BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » The Power of the Dog

Scarlaty82 · December 17, 2021 11:33 pm

Gordon was the boy's father who took his life sometimes ago.
After seing the movie, I bought the book, very interesting indeed.
The story was inspired by writer's life , not the end obviously, and it feels like he was a bit admiring Phil as a brilliant man , strong and brave , despite the fact he is also a toxic male.
A bit different from the movie where all what he does is to protect his mother in an extreme way. At l'East. it's how I feel it.
Not many movies make me think like this one.
Brilliant and the cast is great.
Like some of you, I stay away from close places, so Netflix it is and it's a pity considering the beautiful landscape.

besleybean · December 18, 2021 7:14 am

Oh yes, sorry, mental blip there.
Yes, I too rather took tot Phil the Classicist.
Yep, a real thinker this one.

Scarlaty82 · December 18, 2021 9:31 am

I am appaled by my orthographic errors due to the spellchecker and my own mistakes.🙄
I think I was influenced by the fact Benedict plays Phil, but even if he was basically a bad person, he spent a life of frustration because the beginning of XXe century and the country where he lived didn't allow to be different. So, I feel sad for the character and was shocked by the end I didn't see coming.
And even if Peter acted for his mother's happiness, he seemed to me too cold and heartless. His father was right when he said he has to learn to be kind which he isn't obviously.

besleybean · December 18, 2021 9:52 am

I try to be all encompassing and generous in my judgement of these characters:
dysfunctional families and damaged people, plus so much mourning of lost loves...
I also don't want to go down the 'mental health psycho' route...
but shall we at least agree that Peter was on The Spectrum?
( I am deliberately trying to write as little spoilery as possible!)
To be honest: Peter quickly saw there was one obstacle to everybody else's happiness and he simply removed the obstacle.
Quite frankly, nobody seemed to miss The Obstacle and all got on with their lives without it...

Liberty · December 19, 2021 6:44 pm

Gordon is Peter's surname, isn't it? There's quite a bit of backstory on the family in the book, covering years. I can't judge because of seeing the film first, but I did prefer the pared down film, I think. Both Peter's dad and Bronco Henry are only there in memory.

Scarlaty82 · December 19, 2021 9:20 pm

besleybean wrote:
I try to be all encompassing and generous in my judgement of these characters:
dysfunctional families and damaged people, plus so much mourning of lost loves...
I also don't want to go down the 'mental health psycho' route...
but shall we at least agree that Peter was on The Spectrum?
( I am deliberately trying to write as little spoilery as possible!)
To be honest: Peter quickly saw there was one obstacle to everybody else's happiness and he simply removed the obstacle.
Quite frankly, nobody seemed to miss The Obstacle and all got on with their lives without it...

Yes, I agree for Peter.
And I was also shocked that neither his brother who has been close to him all his life nor the parents seemed very sad.
Bad exemple for the boy which seems to me not the best man to be a doctor.

besleybean · December 20, 2021 6:25 am

On the contrary, I think he has the makings of being an excellent doctor in general and surgeon in particular.
You have to be able to avoid becoming emotionally involved with patients.
Peter will manage that just fine.

Last edited by besleybean (December 20, 2021 7:25 am)

Scarlaty82 · December 20, 2021 7:24 am

Perhaps it’s why my friends say I live in Candy Land ( le pays des Bisounours in french) but I think kindness ( in french we say " bienveillance") is hightly recommanded for a doctor. I was a nurse and worked with different ones and I can say that kindness can go with efficience and ability. And it’s clearly a plus for patients’s recovery.
We clearly are off topic there so I stop here.
Take care of yourselves.

besleybean · December 20, 2021 7:26 am

To try and get back on topic!
I did think it was good that Phil eventually recognises that the education money is better spent on Peter, rather than being wasted on George.

Liberty · December 20, 2021 1:28 pm

Spoiler alert (I won't hide it as the film has been out on streaming for a while now).!

Interesting points you are all raising about Peter. He's a bit of an enigma, but I think it's strongly implied (at least by him!) that what he does is motivated by compassion and care for his mother, which is really quite "doctorly". Disection of the bunny seems psychopathic, but it's funny that it's taking place on a ranch, where animals are being butchered, and of course especially in those days, animals were harmed in the making of medical science and in the education of medics. It's quite a reasonable thing for him to do, and he's emulating his father.

