The Power of The Dog Explained | Ending Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2021
- I hope this Power of The Dog Explained / Power of The Dog Ending Explained / Power of The Dog Movie Explained helps anyone who may be confused. I loved this movie and its message in many ways, so it was really fun to do this breakdown. I did lots of research and thinking, and I think I've wrapped my head around it. Here is my explanation of the movie and the ending. Hope you like it! The Power of The Dog starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Jesse Plemons, directed by Jane Campion is a new 2021 Netflix movie. Tune into this Lucas Blue Explained to find out the meaning of The Power of The Dog. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. I would love to discuss!
This is a spoiler-filled The Power of The Dog Explained video by Lucas Blue.
Let me know your thoughts about The Power of The Dog or any of your favorite historical dramas in the comments below. I love hearing the opinions!
Outro Song: Let Go
Listen here: smarturl.it/sonorouspletgo
Director: Jane Campion
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch - Kirsten Dunst - Kodi Smit-McPhee - Jesse Plemons - Розваги
Hope this is helpful! What were your thoughts and ideas about The Power of The Dog? I would love to discuss! Let me know below!!
Hey man! 👋 Do you have an email or something I could reach you at to possibly set up our online hangout if you'd still be cool with doing that?
@@InspireCreate43 hey yeah I’d love to! Reach out to me whenever you like (lucasbluevids@gmail.com)
It surprised me how good it was and how many things they left unanswered. Great movie. B.c did great job
Do you think Rose knew in some way or maybe even subconsciously about a plan to get rid of Phil. There’s a scene when Phil yells at Rose and uses the word “Scheming” to describe here. It’s almost a foreshadowing moment, and maybe hinting that indeed Rose maybe not as innocent as she appears.
When Phil was limping at the end, I thought it had something to do with intercourse...
Peter didn’t just happen upon a anthrax infected cow, he went looking for it. You can tell by the very deliberate way in which he packed his supplies before he left.
Yesssss.....that's good.
i was wondering about that! that shot makes sense now!
Yes, that's right he did. He had heard them mention anthrax & went looking for it when he decided to get rid of Phil.
@@gemini6433 yup and remember that scene where he’s sitting on the floor looking at that book (around the 40 min mark) That was just after that sad conversation with his Mum where he saw her falling apart.
He did his research then went out and found the weapon. All to save him Mum
@@nicolecat4020 Yep. He was not going to allow Phil to push his mother over the edge & he was not going to sit back & do nothing about it. Clever when you think about it coz Peter came across as a sensitive & anxious young man but totally took control of a situation that he knew was not going to go away unless something was done about it.
Another interesting and revealing dialogue is when Peter tells Phil that his father wanted him to be more sensitive. Phil laughs, because he sees Peter as a weakling, extremely sensitive and frail, but Peter's father was clearly right, as we'll learn by the end of the movie. This is also strengthened by the crude, natural way in which Peter kills the rabbit.
Lol I thought Phil was going to kill the bunny and it will affect Rose and Peter, just to see him dissect the rabbit 🐰
Yep! Forgot about this.
truee
@@justanotherblackwhitemicke7817 Another great insight Lucas. I did not catch that! Thank you again!
Phil was shocked when Peter killed the rabbit. He didn't think the boy had it in him.
Excellent analysis. One thing though I hope you noticed: "My father told me that a man is someone who is patient with adversities of life". "Well, my father told me that obstacles ought to be removed".
Yeah this conversation was so close to being included in the video, but I felt like I had already gotten my point across, so I’m super glad you brought this up. It really indicates their opposing definitions of masculinity and inner-strength. Thank you for this and thank you so much for watching!!
@@lucasblue20 Right. I live on Italy and I can assure you, the typical man is supposed to endure hardness and pain, at work, in life in general. An appalling doctrine for me
Does that mean Peter killed him?
@@PrimateSoulUnfortunately yes, but Phil put himself in that position by treating Peter's mother badly. Phil clearly had underestimated Peter & assumed he could make a man out of him according to his view of how a man should be.
@@samsonrao3793 Whaaaaat?
I found it fascinating that in a Western involving a murder, there's not the typical violent action and bloodshed which has almost become a staple of the genre. All the steps were slow, methodical, and seemingly accidental. Masculinity and more obvious violence is so inherent to the genre that it feels like a purposeful and brilliant inversion.
I love this point so much, you’re right, the film is a match of wit and dominance like most westerns, but done in a completely different way. Thank you for this and thank you so much for watching!!
@@lucasblue20 It's a great video! I think this film also addreses the concept of 'protecting one's womenfolk' and the surrounding connotations of masculinity and honor that go all the way back to medieval knights (and the similar honor codes in Samurai films). Peter's one traditional belief about masculinity is that a 'real man protects his mother.' It's his thesis statement made at the beginning of the film. Phil believes that the inverse is happening- Peter is becoming masculine by divorcing himself from the feminizing influence of his mother, and he even mocks Rose in front of Peter (as in many cultures men weren't supposed to let other men insult their mothers, but Phil thinks this is acceptable because in his mind he has sufficiently alienated mother and son) . But in fact that aspect of masculinity is the only one Phil truly adheres to, and not in the traditional way of honor, but due to a deep a reciprocal love unfettered by fears of damaging his masculinity.
I watched 'The Last Duel' the knight before. It addressed some similar themes (toxic mascuinity, dominance, one's women as both a source of and danger to honor, the question of protecting women) but did a much poorer job because it was so on the nose.
@@lizmerrick6883 I like the point you make about it being an inversion of what you’d expect of a typical western. Hadn’t considered that and it was a lightbulb moment reading it. Its the perfect setting and period for this story considering inversion seems to be the through-line theme, and things not being what you might expect. Just like the focal characters. Phil - hard on the exterior, but softer and deeply insecure on the inside. And Peter - soft and fragile on the exterior, but hardened and capable on the inside. Awesome movie.
I loved the movie and I agree entirely with your analysis. For me also is the way Campion developed every plot point so eloquently, subtly building this deep pool of the characters' emotional make up. Great film.
I hate Western and I love this film
the contrast between Phil and Peter's personalities are fascinating to me. Phil was soft, and built a hard menacing exterior to hide that part of him. Meanwhile Peter appeared fragile in his exterior, but was cold and calculated. emotionless. dutiful to his mother, but also a bit detached.
I absolutely loved this film and I love your analysis of it. I will definitely be watching this again!
Yeaaahh they’re kind of like inside out versions of each other. It correlates with how comfortable Peter is with himself and how hateful Phil is of himself. I love this observation, thank you so much for watching!!
It seems like Peter’s fathers death made him like that after. He revealed his dads last words about not being so tough
I don't think Peter was cold & emotionless. He seemed fragile on the outside but he was also a very sensitive person. The scene where Peter was serving Phil & the boys at the restaurant showed Peter become upset when Phil humiliated him in front of everyone when he made comments about the towel draped over his arm & the paper flowers Peter made that were placed in vases on the tables. Peter had later stepped outside & was with his hoola hoop that he uses to help with his anxiety. I could see that Peter was deeply sensitive but when it came to his mother, he could become controlled & calculating in order to protect her. Peter was watching & observing Phil's behaviour & Phil's ill treatment of Peters mother when they moved into the house & Phil continued to make fun of Peter. I think Peter then chose to tolerate Phil's behaviour to gain his confidence to find the right moment to get rid of him when Peter realised Phil was not going to accept Rose or leave her alone. Peter saw how Phil was deliberately tormenting his mother & was not letting up & saw how this was affecting his mother's health so he then found the perfect way to do it with the diseased cow hide in the water when Phil was making a rope for Peter. I think Peter was deeply protective of his mother as she was of him.
