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

Liberty · March 4, 2022 9:08 am

Oh, I've just realised I can copy and paste from Kindle, so here are a couple of pieces I had highlighted when reading!

‘And Peter, please don’t say it quite like that. Most who don’t mind — most of them grow hard, get hard. You must be kind, you must be kind. I think the man you will become could hurt people terribly, because you’re strong. Do you understand kindness, Peter?’ ‘I’m not sure whether I do, father.’ ‘Well, then. To be kind is to try to remove obstacles in the way of those who love or need you.’ ‘I understand that.’ Johnny sucked in his lips again. ‘I’ve always been something of an obstacle, Peter. But now I feel good. Thank you for understanding. And so now I’m going to go.’

This is what Peter's father says to him directly before he takes his own life. It's alluded to in the conversation with Phil after killing the rabbit in the film, but I think it's more direct here about what Peter's father said to him, and about what Peter saw as his role in protecting Rose.

‘Well, to get back. I think what a man needs is odds against him.’ Peter’s knees were drawn up with his arm around them. ‘My father said, obstacles. And you had to remove them.’

And at the end, after Phil's death, when Peter watches George and Rose from the window.

What but for this, this playing of a scene in the moonlight that marked the true beginning of his mother’s life, what but for this had his father removed himself — sacrificed himself to lie under that other hill, in Beech, under a handful of paper flowers, faithful to his own book of dreams?

This one gives a bit of background on Bronco Henry's death and Phil's feelings towards Peter (and what he thinks Peter feels towards him):

The boy wanted to become him, to merge with him as Phil had only once before wanted to become one with someone, and that one was gone, trampled to death while Phil, twenty years old, watched from the top rail of the bronc corral. Ah, God, but Phil had almost forgot what the touch of a hand will do, and his heart counted the seconds that Peter’s was on him and rejoiced at the quality of the pressure. It told him what his heart required to know.

Interesting what you say about that longing for a past time being a common theme in films. I also thought it was interesting that Phil was so young when Bronco died, that his relationship with him had been as a teenager with a very much older man, and that what he was mourning had never really been an equal adult relationship. Also that Phil had watched Bronco die, which must have been incredibly traumatic. As was Peter finding his father's body and having to tell his mother.

Last edited by Liberty (March 4, 2022 9:09 am)

Yitzock · March 4, 2022 4:10 pm

Those are great quotes! Thank you for sharing them.

The one about obstacles really makes plain what Peter is thinking about Phil, that Phil is an obstacle in his mother's way that he needs to get rid of for her well-being.

As for the age Phil was when he had the relationship with Bronco Henry, I think it makes sense that it would have affected him so strongly because he was so young, especially if it ended with his death in an abrupt and traumatic way. Does the book say how many years after the relationship started that that had happened? You mentioned he would have been a teenager when it started.
Do you think losing him is portrayed as an event that affect Phil's trajectory in life, no just in terms of how he presents himself to the world and deals with others, but why he ends up working with cattle? Or is it just the only thing he would have ended up doing because of the rural setting?

Liberty · March 5, 2022 7:53 am

Oh great, thoughts, Yitzock!
I think the film replaced some of the background, including Peter's conversation with his father, by that first line that Peter speaks in voiceover at the beginning. I do think condensing the time works better in the film, but I like that they also add in that heads up right at the beginning! Otherwise I might not have picked up on what happened at the end. Or that this is Peter's story, mainly.

I don't think the book specifies when the relationship started, but that Bronco was around when they were children, and you get the impression that the relationship was more than friends for a while.

Yes, I do think that the relationship affected Phil's life in that way! I'm not sure, but I do feel he constantly thinks of Bronco and wants to feel close to him by working with the cattle, oiling the saddle, etc. I don't think there was any need to work on the ranch like that. George didn't. Their parents didn't. And the brothers were very well off, I think. Hence being able to burn the cattle hides rather than sell them. Phil was very well read, educated, intelligent, cultured, so the way he presents himself is "a choice" as they would say nowadays! Without Bronco Henry, I think he could have even have seemed more like Peter to start with, and may have taken quite a different route in life.

He's very much about recreating the past, I think, which is partly why he hates Rose so much. She is taking his brother away. The scene in the film (it's in the book, too, I think) where Phil frets because George isn't coming to bed was very good. A 40 year old man, who still needs to have his brother sleeping with him? Phil is so fragile and insecure, and clinging to the comfort blanket of an earlier time, I think.

Last edited by Liberty (March 5, 2022 7:54 am)

Yitzock · March 8, 2022 10:26 pm

I remember that line in the voiceover at the beginning and wondering what it was going to be, and then because I didn't fully understand what happened at the end until I had thought about it, I initially didn't really see how it came to fruition. But it is interesting to think of it as Peter's story instead of Phil, who perhaps gets our attention in a more overt way because of the way he acts. Peter kinds of sneaks up on us, the audience, in a similar way he sneaks up on Phil.

I think Phil wanting to recreate the past through his way of life makes sense. I had forgotten about the scene about him fretting from George not coming to bed at the same time as him. I think that would demonstrate insecurity and fragility.