I think it's important also that Peter has lost his father (fairly recently?) to suicide, and sees Phil's actions causing his mother's alcoholism and deterioration of her mental health. What he did may literally save his mother's life. I've rewatched the later scenes and I do think he feels compassion for Phil, but Phil is driving Rose to her death, and I suppose it ends up being a clear, practical choice. Maybe being too strong and not kind enough got the job done.

Scarlaty82 · December 20, 2021 5:09 pm

I know that animals are used for research but the way he put him in his mother's arms and cuddled him and then dissect him, it was at least surprising.
And for his mother, of course he wants her to be safe and happy but may be other ways were possible. Even if George is part of the ranch, he could live in his own house, away from Phil.
Frankly, I found the boy cold and ruthless.
But everyone is happy in the end so...😐

Liberty · December 20, 2021 6:22 pm

Yes, and maybe he is cold and ruthless, and not "kind". To be honest, I couldn't decide, which is maybe one thing I like about the film! But I lean towards feeling more warmly about him. That may change when I finish the book. Yes, I agree that it was odd that he acted kindly towards the rabbit, and particularly odd that he didn't think of his mum's feelings there (and that she didn't understand his intentions and sent the maid up). But .... we don't see Rose getting upset over the rabbit, and it's maybe not any more odd than people being kind to farm animals that they're going to kill later.

I'm not actually sure there were many other possible ways to keep his mum safe. Peter has no control over George, and George seems nice enough but doesn't really do much to help Rose that I can remember. If anything he inadvertently makes things worse at times.

Yes, they are happy at the end, apart from Phil, obviously. I think very muted grief from his family made me feel for him more - really quite a sad life mourning a lost love, putting the barriers up, his almost dependence on the brother that doesn't need him any more, and the first really meaningful connection in 25 years turning out to be with

somebody planning to murder him.

besleybean · December 20, 2021 6:27 pm

Yep, tragic al round...

Yitzock · February 23, 2022 3:57 pm

I finally got around to watching this film over the weekend. I enjoyed it, so many beautiful images, and I definitely needed some time to think about what I had seen. I have enjoyed reading through the discussion you have already had, here, as well.
I remember reading a review for it in the newspaper when it first came out and got the impression that Benedict's character would be cruel, violent, and completely reprehensible. But watching the film, while he did have his mean moments and displayed some ideas about toxic masculinity, I also found him compelling, tragic, and lonely. I actually found it kind of exciting that he was not very interested in integrating with the rest of society and its norms (not wanting to wash or dress up for anyone, just dressing like a cowhand all the time because that was his world). It made the ending, when he loses complete agency over his body and first has to dress up to go into town to see the doctor, then what happens after... it felt so violent and upsetting to me.
I saw the nature of his relationship with Bronco Henry pretty much from the start (I'm asexual, but that scene where he's taking care of the saddle seemed pretty erotic to me!), and at first I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a surprise that was revealed later on or not (Peter finding the muscle magazines seemed like a "reveal" moment, but as I think about it I don't think it's supposed to be a big revelation in that moment, though I suppose it is a confirmation of something that's otherwise never put in completely explicit terms).
I have to say it took me some time to figure out what had happened in the end, that Peter was the reason Phil got sick. I was watching Peter and finding him interesting, but not always being sure what he was thinking or why he was doing what he was doing (with the dead cow, offering the hides). And then last night I replayed those moments that I made the connection! I remember also being puzzled by that line mentioned by one of you, about Peter's father saying he's not kind enough. He came across as so genuinely "soft" throughout the movie, it's interesting to consider how much of that might have been an act, or at the very least his own surface persona that covers something harsher (in contrast to Phil's exterior, which hides his emotional pain).
I believe it was Liberty who, in spoiler tags, listed off different imagery. I hadn't thought about the parallel between Rose's gloves she gets in exchange for the hides and the gloves Peter wears, but that is an interesting one! Definitely a lot of images to think about, which I like.
I won't be surprised if there will be writing about this film in conjunction with Brokeback Mountain. Those films are pretty different in other ways, but both examine masculinity through the lens of modern Western setting. I'm not a big fan of classic Western films, but I like those two contemporary films that use the setting (though not the same sort of plots), I suppose because of its association with a rugged setting run by rugged men, to consider norms/expectations of masculinity and their limitations, and the facades that people put up to try to protect themselves from others, whether they work or not.