Ying and yang my G. I guess they helped each other develop or would have if pete wasnt a phsyco!
@@gemini6433 dude, dont pity pete that's the irony.
Great analysis! I want to add my observation about the gloves: Rose was given a pair of gloves when she gave Phil's hides away to the Indians, and she was so touched by how soft, comfortable and beautiful they were. Phil collected his hides just to burn them (and making the robe for Pete). He refused to wear gloves while working (castrating the bulls, building the fence), and cut his hand badly. It's a metaphors for his life choices.With all of his resources (money, education, capacity to love), he chose to waste them or make tools that inflict pains/controls instead of making something comfortable for himself and others. Pete, on the other hand, uses gloves every effectively to protect himself and carry out his plan. His gloves only come off when he decided to manipulate Phil's emotion and get him to open up (and expose his wound to the anthrax infected hide).
The exposure of the wound to anthrax is also a parallel to him exposing his emotional wound that night to Peter.
Excellent observation. I noticed this too, but my english is not very good to explain. You explained perfect!
So it(glove) refer to condom. 😂
Wow, thank you for that insight, Quan!
It's a metaphors for his life choices.With all of his resources (money, education, capacity to love), he chose to waste them or make tools that inflict pains/controls instead of making something comfortable for himself and others. THIS LINE KILLED ME DEEP DOWN. Iam 100% sure I am going to end up like Phil. (by the way i am not gay)
I saw this exactly as you did after I watched the movie and thought about it. Peter's "plot" to kill Phil could have been more apparent earlier, except that the script tried to make excuses for some of Peter's behavior leading up to the murder - - like they included the scene of Peter dissecting the new pet rabbit, which made us think that cutting into the hide of that dead cow might be just another episode of Peter "experimenting" with dead animals rather than something more "sinister". Also, we kind of assumed Peter might be gay. So when we figured out that Phil is probably gay, we assumed that their ever-increasing "closeness" (culminated in the cigarette scene toward the end) might be a "preliminary" to them having some kind of sexual encounter. This distracted us from seeing that Peter had to have continued to hate Phil for the never-ending cruelty he kept dishing out to Rose.
Yeaaah the whole movie is one big red herring, it's really cleverly done. I'm so glad you caught that because I did not upon the first viewing, thank you so much for watching!!
Phil being gay is an addition to the novel and put in there for entertainment and to justify his cruelty, which is not justified in any way in the novel. It just exists.
@@suzannahkolbeck6973 I'm curious since I haven't read the book, does Rose have any inkling to what Peter is capable of?
@@bushkillrealty1817 Not really - the death occurs literally in the last three or four pages. And the comment about Phil working without gloves is made in passing really early in the book.
@@suzannahkolbeck6973 Thanks! :)
Great review!
A couple of things I would have added that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere: At the end, in his casket, Phill is shaved, cleaned, and presented as the 'gentleman hiding underneath' the veneer of toxic masculinity. This choice is made by George, who only in his Phill's death can realize the brother he might have known, and longed to know, if Phill had been brave enough to truly be himself.
I also think it's interesting that by the end, the audience has come full circle with the knowledge that the true victim of the story was Phill. There was only ever a fragile veneer of ego protecting him from the torment of loneliness and estrangement from his brother, the loss of his lover and mentor, and eventually, even the veneer gives way as he falls victim to yet another force: the cold vengefulness of his so-called 'mentee', and the first person he has been vulnerable with since his own mentor. Phill is, ultimately, not the protagonist nor the antagonist- because he is only ever acted upon. He is simply whipped around by forces beyond his psychological control.
The very first signal of Phil’s weakness for his own sex, in my opinion, was when he first complimented the paper rose then counterbalanced that with burning it not to give away his true identity…
Good catch. If you re-watch the scene you'll notice he plays with the paper rose first, and after he gets his fill, he burns it. He clearly wanted to touch it, but then he burns it so nobody thinks anything weird.
I get the impression that the relationship between Phil and Bronco Henry may have bordered on abuse or at least contained possible grooming behaviors. The dates on the plaque show that Bronco Henry was 50 when he died, which wasn’t too many years after Phil and George say they went on their first ride together. Phil would have been quite young when the relationship started, and I wondered throughout the film if the reason Phil harassed Pete so much for his effeminate behavior is because it mirrored the way Bronco Henry might have treated him before eventually starting a relationship with him.
Phil said to Peter, that he (Phil) was the same age as Peter is now. I estimate something between 17 and 19.
@@godsowncountry3605 Even if he was 17/19 just 1 year more or less than a legally child! doesn't mean he wasn't abused! The guy was more than double his age! Definitely sign of grooming and abusive behaviour
Exactamundo.
@@Elle-xf8mw i disagree. A large age gap does not necessarily lead to abuse. Just my opinion. One has to make clear first, what "abuse" really means. I think different persons might come to different conclusions. Phil was at the same age as Peter now when he met Bronco. I do not have the feeling that he felt abused even not after such a long time....
@@godsowncountry3605 I didn't talk just about just age gap! The gap is dangerous when one person is on their teenage years and the other one is the dubble age! Which is this case, So if one is a Teenager and the other one is around 50s, Yes it is grooming and abusive, Even if The young person doesn't know it!
In many crime documentaries the young one even though they were in love but after years they realize what really happened to them!
But if someone is in their 30s and is with someone who is is way older it ok if they want to!
Thank you for critiquing and analyzing this film FAR BETTER than the “leading critics” who seemed to largely miss the larger, conceptual themes to the film. Kudos!
This is so great to hear, thank you! I'm happy I could do the film justice and cover what I thought it really wanted to say because it really is excellent. I so glad you connected with the video, thank you so much!!
@@lucasblue20 I have to say I completely agree! Watching these analysis videos can be agonizing because so much of the time, the self-appointed 'expert' goes for the most obvious, surface level reading of the themes, and fails to even attempt to dissect the symbolism. At the same time, they are so self-satisfied and rattle off their interpretations as if they are gospel. This was honestly the best interpretation of a film I've seen in ages, and really nicely structured.
A couple of things I would have added that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere: At the end, in his casket, Phill is shaved, cleaned, and presented as the 'gentleman hiding underneath' the veneer of toxic masculinity. This choice is made by George, who only in his Phill's death can realize the brother he might have known, and longed to know, if Phill had been brave enough to truly be himself.
I also think it's interesting that by the end, the audience has come full circle with the knowledge that the true victim of the story was Phill. There was only ever a fragile veneer of ego protecting him from the torment of loneliness and estrangement from his brother, the loss of his lover and mentor, and eventually, even the veneer gives way as he falls victim to yet another force: the cold vengefulness of his so-called 'mentee', and the first person he has been vulnerable with since his own mentor. Phill is, ultimately, not the protagonist nor the antagonist- because he is only ever acted upon. He is simply whipped around by forces beyond his psychological control.