I don't know if you've seen the minor "drama" or celebrity news about the actor Sam Elliot (admittedly not an actor whose work I'm very familiar with, though now I don't really care about becoming familiar) talking a bit about the film kind of randomly during an interview. He apparently was complaining about "allusions to homosexuality" in the movie (really? Just allusions?) and he just generally didn't get it. It was kind of annoying but also just kind of laughable.
Benedict seems to have responded to that during a panel, without naming Elliott, and I think what he said was fairly well phrased: "I think if we are to teach our sons to be feminists, if we're to teach equality, if we're to understand what poisons the well in men, [and] what creates toxic masculinity, we need to understand and look under the hood of characters like Phil Burbank to see what their struggle is and why that's there in the first place because otherwise it will just keep repeating itself."
I really think he gave Elliott's criticism a more thoughtful and gracious response than he really deserves, but I think it's still something that needs to be said. And I like that the film shows us these characters in a complex way, so that we can think about how they ended up the way they are, as we've been discussing here.

Liberty · March 9, 2022 8:32 am

Yes, it was actually quite funny as well! When he complains about "all these allusions to homosexuality throughout the f--ing movie" the interviewer says "I think that's what the movie's about"! I think you are right that he just didn't get it. He seemed to have particularly taken exception to a reviewers comment about it deconstructing the American myth or whatever, and being annoyed that it has been made in New Zealand. I don't think he realised that it was based on a book. And that there's a reason for Phil wearing chaps all the time - it just seems like any layers of meaning slipped by him. Didn't he notice that George dresses completely differently despite being in the same role as Phil? He also seemed to be basing his views on his own experiencing of ranching in the 21st century.

I like Benedict's comments - very true. I think it was always going to be difficult for Phil as a gay man in that setting, and there wasn't really any getting away from that. I think we've moved on from when being gay would have been seen as the problem, and now we can see it's homophobia and toxic masculinity that's the problem. But we still haven't quite got rid of those, as maybe Sam Eliot's comments help to illustrate!

Yes, I do think it's mainly Peter's story, but there are bits from other characters point of view in both film and book, and I think the book is maybe even more confusing as it goes so far back in the past! It's interesting that a lot is from Phil's point of view, though. Quite an unreliable narrator.

I was just thinking about Phil's choice to work on the ranch and emulate Bronco, and that it might not have been a bad one in some ways: he does seem to have some companionship with the other men, so although he's alone in his grief and longing, he does have friendships (and is able to talk about Bronco as much as he wants!). George, on the other hand, seems kind of lonely. As does Rose, and she finds that she doesn't have that camaraderie with the other women who work there. Peter is very much alone, and doesn't seem bothered by it, and I'm still not clear how much he actually cared for Phil and how much he hated him - either way, he was prepared to give up that connection (by murdering him!) to protect his mother, which I suppose was his closest relationship. Anyway, loneliness seems to be another theme.

Yitzock · March 9, 2022 4:56 pm

Yes, he probably wouldn't have said the same things if he knew it was based on a book, which was based on the writer's life experience. I agree, that his comments show that there are still people who don't see the flaws in expectations for men and the problems with national myths, who they ignore or the way they gloss over aspects of the truth (e.g. Hollywood westerns made the frontier seem like a place run by white men, when in reality there diversity in who there was there, including Black cowboys). Good point about ranching in the 21st century being his point of reference. It wouldn't be the same as in the past. The whole thing about filming in New Zealand was in particular funny to me because it's so common to film in a different place than one's setting, and New Zealand in particular has been used for a lot of different places. Canadian locations represent all kind of places as well, since a lot of productions come here for monetary reasons, the same reason people film in places like New Zealand.

I like your comments on loneliness. We see how Rose is upset by Phil's actions and how that relates to her drinking, but I felt that that was only a part of it, since it didn't seem to me as this constant thing throughout the film (though I think his presence, even when not addressing her, makes those things present in her mind, perhaps). I think I would need to watch the film over again to properly understand George's character. I couldn't completely figure him out and I don't really remember much. But maybe that's because of what you are describing, because he doesn't have very many people to spend time with or open up to.

Liberty · March 9, 2022 6:46 pm

Yes, George is a bit of a puzzle! He seems to be basically a good person, and Peter seems to think Rose will be happy with him without Phil on the scene. He has very much been a little brother, with big brother Phil being the one who's better at everything, and also much more charismatic and entertaining... I think when the parents visit, they really want to see Phil, and George is maybe seen as a bit of a bore: I think Phil was probably the favourite without needing to try, in fact acting up. George also seems to have been relentlessly bullied by Phil all his life (although Phil loves him).

Then there's that bit I quoted from the book about George having a sort of presence, and that he makes Phil feel guilty, which was interesting. George doesn't have Phil's insecurities despite the bullying.

I thought George didn't do an awful lot to make Rose feel at home. He turned a blind eye to the bullying, mostly, and almost forced Rose to perform for the guests when she clearly didn't want to. He didn't seem to foresee how difficult it would be for Rose. But at other times, he seems quite sensitive and caring, and I think felt a genuine connection with Rose.

