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)

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)

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.
 

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. 
 

Or possibly they just worry about him?

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.
 

Peter is damaged.

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...

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.

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