@@katiehorneshaw995 It's your choice if you want to view Phil as nothing more than a victim of societal norms and homophobia. I don't disagree that he was forced to live a lie. He probably experienced self loathing, as well and had tremendous inner turmoil. I both hated him and felt sorry for him.
However, it's not an excuse, nor permission, for his very hateful and aggressive behavior towards others. I do not accept that it was forgivable because he was a victim as well.
Absolutely spot on 💯 . Peter during the "obstacle" conversation tells Phil how his father thought Peter is very strong and Phil brushes it aside.
I love the juxtaposition of Phil and Peter. Peter feeling free to be himself but seeming timid and delicate, while Phil is seen as strong and dominate, and it’s in many ways the total opposite for both characters. The way the characters have this tension even while bonding was somewhat eerie. Phil’s masculinity hid the fact that he was vulnerable. While Peter’s vulnerability was his strength.
I think the movie was so amazing in its layering. It creates a great empathy for Peter and a desire for Phil to be taught a lesson for his meanness. At the end I had a small sense of justification and happiness for those left at the ranch but only for a short time until on reflection I realized that Phil was perhaps the softer, gentler personality trapped in a world where he was forced to be harsh and tough. I think he had a private shame he could not share or resolve. His loneliness was deeper even than Peter’s, who had his mother. Peter secretly felt ashamed, dirty, which was eloquently portrayed by his outwardly displaying his dirtiness. He was only cleansed in his times of memory and reverie of Bronco Henry’s love and connection. He craved a connection…his brothers…his parents…He wanted acceptance of his own dirty self. He was the rabbit hidden under the logs and sticks, like his own little secret place that he crawled beneath the sticks and logs in which to escape the facade he must keep up. Just like the log pile by the hay stack. He said it was interesting to see when the rabbit would give up and reveal himself, expose himself to the dangerous unforgiving hunter. The one they met there was brave and would not come out. That was his demise. He was hurt by the falling log..on his leg..Phil on his hand. As a result Peter put the Rabbit out of his misery, easily, by falsely petting, stroking him into a sense of safety and then snap. After the movie is over and time goes by, my empathy for Phil expanded.
OMG. I never thought it this way! Your comment is probably the best explanation of the film I read. The similarity between Rabbit trapped underneath logs and Phil under societal pressures and Peter freeing both of them from the misery... It all makes sense!
@@nisargdhamecha8476 thanks!!
I thought Benedict played Phil to absolute perfection; the facade of toxic masculinity really had me fooled for the majority of the movie. I just felt so on edge watching his character, as he seemed so unpredictable & violent - I was convinced it would result in him killing Peter, especially as he was so adimant in finishing a rope for him (I thought it was hinting Peter going the same way his father did) but the wolf in sheeps' clothing twist was far more interesting to see & gave a whole new perspective to the rest of the movie! thank you so much for this analysis as it really contexualised a lot of the symbolism I missed first time round :)
I totally thought Phil was going to murder Peter as well. The twist at the end really caught me off guard!
This comment perfectly describes my viewing experience haha we were surprised by (and appreciative of) all of the same things. This was really great to read, thank you so much for this! And thank you so much for watching, I'm really glad the video could offer new insights!
@@amysullivan8358 yesss me too!!
@@lucasblue20 right?! I was not expecting it to go the way it did phah - thank you!! I definitely need to watch it again to fully appreciate how smart the writing is, particularly the way the bible story ties in, that blew my mind 🤣
This movie did an amazing job of tricking me because when Phil woke up all disordered, with a bloody and and holding the rope, I was terrified he had killed Peter! Then the big reveal and I thought.....oh yes, that makes complete sense.....
The fact that the last few seconds of the movie put the entirety of the movie into context (perspective?) is brilliant writing and production, I think. Also, I had no idea what this movie was about going in, I didn't even know there was a book, but it did an amazing job of portraying great and intense themes with such subtlety. The shaky and uneasy score had me jumping out of my skin!
Hated the score as well
@@VegasShaken I loved the score. I don't know if Cape Watermelon hated it either, but i really dig these chilly mysteries and character dramas and the music that turns up the tension. Here's a score I really found unsettling--the ending credits of The Mothman Prophecies. "Thirty seven? Thirty SEVEN? 'Wake up number thirty-seven!'" CUE credits with hypnotic song by TomandAndy: "Half-Light. The guys I went to see with this absolutely abhorred it.
Great analysis!! Another thing that I just realized and might got it wrong is the Paper Flower thing: Peter made and arranged paper in such a way that could make ot seems very real (even Phil says that), the same way Peter pretends being lead by Phil into a friendship or something more but during the ENTIRE time it was him setting the situations up, just like cutting paper and arranging it to look like a real bound.
Writing from Brazil here :)
This is such a fresh observation, I love this parallel. And it's pretty surreal to connect with someone all the way in Brazil with my video. Thank you so much for watching, it means a lot!!
@@lucasblue20 🌻❤️
Excellent observation. I guess this movie is what is called a perfect layered narrative. So many little things add up to solidify the main plot.
We saw the film last evening and I realized the ending but my husband was not convinced. Your video brought it all together for both us beyond our imagination. Thank you so much...the film is even more powerful. We plan to watch it again tonight!
Wow this is so amazing to hear! I totally understand how you and your husband had totally different views of the ending. It's an incredibly subtle film and I'm impressed you caught the motivation for the ending because I definitely didn't the first time around. I just knew I was fascinated. Thank you so much for watching! I'm so glad you both enjoyed!!
Great film. Great analysis. I felt immense sadness and sympathy towards Phil at the end.
Thank you so much! I had the exact same feelings as you, it was heartbreaking
Yeah. He actually dressed up to give Peter his rope. He was so happy to give it to him, when he was painfully walking in the field asking for Peter, man that was gutwrenching.
Yes the paper flowers I took as a metaphor for artificial emotions that pete displayed and so many people try to empathise with him but the truth is we only like him to make us feel better. He isnt a nice person despite his seemingly innocent nature and wouldnt like you even If you showed him kindness.
Yes me too. It was tragic.
@@samuelbanner6262 Didn't he say his father told him to be kinder instead of so strong? That was the red flag Phil ignored. Others could see it more of less, like the servant girl who came to pet the rabbit only to find Peter dissecting it without a shred of emotion.
The only thing I would add to this analysis is I think when Peter was walking by being jeered by the other men, this was just after he found those magazines that confirmed to him Phil was gay. I think him doing that was the bait to lure Phil in which obviously worked out as planned.
I thought the exact thing which I told to my friend who watched the movie with me. Honestly, I don't even think Peter was gay. I think we (myself included) assumed that because he was effeminate and made a stereotypical assessment of him based on that. Peter totally lured Phil and he controlled every aspect of the friendship while giving Phil and the viewer the impression that Phil was in charge. The cigarette scene to me was an "ah hah" moment. Peter when from what appeared to a shrinking violet type character to the one fully in charge and in control. His eyes in that scene said it all.