Yitzock · March 12, 2022 7:25 pm

Yes, you're right, he did seem a little too eager to make her play piano for everyone. I think in some ways he's presented as the kinder of the two brothers, or at least not outwardly mean, but he is flawed, too, like everyone else in the film.
I had forgotten until you mentioned it about the parents asking about Phil over and over. It could be because they prefer him in some way, maybe they like his hands-on involvement in ranching? Or maybe he doesn't communicate with them as much, so they wonder about him?

besleybean · March 13, 2022 7:16 am

Or possibly they just worry about him?

Yitzock · March 17, 2022 9:59 pm

Yes, that's what I was wondering as well, if he's often distant or indirect with them, so they are worried that if they don't see him they won't know how he is.

besleybean · March 18, 2022 5:52 am

Basically they all inhabit a world where nobody dare show their true self, nobody says what they really mean and in general they do not communicate well at all.
They are all bereaved and grieving...
completely dysfunctional.
Very sad.

Yitzock · March 21, 2022 5:03 pm

Yes, true. I think a lot of people know what that kind of situation is like, unfortunately.

Something a little bit fun, perhaps:
One of the big entertainment news outlets here in Canada has been posting trivia on their Instagram about the various Oscar-nominated films over the past few weeks. The other day was The Power of the Dog's turn. I saw their story about 2 hours after they'd posted it, and I never went back later to see the results, but one of the stories had a poll, asking if people thought Peter was a hero or a villain. The split was very close, 49% said hero and 51% said villain. I thought that was kind of interesting, as it speaks to the different facets of what goes on in the story.

They also posted a story that said Jane Campion is the only woman to ever be nominated twice for the Best Director award. Hopefully one day more women will join her!

besleybean · March 21, 2022 5:18 pm

Peter is damaged.

Liberty · March 21, 2022 8:43 pm

That is a really interesting poll result! It's a difficult question to answer. He's certainly guilty of pre-meditated murder. But I wouldn't call him a villain. His motivation seems to be entirely about protection of someone innocent and vulnerable (his mum), in a bit of a strange parent-child role reversal. It seems pretty clear in Peter's mind that if he doesn't intervene, his mother would have die (or be lost to alcoholism and depression, at the very least), and it's difficult to see how he can save her without eliminating Phil. It seems incredibly cold-blooded and calculated, but it comes from a place of love and care, I think.

I think it might have been mentioned upthread, but did anyone see the interview where Kirsten and Kodi said they had an agreement that Peter had killed his father? I don't think he did, but it's an interesting take!

Yitzock · March 22, 2022 2:46 pm

Yes, it is a difficult question. Peter is damaged, as besley said, and as you said Liberty, Peter is acting out of love for his mother and a desire to protect her, even if he is also quite cold and calculating. I think it's more nuanced than the question "Is he a hero or a villain?" but I still thought it was interesting to see the responses!

I have not seen that interview, but that is an interesting idea! I kind of have trouble picturing it, since he seems to feel the need to protect his mother once his father is no longer around to do that. But there is that sense that his father didn't think he was on the right path to being a good man...

Liberty · March 23, 2022 8:31 am

Yes, his father did seem worried about how he could turn out. But also seemed to be teaching him that the right thing to do was remove obstacles, which Peter took rather literally!

I can't remember if I posted this: it's from the scene in the bedroom where Rose talks to Peter about her younger days and the Valentine cards: I wasn't clear on Rose's perspective there, and this quote helped
"‘Because you were beautiful even then,’ he said. How could he have said that, she wondered. How have so misunderstood her, for she tried only to convince him and herself that she had once had identity, a desk of her own, a numbered hook in the cloakroom for her coat, a place on the class roll, a view out the window of swings and a board fence beyond. Or was he right in sensing that she boasted of stars earned and valentines received because she was — beautiful? How awful to lead a conversation around so that another was bound to say, because you were beautiful!"

Yitzock · March 23, 2022 2:57 pm

Yeah, the fact that he really took is father's advice to heart seems to suggest he trusted his father's advice in some way.

Interesting look at a sense of lost identity for Rose in that scene! I remember in the film she seemed to be losing a sense of control over her life as the film went on, falling back into drinking because of what was going on.

Liberty · March 23, 2022 6:30 pm

Yes, there was another mention of her feelings of identity earlier in the book too. I wonder how much Savage was writing about his own mother (given that the book is so close to his own experience)? I love the way she even questions herself and wonders if she had wanted reassurance about being beautiful without knowing it, and then is very down on herself. She really was quite fragile in some ways, despite having the strength to run a hotel and as a widow and single parent. And quite worried about Peter.

besleybean · March 23, 2022 6:35 pm

I think she is specifically worried about Phil's influence over Peter.

Yitzock · March 24, 2022 10:30 pm

Yes. She tries to stop him from going out to Phil to be taught what Phil does. At the time that I was watching, I wondered if she thought Phil would hurt Peter in some way. But it could have also been influence on him that she was worried about. For a while, I felt like we were leading up to Phil assaulting Peter, even though there was something tender lurking beneath Phil's rough surface.