opposites yet so similar, and Peter's sort of brave, but evil was of dealing with 'this threatening situation for him and his mother", murderous~! And although you say he is not a psychopath I don't get a sense Phil will be regretting things, with that smug look of victory on his face at the end. Phil was surprising, I mean he has experienced a life without love, in a male world where male masculinity rules. And so he becomes the mean, offensive, humiliating, hater than has to put everything weaker than him down, although few around him will challenge him as he is wealthy and rules. But Peter does...but I felt a sadness when Phil finally lets down his guard. Somehow when Peter enters his secret bathing place, regardless of sexual ideation going on there, Peter is drawn into his inner world. At first, he starts out slowly taking risks but soon embraces the role Broncho took on for him. Teaching him how to survive in the tough cowboy world on a ranch. And his finger scratch which turns into a deadly infection is paralleled in the sense that Peter changes from being the victim~the sissy, humiliated by all the ranchers as they gang up on him, as he casually walks through their ranks, seemingly untroubled, as if he's just there to watch the birds(eagles), but he doesn't cringe and nothing about his body language shows intimidation. Your start to wonder if he is a lot more intelligent and strong than one would think. Especially with his father's comment that 'he was too strong', which Phil rebuffs as being ridiculous, "silly child' or something. He has no idea what lurks within is growing like his cut. Part of me wonders if Peter hadn't intervened as he did if there was a chance of life without murder. Phil's waltz down the stairs with the first look towards the mother, as neutral instead of head-on assault, makes one wonder. If Peter had responded genuinely is there a chance something real could have been developed in their relationship that would make Peter's status more equal. Phil and Peter are both very intelligent, they both see the dog, they both don't miss a thing, and there was potential for friendship if not a relationship. He seemed to soften towards the mother, but since he was 'dressed' he had to have known he was going to die, and this was his exit. Touching that he sai,d "where's the boy" in the middle of lethal poisoning, how did he even walk? Didnt realize I had so much to say, the most thought provoking movie in years! Well done~! :)
Why Peter saved rope, is he gonna kill George?
He's definitely up to no good!
This saving of the the rope puzzled me, as well. What with Phil dead, why would Peter save the murder weapon, and risk someone innocently finding it, touching it, and getting sick and die? I don't believe Peter would kill George, not with Rose relieved of Phil and her marriage with George now on the mend.