Peter played Phil like a banjo 😏 He knows what he's doing when walking past Phil twice! Peter pulled him in with the braided rope and used him 😒
THANK YOU SO MUCH dude! This is so thoughtful and answers every single question, thank you!!
Haha my pleasure! I’m so happy you enjoyed the video because the film was so fascinating, thank you so much!!
I was thinking the exact same thing! 😊
Exceptional analysis! I would also like to add there is a scene in the movie where Rose pleads Peter for help with regards to Phil. Peter than tears up and is seen in the next scene reading through his fathers old medical books. I believe that was the moment when Peter began the plot to kill Phil.
Thank you!! And I love the point you've made. When I think back, this really makes sense!
I have to say that I started this movie not knowing anything about it but pretty soon found myself drawn into the plot. The ending tweaked my curiosity to have it explained to confirm my thoughts on it. I thoroughly enjoyed your explanation and analysis. Absolutely on point. Thank you so much for putting this video together. I shall be a subscriber from now on.
Wow thank you so much for subscribing! And I'm so happy the video was clear and informative. I loved the movie as well, I had the exact same feelings as you while watching it, I was captivated. Thank you so much for watching! More to come!!
Great explanation. However I think you left out one major thing: Peter has schizoid personality disorder. They way he killed the rabbit with no emotion, and the way Rose eluded to how Peter has killed other animals before. The ways he talked emotionlessly about finding his father HANGING, the way he allowed his mother to continue with her alcoholism (when he pushed the bottle further into the sheets, while in contrast George poured the bottle out). Also just to be able to kill someone like that while asserting dominance over them was very weird.
Absolutely!
I just looked up schizoid personality disorder, and I really think you have a great point! This really adds a new angle. Thank you for this, and for watching! I'm really glad you enjoyed the video!!
Your comment hit the nail on the head. The first time I watched it I just thought well this movie just endorses people killing people that have been abused. Then upon rewatch with some context you realize that Peter is really off.
He does pet and comfort the rabbit before killing it though (at least in the scene with Phil). The look on Phil's face when he killed it was priceless lol. I don't think he's off. But I do think it showed that he was capable of doing what needed to be done. But it's not with malice. I've read that surgeons actually have higher levels of some psychopathic traits, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's something that is needed to do the good that they do.
I disagree. I think Peter is on the spectrum. I don't see him a having a lack of empathy since he cares about his mother, interacts with the dog and the rabbit, he just has a hard time showing it. This would be more difficult for him since he's also experienced trauma (his dad hanging dead). His attention to detail and fixation on his passions would be another clue towards ASD, as would his inability to make friends but bragging about the one he did make "professor". I also think his stroking of the comb and hula hooping are stimming behaviors, a sign of ASD. There are other context clues within the movie, but I'll leave them to others to sort out.
Peter mentions to his mother that he made a friend who calls him Doctor and he calls his friend Professor. Rose tells him to bring him over to the ranch, but Peter says that he doesn't want him to meet a certain person (Phil). Am I the only one who thought that this hinted about Peter's sexuality?
Great question. Like most people, I didn't read as much into it as you did. My simple takeaway was that Peter thought Phil would be an a-hole to his friend and treat him the same way that he treats Peter.
@@hmj8469 Yea. Maybe I read too much into it. There are people who like to surround themselves with many friends and people who prefer to have 1-2 friends with which they have deeper, more meaningful friendships. Peter fits in the latter group.
@@LordShrub You're definitely not the only one who thought that. It further confirms the hints at Peter's sexuality, which were quite heavy-handed throughout the film, so this is totally in line.
I assumed that when Phil was so incredulous that Peter immediately saw the howling dog on the mountain that he himself, who he regards as much smarter, stronger and capable than this kid, actually hadn’t been able to see it. That’s why he went out every night at sundown to try to see it, pretending that he knew where it was. When Peter saw it he transferred the power that he had given to Bronco Henry onto Peter and gave him more respect. Thus the Power of the Dog.
Peter plays Phil along to deter him from asking where he had gotten the hide to make the strips, by telling him that he cut them because he wanted to be like Phil.
After that Phil was captivated and quit thinking.
I love how you really explain symbolism , not like the others just narrating what we already saw. You really deconstruct every aspect in this film, thank you!
Thank you so much for this! Like you, I'm a much bigger fan of deconstructing than summarizing. It's so much more fun and fascinating to me, and it sparks such fantastic discussions. Thank you so much for watching!!
YES! Absolute BEST breakdown of this movie that I've found. This might actually be the best breakdown of a movie I've ever seen period!
Haha wow that’s a lot of kindness to absorb, thank you so much! It means everything to me! I’m really happy you enjoyed!!
Absolutely BRILLIANT breakdown. You understood the assignment.
Thank you, now I can appreciate more the film. All the details you gave kept me in awe. I don't know how I didn't capture all these things while watching this movie, but now thanks to you I love this movie even more. Might give it another watch to capture everything you said. Jane Campion is truly a master in filmmaking.
This is so fulfilling to hear! I'm really glad you could find new insight and appreciation through the video, thank you so much!!
When I saw Peter acting cold killing animals, immediately Norman bates came to my mind. It was like watching a narcissistic cowboy creating a serial killer
Thank you for this very satisfying analysis! I would like to add the notion that Peter could also internally rationalize his act (reading the Bible) that, as well as protecting his mother, he was liberating Phil (the "beloved") from "the power of the dog" (the identity Phil was psychologically pressured to present to himself as well as to the world). Not exactly Chief's act of love in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", but at least a paradoxical layer in Peter's character?
for me, the turning point in phil and peter‘s dynamic came along with peter‘s mercy killing after his and phil’s cruel game with the trapped bunny.
when peter decides to free it, the animal is already injured, deadly so - its leg is broken. its most important ability - to flee, to run and hide- has been taken. left all alone, the bunny is vulnerable.
still, instead of ‘putting it put of its misery’ immediately, peter makes a point of calming the animal, touching it with gentle hands. there is an illusion of compassion in his gesture, a weakness that the viewer as well as phil himself would only expect from the soft, feminine boy. phil lets it be, watching the scene with a sort of desperate interest.
the eventual snap of the bunny’s neck comes as a surprise. almost too quick to notice, with a startlingly empty expression, peter has ended the animal’s life before phil realizes it.
it is unclear whether phil feels the shift in power that this first mercy killing brings, and it is unclear whether he cares. now that phil has felt a glimpse of what he has been craving - comfort, a soothing of his agony - he wants more, and he is ready to come out of himself for it.
this emotion of desperate yearning builds the bridge toward the ending and the second “mercy killing”.
at the end of the movie, peter has learned. he knows that phil, like the animal, is trapped, scared, hurt, unable to free himself from expectations imposed on him by his environment.
peter is aware that phil, too, yearns for a gentle hand to calm his raging emotions, for understanding, and for peace after a life of war with himself.
in order to reach his most pressing goal, peter grants phil a moment of peace. he lets him talk, touches him with his bare hands, shares an intimate cigarette with him. like the bunny - made vulnerable by pain and fear - phil enjoys the tenderness.
neither phil nor the audience expect the snap before it’s already too late.
phil wastes away, unsuspecting of what has been done to him, unaware of peter’s fatal gentle betrayal. it never seems to occur to him at all, as his last hopeful action on the ranch is his quest to find the boy and gift him with what he has made for him.
in the end, both killings symbolize the salvation of two broken beings long lost in their vulnerability: there is no need for peter to regret his actions.