Liberty · February 24, 2022 12:15 pm

Funny that you should mention Brokeback Mountain: I was just rewatching it last night! Yes, definitely interesting parallels with the Western setting and the takes on masculinity and so on ... both of them with so much under the surface that isn't talked about.

Spoilers follow, as the film has been out a while now!

I agree with you that the relationship with Bronco Henry wasn't much of a reveal: completely agree about the saddle scene and I think we were meant to pick up on that. I did think it was strange and interesting that Phil is clearly homophobic and closeted, but he makes his love for Bronco very obvious, rather than hiding it he can't stop talking about him (leaving out the sex, obviously)! I wondered if he (and probably the others around him) thought a relationship between two masculine men like that was something different and not really gay. It did remind me of how Ennis compartmentalises his relationship with Jack in Brokeback Mountain, and tries to see it as something other than two gay men in love. Phil never seems to make any moves towards the other men, in fact, actively avoids them and instead of watching the naked men or using the muscle mags, thinks only thinks of Bronco when masturbating: maybe because he's his one true love, but also maybe because he doesn't see himself as gay and sees this relationship as a unique thing. (Although the muscle mags are a bit of a giveaway that Bronco, at least, was interested in men in general, not just Phil!).

I'm not sure Peter does come across as soft. I think Phil maybe initially chooses to see him that way. He's not afraid to say he made the flowers in the beginning (I think maybe a softer person might have avoided mentioning that!). With the rabbit in particular, he can be gentle and caring, but just as easily kill it when he needs it for vivisection. He's quite determined about learning to ride, and rides out on what seems a bit of a dangerous journey to get samples from the diseased cow. Phil possibly looks surprised when Peter efficiently puts the injured rabbit out of its misery later on (little expecting just how good he is at putting creatures out of their misery!!).

I can't remember if I mentioned here, but I went on to read the book, mostly skim reading, but it was very interesting as written from characters' perspectives, including Phil's. He does come across as worse in the book, I think, as so clearly homophobic and racist, and if I remember, had a hand in driving Peter's father to suicide. But I agree with you that Benedict's portrayal is sympathetic. He is very childlike in some ways, locked in that happy time of his youth, and dreading the loss of his brother. I think he genuinely comes to care for Peter a lot and respect him.

The book has a very interesting endword by Annie Proulx (author of Brokeback Mountain). She says that a lot of the story is based on Savage's own experience. There really was a "Phil" (his mother's husband's brother) who acted like that, and he really did die of anthrax poisoning! That makes me think that Peter was gay (as the writer was): I wasn't sure watching the film if he was or not.

Yitzock · February 24, 2022 11:26 pm

Brokeback was one of the films I wrote about for my Master's, so it's often on my mind in discussions of masculinity on film, and especially when watching The Power of the Dog.
True, in a lot of ways Peter is not "soft." I guess he's in touch with his softer and more artistic side, but also his... not so soft side. Just goes to show that masculinity isn't just black and white, with completely soft and gentle on one side and completely tough on the other side. But I think, like Phil, I saw only that surface exterior initially, his quiet way of speaking and his slight frame, his ability to create delicate paper flowers.

Yes, I picked up on Phil's apparent avoidance of seeing the other men naked, not wanting to wash with them or engage in their playful behaviour while doing that. The only time we really seem physically close with another man (other than some moments with Peter) is that one moment in the barn where he and another man are working (on a hide or something -- I can't remember exactly what they were doing) and the one man is leaning over him, his hand on him. The camera held on them in that moment, and they paused as if they were being caught doing something they didn't want to be seen doing, even though there was no particular relationship portrayed between him and that ranch hand at any other point. Almost like a "false alarm" situation or something, I'm not sure. I guess there's certain elements of the cowboy life, like the moment in the tent Phil talks about where Henry kept him warm, where physical proximity is normal, maybe wouldn't be seen as gay, an accepted homosocial environment. Although at the same time, at least from the 1950s onwards, I guess, I think some people would have anxiety about "gay behavior" breaking the "purity" of such an environment. I think maybe I'm starting to spitball ideas, here.

Liberty · February 26, 2022 9:14 pm

I think I know the scene you mean! I wasn't sure what was going on there: I thought Phil and the others were trying to exclude George and make him feel uncomfortable. They don't leave until Phil tells them to, and I thought it was a sign that they respected Phil and not George. But the book has a different take:
"... still they weren't comfortable in the bunkhouse if George was abroad; he had a queer authority without even knowing it, an ability to upset you, maybe because he so seldom opened his talker and his silence mad you look in upon yourself, on the guilt you always knew was there." This is from Phil's point of view, so might say more about what he feels about George than the men do. I think maybe the film did show this, but I just didn't pick up on it.