Amazing explanation!
Fabulous analysis and parallels. I have to agree 100% with this.
This movie was like a large fan opening up it’s relentless pleats of dark and light duality, flipping back and forth on itself, with questions like what is fragility, what is strength, transgressor, transgressed.
This was great, extremely well done. I also got a sense that Peter seems self-satisfied in that he really conquered Phil, almost conquering something within himself. Your video makes me want to rewatch it, I've subbed.
Thank you so much! It’s really great to hear you’ve subscribed as well. And yeah I totally agree, Peter seems to have possibly proved to himself (or has always known) that he can be smarter, wiser, and more intuitive than Phil, who everyone else thought was the dominant one. Thank you so much for watching! Plenty more to come!!
I had seen your explanation of the movie “The Lost Daughter “ and I found it so amazingly well explained and broken down that I actually specifically searched for your channel to see the explanation of this movie as well! You’re doing great! And I wish you all the success. Also, thank you for simplifying these movies for us ♥️
What a great analysis! I appreciate the movie much more after reading your breakdown. You really explained everything so well! Thank you
Wow this means so much, thank you! It's so fulfilling to hear that you found new appreciation for the film. I'm so happy you enjoyed, thank you so much!!
I just subscribed, based on this one analysis, which I think is absolutely dazzling. I've read well over two dozen reviews of this film in the mainstream press, but no one has nailed it quite as brilliantly as you. Although I am not as big a fan of the film as you are, I love your enthusiasm for it and your insightful observations, which helped clarify a few things for me and made me want to to re-watch at some future point. You are alive to the film's nuances in a way that is quite infectious. Thank you for this video; you are deserving of all the praise you're rightly getting here.
Wowww this is incredibly kind! It's so fulfilling to hear you feel this way so thank you so much!! And I'm so glad I could spark some new enthusiasm for you around the film. It means everything, thank you so much for watching!!
i just watched this movie again today and finally came to connect themes and events. your video is so amazing, it brilliantly summarises the key message of the movie and beautifully describes the nuanced connection and relationship shown between phil and peter. there’s something so beautifully tragic about this movie. benedict should get the oscar honestly.
Wow thank you so much for this! It's so fulfilling to hear that you connected with the video like this, it really means a lot. And yes, beautifully tragic is the perfect way to put it. I think Cumberbatch has a really good shot. He's my prediction so far. We'll see. Thank you so much for watching!!
Brilliant analysis. I totally agree with everything you said. The themes of toxic masculinity, internalized homophobia, dominance, and sexuality were woven together in such a seemingly beautiful but ultimately tragic way. And yes, definitely watch it twice so you can see more of the nuances knowing what you know!!
Your observations were right on! Thank you for your deep thoughts and interpretations of a complex and subtle film that goes over some people's heads.
I just watched The Power of The Dog and agree 100% with your explanation of themes and outcomes. I appreciate how deeply you delved into the underlying and subtle par values in the movie. I am actually going to watch the movie again after your thorough synopsis to see things I may have missed in my initial viewing. Thanks for doing such an amazing job!!
I'm so thrilled to hear that I could spark some new interest for you in rewatching the film, thank you so much! And thank you for your kind words, it really means a lot to me. I think you'll really enjoy it the second time around as I did!!
Thanks for the break down. I missed a lot of this subtext (as I often do), exacerbated by the fact that I had to watch it in several pieces during my lunch breaks at work. Much of the subtlety was lost on me and your explanation made the movie much better in my view than it was when I got the end and was very confused lol.
Haha thank you so much! Yeah, just like you I was also pretty confused upon the first viewing, so I'm really happy this video could tie up some loose ends for you! Thank you so much for watching!!
Brilliant analysis and so satisfying, as I had a sense for most of what you said, but you articulated it in a way that really brought it all home for me. What a beautiful movie. Thanks for doing what you do!
Thank you so much for your kind words, and thank you for watching! It means a lot to me!!
This is an excellent review and deepened my appreciation of the film so much- as do a lot of the comments and conversation on here as well! Thank you everyone!
Your kind words mean so much to me, thank you! And yes, the comments are so exciting to read, a lot of brilliant ideas! Thank you so much for watching!!
This was an amazing analysis, you are right on!! Thank you 🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
You are so welcome, it's my pleasure! Thank you so much for watching!!
Just found your channel and it’s insane how you’re always SPOT ON. Amazing.
Haha thank you! It means so much to me that you enjoy the channel because I have so much fun putting these vids together, thank you again!! And feel free to recommend any movie!!
beautifully well put analysis 👏! the way you expressed the dog references is right on point. also the opening line of the movie revealed so much...even with all the confusions as far as relationship dynamics near the end with Phil and Peter.
Absolutely spot on👌 I loved this movie so much, and my interpretations of it was similar to yours, but you explained it so eloquently, bravo 👏
Lucas, this was awesome. You really did your research. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
My pleasure! I'm really glad it was helpful, and I'm so glad you enjoyed! Thank you!!
This was a phenomenal breakdown. This movie's Cinematograpy, and Benjamin Cumberbatch’s performance was exceptional. This movie deserves all the Oscars.
This film was absolutely fantastic and your analysis really does it the justice it deserves. You're spot on!
I loved the film as well, and I'm so glad you enjoyed the video! Thank you so much for your kind words!!
Bravo! Succinct but absolutely thorough analysis. Thank you!
I think that I started to wonder who's in control here when Peter said that his dad told him that he was too strong and Phil scoffed.
Thank you so much! Your words really mean a lot because I loved this film. Thank you for watching!!
Best ending explanation I've seen! This movie was so haunting and disturbing. It took me some days to process. Thank you so much for this video. You obvi nailed it.
So glad this was helpful! Thank you!! And yes, this movie was haunting and disturbing without a single cheap thrill. I loved it! Thank you so much for watching and for your kind words!!
Great !! Your analysis is flawless and backed up with facts and deep research. TBH everything about the movie started making more sense after watching this analysis video. Well done !!
I like this explanation the best, you noticed all the subtle details and the explanation you give goes better with my understanding of the film. Thank you!
Sorry I accidentally deleted much of my old comment. Thank you so much! Yeah, this film is incredibly subtle so I'm so glad we were able to catch a lot of the same things. I'm sure I'll learn something new every time around. Thank you so much for watching!!
I just finished watching and immediately needed help in understanding the ending. I couldn't put it together. THANKS!
Anytime! This film was certainly a puzzle haha thank you for watching!!
The best explanation I heard so far and I saw 5 lol. And I also liked that you didn’t narrated every scene of the movie ☺️ty
Wow thank you! This means so much considering how popular this movie is, and I’m so glad you enjoyed the theme-style structure. Thank you so much for watching!!
Thank you SO MUCH for this thoughtful and insighful analysis of this movie. I loved it, and even more so once I read your analysis.
Omg thank you! The video is my pleasure, and I'm so glad you could find more enjoyment in the film. Thank you so much for watching!!
excellent analysis/explanation. Now i want to see it again!
Thanks Lucas.
Thank you so much!! Yeah, the second time around was so much better of an experience for me, I think you'll notice a lot of new things beyond my video. Thank you so much for watching!!
Thank you for the well constructed analysis of the film. I watched it over the weekend and have not been able to get it out of my mind. It's a troubling, but rich film. I've been reading the comments about Peter. I agree with the idea that Peter is clinical, but I think he also is responding to expectations of masculinity when he asks For what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? If I did not save her?”
Thank you! I'm so glad you enjoyed!! And yeah, I totally agree with you, his character seems to bend and jab the expectations of a man including the line you've mentioned and the line where he says, "what kind of man would I be if I listened to my mother?" (something like that). He's really a fantastic character, thank you so much for watching!!
I couldn't agree more with your amazing analysis . And what great voice you have, Lucas!
Thank you!! It's really cool to hear we agree since this movie has so many interpretations and details. And I'm super glad you enjoy my voice haha thank you again so much!!
Thanks for taking the time to analyise- made my experience of this film so much richer!
My pleasure! Thank you so much for watching!!
I wish I had the time and fortitude to watch the film twice. I think it's an excellent, all-around really beautifully done film!! I'm glad that you did though, because you actually have the ability to, in my opinion, correctly interpret this film 👍😊 I come here from a couple of other videos trying to interpret this movie... that left me completely unsatisfied. Of course, this is an intentionally ambiguous film and could have many interpretations, but I appreciate the way that you deeply paid attention and thought it through in this way. Thank you! I feel like now I can understand this film, and, appreciate its context and perceptive commentary on the roots of toxic masculinity from an empathetic and deeply observant female perspective. And, I appreciate what i think you're saying about how sexuality, masculinity and dominance are not synonymous. What i am seeing is perhaps, all males, whether gay or straight, feel under the pressures of "the dog" that in order to be valued as men, they have to be dominant and invulnerable, when, in reality and ultimately, this is a lonely and empty, and, has nothing to do with being a true, good, and, powerful-from-within man, gay or hetero. To me, the character of Peter shows about being a man of power from within, because clearly, from the outside, he shouldn't have been seen in this way due to his effeminate and not-traditionally accepted ways of being a man, a gay man.
You put it perfectly, I love how you highlighted how it's about men in general (gay or straight). All men are faced with the pressure (whether from family, society, or their community) to be a certain kind of man. Like you said, the film really earns our empathy for toxic masculinity. It excels tremendously in that way. I'm so glad you could enjoy this video! Thank you so much for your great insight and for watching!!
Kinda the "coolest" thing about the movie (novel too?) is how Psalm 22:20 is worked into the conclusion:
*_"Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling (my precious life) from the power of the dog"_*
_"In the most general sense, Psalm 22 is about a person who is crying out to God to save him from the taunts and torments of his enemies, and (in the last ten verses) thanking God for rescuing him."_
In that regard, the characters Rose and Peter are delivered from _"the dog"._ 💡
I'm so glad you mentioned this! I found this excerpt as well while I was doing my research, it really shows how the entire psalm, beyond just the verse, carries the message of the film, and (like you said) indicates how the story ends. The parallels are endless. Thank you so much for this and thank you so much for watching!!
@@lucasblue20
Yes, and within that "deliverance", I like that you pointed out that during the opening credits Peter (the son) is asking, *_"For what kind of man would I be if I did not help my mother? IF I did not save her?"_* ...from 'The Power of The Dog'. Their enemies.
Up to today, you are the only reviewer who I've come across who addresses that.
Right out the gate the themes of Psalms 22, David's tribulations, and aspects of Psalms 22:20 are coming into play in the story which will unfold.
Your review was thoughtful, insightful, scope filled, and great. 👍🏼
best explanation video! very clear and well edited. thank you!
This seriously means so much! It's always my goal to be as clear as possible with such complex material, so thank you!!
Hi Lucas.This powerful film cast a spell on me. I was so swept away I missed many details and clues. Your thoughtful analysis allowed me to make sense of it all.. You revealed the complexity of the characters and pulled all the strands together -- like making that rope I suppose. I loved this film, even more so after hearing your explanation. Much gratitude. PS I saw the dog.
Extremely helpful. I understood the movie the way Peter got at Phil but not the Bible verse. I thought it had meant to not underestimate things. Thank you for clarifying it and other parts.
So glad it was helpful! I had to do some research on the biblical references and it was crazy how much purpose the bible verse had. Thank you so much!!
I think there are important parallels between the killing of the rabbits and the killing of Phil. The first rabbit is killed, we'd like to think humanely, after it was cuddled and caressed--comforted and valued--before its death, which allows Peter to study what he needs to study to prepare for his chosen profession. It was a necessary death. Our hopes that it was humane are assured when he kills the second rabbit off screen, after comforting it very tenderly. Peter kills the rabbit swiftly and yes, humanely, because the rabbit cannot survive with a broken leg. Another necessary death. Phil indeed tells Peter to do what Peter knows needs to be done. Peter is the one person who sees that Phil cannot survive as he is. The comfort and caressing of the scene with the cigarette echoes with the fate of the rabbits: comforting, assuring of value, then necessary death. Peter was waiting for his opportunity to "help his mother" and he takes it, but not without showing the love and compassion that Phil craves and knew only with Bronco Henry. Phil knows the next morning what has happened, as he dresses himself in his clothes for the casket. He's strangely totally uncharacteristically calm and serene, wanting only to see Peter one last time.
Another insightful comment here. I wondered why Phil wore a suit to go to the doctor. He bathed and dressed for no one. Yes perhaps he knew something. And I also agree, Peter showed him some love and understanding, before what may have been a mercy killing, as well as a way to save his mother. So many layers to this film. I do think that it is a masterpiece. Using shorthand on plot points, and showing where relationships end up rather than detailing and explaining each step, is a certain kind of film-making. In this regard, and in the striking visuals, I was reminded of Terence Malick, and Days of Heaven.
And thank you for your analysis Lucas Blue. Best I have found. The film disturbed and stuck with me, so I needed to understand it better.
Best answer for this moment, although if this is the case, he knew the rope was deadly, so wanting to give it to Peter would be revenge, not gratitude.
absolutely wonderful. it‘s very satisfying to listen to someone truly understand a story.
I believe Peter has an antisocial or psychopathic personality. He coldly controlled and calculated his moves which were always self-serving. He exhibited no remorse. He was able to plan, wait, and pick his battles. He ignored the cowboys jeers but was that a class issue (they were beneath his station and not worthy of notice) or part of his narcissism. Yes, he ignored his mother's descent into alcoholism but without the stressor of Phil's disdain perhaps Peter thought her problems would resolve. Peter and Rose had a symbiotic, skewed relationship in the way they cared for and depended on one another. I don't think as some have suggested that Peter had either a schizoid personality or was on the spectrum. Check out that eye contact during the smoking scene, the relatedness, and the seduction. In addition, Peter was interested in learning/doing new activities when it served his plan. So, I don't think he fits criteria for these disorders. This film is absolutely great! So disturbing. I've never commented on a site like this, and this time, I felt compelled to do so. Thanks Lucas Blue!