I remember in Brokeback Mountain there was a hint that Jack had had an affair the previous summer, and there was a feeling that it was possible for men to be physically intimate (as you mention with Bronco) as long as they were two masculine men seeking release and didn't actually fancy each other. I always thought it took an awful lot of courage for men to be openly gay back when it was less acceptable (and positively dangerous). So acting effeminately is kind of the opposite of soft.

Really interesting that you wrote about Brokeback for your Masters! You must have a deep insight into these themes. It just occured to me that as well as masculinity and sexuality there issues of class, in a way, in both. I remember Annie Proulx reminding people that they were not cowboys! They were intinerant low paid workers -Jack maybe goes up a bit class-wise as he has a ranch to inherit (or would have done) and marries into a bit of a money, whereas Ennis is always in a backwater struggling to make ends meet. Then in Power of the Dog, Phil is such a snob about Rose. And doctors (quite a respected profession nowadays) seem to be looked down. Phil is one of the lads, but way above them in wealth and status. I also thought it was interesting that Phil was very highly educated. Ennis had to leave school early for financial reasons.

Yitzock · March 1, 2022 8:46 pm

Interesting quote from the book. I don't think I remember who George is or the circumstances around the scene, I just remember that image of Phil and the other character.

Yes, class definitely plays into Brokeback, though until you mentioned it I hadn't really thought about it in The Power of the Dog, other than when those people come to visit and they ask Phil to join them and dress up and he refuses, preferring his work clothes and chaps. Like I mentioned before, in a way I kind of admired his unwillingness to change his presentation to suit others. When he had to put on a suit to go into town to see the doctor, I felt so uncomfortable because of how uncomfortable he seemed, so not himself (and Benedict, when he's himself or playing other characters, can look great in a suit). But I had forgotten about Phil being educated and that he was of higher status than the men he works with. Or hadn't given it much thought.

Liberty · March 3, 2022 12:33 pm

George was Jess Plemons character, Phil's brother: if I'm thinking of the right scene! You Phil and the other guy looked like they'd been caught out doing something, so I think you picked up on something I missed: that George makes Phil feel guilty.

Yes, the clothes are so interesting. Those chaps and the kind of ostentatious but awkward way he strode about in them! I like your point about him having to be "not himself" as he goes to his death. Yes, there's a kind of reluctance to change to suit others, but at the same time he's hiding his true self. His usual clothes are part of an act too.

I think by refusing to wash and change for guests, he's very much making a point rather than just being himself. And he still turns up after the dinner to reinforce that point and specifically to humiliate Rose!

I just thought of an other parallel with Brokeback Mountain, in that in both cases the main characters are looking back to an idyllic time that can never be recreated. In Ennis's case because of his desparate attempts to deny that they are gay, and Phil's case, maybe a bit of that as well along with the fact that Bronco Henry is dead. I think Phil is maybe hoping to recreate it with Peter. Twenty years of longing.

Yitzock · March 3, 2022 4:43 pm

Oh, right! I forgot Jesse Plemons' character's name.

Yes, I suppose it isn't just about him being himself when he reuses to wash and change for the guests, but his whole being is a challenge for Rose. And you're right, even the clothes he seems most comfortable in are part of an act, but it seems that there's no other option for him in the life that he is chosen. It's the best he can find.

Good point about wanting to recreate something past that has been lost forever. I think that's a theme that comes up somewhat frequently in films and literature (like in Vertigo here, though that's in a more twisted form of course, or even The Great Gatsby) where people have this brief period in the past where something really amazing or significant happens to them, and after it's over they want to recreate what they believe to have been a better time, even though they can't (because they've changed, other people have changed, the world has changed, or the person they love is simply gone forever). I think maybe it's a major human characteristic (or flaw). But in Brokeback and The Power of the Dog I guess those things are complicated by the fact that the characters don't feel they can be completely open about those feelings, because of pressures pushed on them to conform to certain ideas of what a man in their profession is supposed to be. So even when they had what they had, it couldn't be for as long as they would have wanted it to be, or made more difficult by having to be secretive about it.