I love your insights so much, your comment gives me a new angle on Peter and his intentions that I didn't consider, even after reading so many of the comments before yours, so thank you so much for this! And I'm extremely glad the video compelled you to share your thoughts, they're great! Thank you so much for watching!!
You are totally correct
Well said, Brenda. What do you think was going on in that scene where she's drunk, on her knees, telling him the stars are reachable! Please! grasping his face. He holds her hands away. "You don't have to do this, Mother." Is that behavior that was new to him, or something he was weary of? Or was he just saying "you don't have to fight it, I'll do the fighting"? I can't figure that scene out.
Totally agree with the smoking scene as Peter's ultimate seduction of Phil. The steadiness of his gaze, the oral sharing. In old movies, smoking was often used as a stand-in for sex.
A person on the spectrum can very well look at others in the eyes and act seductive. Its called masking. Yeah its not natural, but we can mimick those behaviors because we know what they are suppose to look like. Its just not sustainable 100% of the time because it demands so much energy (like playing a character) but for an evening? Absouletely.
There is a very subdued comment from Peter when his mother picks him up from school for the summer. Peter says he has made a friend who calls him Doctor and he calls Professor as that is what they both intend to be. When his mother suggests that Peter invite his friend to the ranch for a visit, Peter reacts that he doesn't want to expose his friend to Phil. I think that Peter had already had his sexual life experience and wanted to protect that for himself after all the ridicule from Phil in the past. Also, when Peter and Phil begin smoking and passing the cigarette back and forth, Peter is not coughing...suggesting he has already had that experience.
This is also in the book. A very intense friendship
And how is part of a sexual conversation between closeted men in hostile culture.
Excellent analysis, Lucas Blue. Thank you so much! 💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾
Thank you so much, it's my pleasure! And thank you so much for watching!!
Your profound insights were so thorough. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Wow thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Thank you for watching!!
I watched this movie because of all the great reviews. I agree this movie is really good and hopefully it will age well. My first observation is that a person will get out of this as much, or as little as they want. If you watch this movie in a casual way because you have nothing else to do you will miss a ton of things. You'll enjoy it because of the acting, but you won't see everthing the story has to offer, which is what makes this movie special.
1,000% agree with you. For a film like this, the more attention you put in, the more enjoyment you get out
Thank you - made me love the movie even more - Jane is a lifetime genius film maker - her nuances and what she is able to glean from her cast are incredible - we’d pretty much had the ending sorted but this added a layer - going for a second screening to just ‘sit’ in it 👍
Yeaaah it's really worth the second screening! Like you said, there's so much nuance and subtlety with this filmmaker, so there always something new to learn with a rewatch. And thank you so much for your kind words, the video is my pleasure!
Just discovered your channel, amazing work, thank you for sharing, look forward to more 👍
Thank you so much, this really means a lot! Plenty more to come every week!!
Great analysis. Exactly what I came to after watching the movie a second time. I had an understanding of what had happened at the very end after watching it once. But I was compelled to watch it again to confirm all the nuances I had missed the first time. Such a great movie. Tough and emotionally violent on the surface, yet sensitive and deep when the layers are pulled back.
Bronco Henry , that name is so hilarious to me
i was shocked and I needed to watch scene by scene . I missed so much ... It was stunning . made you wonder if people do get away with crimes like that and that he was going to be a Dr . creeped me out . Phil had a soft side deep inside and Peter was a psychopath hidden well until the last minutes ....
You are right about Peter being a psychopath. Just viewing what happened to Phil as getting what he deserved is way over simplistic and not, in my view, what Jane Champion was going for.
I agree that Peter may well come across somewhat psychopathic, but when you listen to what he tells Phil about his father as the story unfolds & that Peter's father was an alcoholic, you get the idea that Peter & his mother Rose may have suffered somewhat at his hands. Seeing Peter is also studying to be a doctor he clearly has no problem with dissecting animals or being exposed to the inner workings of the body as anybody studying to be a Dr wouldn't. But I think Peter may also have had a lot of knowledge seeing his father was also a doctor so he would've known how to go about doing what he needed to do if the need be especially when it came to protecting his mother. Phil comes across as being disturbed by the fact he had to hide who he truly was so he wouldn't be ostracised but he went about it the wrong way hiding it by being abusive & rude so it backfired on him especially when he tried to turn Peter against his mother when he went off abusively about Rose in the barn accusing her of being a drunk & scheming after she gave the hides away. Phil made no effort to accept his brothers wife & even though Peter was a young man, he was clever & probably the one that was scheming between him & his mother Rose because he made sure he took care of his mother his way by removing anything or one that threatened her happiness.
Thank you for posting this! Excellent analysis!❤❤
My pleasure! I'm so glad you enjoyed!! Thank you!!
Great overview. So glad to have found this channel.
While watching the movie I could feel such an uneasy tension. And was getting irritated at the plot for being so slow and almost stale at times. Like where the hell is this movie going? Almost Like watching a piece of rope being slowly made.. but then, the final arch played out and it really tied everything together.
side note: In a way Peter may have unintentionally saved himself from being victimized by Phil. It was hinted at that Phil was lovers with Bronco Henry, and had met him when he was Peter’s age. So I can imagine he was potentially groomed by him. And it’s known that sometimes the abused become the abusers themselves. And Phil seemed to be slowly becoming infatuated by Peter, as he kept mentioning that he reminded him of Bronco Henry. I don’t think the movie intended for it be seen this way though
Great great analysis thank you!
Watched the film yesterday and Im still digesting it. I was left wondering if it was really necessary for Peter to kill Phil, in the end its a murder after all! Phil was horrible but not a murderer, so if you think about it is not ok. But im guessing Peter didnt have a choice, since maybe if they kept their relationship to promote peace at the household, Phil wouldve pushed sexual encounters (which I think Peter really didnt wanted) and maybe he wouldve continued to torture his mother. Also Peter and Rose could have left, but Peter was also suffering to see his mother working so hard and he wanted a “mansion with cleaners for her”. Im feeling Peter concluded this was the only way and its very chilling that he proceeded to do it. He became the dog with most power but in the end, a monster because of what he has done.
This analysis is so well done, subscribed before the video ended!
Wow thank you so much my friend! I'm so glad you enjoyed, and new videos every week now!!
Man you just nailed it !!! I loved the movie, Jane Campion is a genius, but the casting the actors and Montana as a backdrop just combine to shine. Thanks very much. I hope it wins.
As an addendum to my prior comment about Peter having killed before, we really do not know the sexuality of Peter's inner desires, whether gay or straight or other? The only sexual visual we have in the movie about Peter was him using all his energy and frustration twirling a hula hoop as a result of his anxiety regarding Phil being so abusive and mean. Once again, this movie seems to connect Peter's character to that of Norman Bates in "Psycho."
My one question about how the "plot" played out is: At what point did Peter actually plan the murder?
Certainly he did some long-term prep, like skinning the diseased cow, but then the one trait shown previously was his penchant for scientific exploration -- trapping, then killing and dissecting the rabbit -- so skinning the cow could have just been more of that. He may have kept the hide for further exploration of anthrax, not necessarily as the way he would kill Phil.
Certain plot points moved along his opportunity to do in Phil, but he couldn't have planned on those: Phil cutting his hand, his mother giving away the hides (so Peter's diseased hide, the only one left, became the vehicle for the anthrax poisoning), Phil's insistence on making the rope. Did Peter plan the whole murder all along, or did he just see the opportunity open up?
Also, the cigarette scene: Peter holding it and passing it to Phil, in a seductive move, kept Phil focussed on completing the rope, in a kind of reverie -- had Bronco Henry made one for Phil?
Great analysis, love this video. All the subtle layers are what make this an astonishing movie.
At about two thirds of the movie, right after the scene wher Peters mother tells him about unreachable stars and comb noises, Peter assures his mother that he would make her life change. I guess that's the point where he decides to murder Phil. In the next scene he's reading the book on the page with the bleeding hand, then he's learning to ride horses and goes on his trip to the deceased cow.
So well done. You just completely opened up this movie for me. Gonna rewatch now.
By far the best and most incisive review I have seen about this extraordinary film.
MAJOR SPOILERS...My problem with the film is that there is one fundamental theme that goes way beyond the issue of sexuality, and that is, Peter is a psychopath! It was Bates Motel stuff, he was emotionless. I think he even killed his own father. The only question that remained for me at the end was when he turned away from the window smiling is, was he thinking, "killing George is going to be a doddle". To me he is asexual, even in the scenes with Phil, Peter is just playing with him as a child would play with a spider that he's going to pull the legs off of!! I see Peter bein gs dismissive of men as he is of women.
And Goliath was a Philastine....which is why Phil is named "Phil!" Wow.
That is a sharp observation haha props
WOW!! Fantastic review, just stellar. You noticed everything I did and I'm thrilled to feel a connection with someone over this movie . I actually have a friend who is so like Peter. I haven't had a chance to talk to him about this film. For some reason I missed the script passage and so thank you for explaining the title. You've done a great job. Really enjoyed this analysis of The Power of The Dog!
Watched it last night. Great acting, superbly written, and the cinematography was beautiful. So why was it less than the sum of of its parts?
I love this question because there seems to be really high praise from some people but also feelings of boredom from many other viewers. I enjoyed the movie much more upon second viewing but I completely understand the question. I have an answer for your question but I wanna think it through a little more. I’ll get back to you tomorrow surely, thank you for this!
@@lucasblue20 I’m interested in your answer and in the meantime I might give the movie a second viewing. I completely understand where the praise comes from and I remember admiring those points mentioned in my first comment while at the same time wondering, so many strengths yet there’s no there, there?
One huge disappointment I felt by the end was the relationship between Phil and Peter had the potential to be something extraordinarily beautiful or tragic. But as the depth of their relationship was beginning to be explored Peter poisons Phil and he dies. WTF?
@@firewithfire848 My thoughts on this.
1) Benedict C wasn't the best actor for this role. Someone more traditionally masculine like Tom Hardy works better. Benedict's expressions feel calculative, not 'alpha'.
2) Phil's emotional abuse of Rose wasn't engaging, it needed more nastiness. Then Peter's revenge would have cathartic impact.
3) Generally lacked the authenticity of Ranchers doing rancher things.
@@IMFLondon Your first two points are good and I can agree with both. I've never worked on a ranch so I don't know the difference and I'll take your word for it, plus your's is the second comment I've read that questions the ranches authenticity.
@Kevin Shipp ok so I've gathered my thoughts. I feel like this is gonna be long. So first of all, I really enjoyed this movie. I think it's fantastic in countless ways. But do I think it's on the level of other slow heavily-thematic classics like There Will Be Blood, The Godfather, and No Country For Old Men? I don't. For me at this moment, the movie to me is great, but there are a few others I've seen this year that I enjoy more. So my reasoning for this is I think the film moves a little too fast over some of the most meaningful milestones in the story. I feel like the film could have spent more time showing us how George and Rose were falling in love. I also feel like we could have seen a slower, more thorough progression of Phil's shift from hating Peter to being inspired by Peter (more scenes like the one where Peter walks through the mocking men with his head high in front of Phil). I also think the film could have shown Phil's hatred for Rose on a more intimate, personal level. So overall, since the novel is so dense, I think the film tries to cover a lot of ground in just 2 hours when it had the technical excellence to carry a 2.5-hour or 3-hour slow burn story like the Godfather. It made the film feel a little cold and disconnected from the viewer. It often felt like I was observing excellence rather than feeling excellence, being touched by excellence. I feel like with a more ambitious run-time and more intimate development of the characters' emotions and motivations, we would connect a lot more with the characters and really feel like we're living in the house with them, and feel their emotions so much more. So yeah, I loved so much about this film, but those were the things I thought would have made it a modern classic that I would watch once a week for the next 2 months haha but hey, you never know, I'm sure I'll see this movie a third time sooner or later, and it may all just hit me at once that it is classic-level. Time will tell. That's the beauty of film. I hope this wasn't too long haha thank you so much for reading! And for your question!!
I wonder if Peter and his mother killed Peter's father, and the look on Peters face at the end may be indicative that he will kill any man in his mothers life, but maybe not. I totally agree with everything else you point out about this film. Thanks for the analysis 👍
In the book, Peter's father was actually driven to suicide by PHIL.
Anytime, thank you!!
I think Peter is only about 7 when his father dies in the book
Well said. Great analysis! Amazing film from Jane Campion.
Thank you!! And yeah, the film was fantastic in so many ways, thank you so much for watching!!
Thank you for this thorough analysis/translation/interpretation. I had to watch this film in two sessions as I found it dark, ominous, brutal and uncomfotable. I literally forced myself to finish it. I believe that your explanation is spot on! The film is very masterfully done cinematically, in direction, acting and score and I can now appreciate it in a more complex manner. I have to say, that of the group of Oscar nominees, this would not be my pick for best film but understand why it is nominated.
Maybe Peter wanted to kill Phil from the moment Phil burned the beautiful flowers he made. Then, at the ranch Phil calls the dog away from Peter when Peter was happily playing with it. Could have been self centered desire to get rid of Phil. At the end he is playing with the dog. The power of the dog.
There's no reason to watch another explanation of this movie because you did this perfectly. It's obvious that we know that Pete is gay and you find out that Phil is gay when Pete discovers those pictures. What you did great was explaining how Phil needed to start a relationship with Pete because it reminded him of his relationship with Bill. In my mind I thought that Phil was going to hurt or even kill Pete because Pete obviously figured out that he was gay. But what you learn is that Pete is the dominant one as you said and had full control and knew exactly what he was doing. You feel bad for Phil because he was opening up and and being a nice person finally but his dislike for his mom was obviously something that Pete was not going to stand for. Hence the reason he killed him.
I actually thought that Phil befriended Peter to taunt his mother further. He knew that Rose did not like Peter being in his company and he spent as much time with him to push Rose into further agony. His apparent liking of Peter later on to me was just a byproduct of initial intent which had nothing to do with actually liking Peter.