The Power of The Dog, Ending Explained - The Meaning of The Dog
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake
Who really holds the “power” in The Power of the Dog? The film’s ending reveals it isn’t who we’d think. Jane Campion’s movie - based on Thomas Savage’s semi-autobiographical 1967 novel - challenges the classic “cowboy myth,” drawing out a latent homoeroticism in the Western Genre.
If you like this video, subscribe to our channel and support us:
Shop our Weird Girl Trope Merch: the-take.creator-spring.com/
Join our Patreon: / thetake
TikTok: / thisisthetake
Instagram: / thisisthetake
Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2eSs6I1...
We are The Take (formerly ScreenPrism). - บันเทิง
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 직캠 8K 'LIKE THAT' (BABYMONSTER FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.6.13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8qa-nm9bCLs/mqdefault.jpg)
Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake
Arcane pls
@@thanhlongo1183 ppppppppppppppuu IOU u poto is it the way pop and I I have a
are we really gonna skip over the fact that bronco henry groomed the antagonist? I'm not sure it was "love" like this video says, but that's just me. That's why I liked this movie. To think that phil could have ever been a victim makes the character even more complex. It makes phil and the main character both victim and villain
Sick fck...
Like maleficent 😀
it's not a fact but a theory.
Was Phil a villian? What he actually do. Sing a song so Rose couldn't practice? Disliked his brother wife? Showed behaviour that was common for that time? For me he is only a victim in the movie. First the victim of Bronco, than the victim of society where need to act like tough cowboy and at the end the victim of Peter. Peter for me is just some kind version of Norman Bates. Rose is victim of herself by being weak and coward and having husband who is also weak and coward.
@@franemartinic2521 Phil was the villan ...
You guys forget to highlight the gloves! Phil insisted he didn't need the gloves to castrate the bulls-- they weren't dangerous as they were held down. Instead, it is a self-inflicted cut while doing the castrating, something he's done for many years, that lets the anthrax set in. It is his confidence and complacency that leads to his downfall. This is in contrast to Rose, who accepts gloves as a gift for her generosity towards the Natives, taking good (though more ornate) pair from people that everyone deems untrustworthy for no reason. There's also the fact that Peter dons gloves to take up the role of an aspiring doctor, lending him a more clinical air, feeling the tainted skin and rope with impunity without allowing himself to become ill from it. I saw the ending coming, but it didn't make it any less shocking. The entire film, I felt this sort of pity towards Phil, but it was overshadowed by the horror at him tormenting everyone. By the end, there was no satisfaction in his passing, only a sort of strange emptiness that was more or less a feeling of, "Well, he couldn't keep living the way he carried on." It was both a sort of threat and warning. He couldn't possibly live happily with that constant mask on and he couldn't be allowed to continue abusing others. It was just sad.
No, it's the accidental cut while throwing logs that makes him susceptible to the anthrax. When he was castrating the bulls, I believe he only nicked his thumb. That would have healed up quickly. It's later in the story that he cuts himself while throwing the logs, and he cuts himself deeply so it wouldn't heal quickly.
@@laurie_guilbeau Agreed, but what was the point of the nick during castration?
@@BruceHurley To show his hubris
Yep, good analysis. I did enjoy watching the movie, but in the end I can't help but conclude that it was a story of a bully who didn't know that the woman he was bullying had a psychopath for a son.
@@BruceHurley Phil always did the castrations. He made a joke about managing..1500 or so, then goes n hurts himself on the last one (?)
The “cowboy movie” trope deserves its own video analysis
Why do most cowboy movies portray the men as gay. Was thus like a thing in the past to be a cowboy and gay lol
@@puurrrr You might be surprised but gay people have always existed.
@@abrilpereira3870 huh what has this to do with my comment. I know that. Huh. What. What i said was why is it always cowboys
@@puurrrr dude, there's like two movies with gay cowboys, counting with this one lol
You mean western?
That moment when you realize that the main character is not in control had me rewind it so many times love it one of my favs
I especially liked the barking dog hill scene because it points directly to the fact that Henry, Phil and Peter share the same intelligence and artistic sensibility. However, Phil, despite having studied ancient literature and being versed in music, represses this side of his character, in favor of a macho and brutal attitude. However, the nails on Henry's heart-shaped memorial plaque give him away.
As much as this is clearly a movie made with care & attention, toxic masculinity isn't about fearing queer sexuality, it's about fear of FEMININITY, which means fear of loss of control. I like this idea that Westerns can be challenged in this way, but it's still feels kind of trope-y.
I thought the video talked about how Phil is also threatened by Rose because of her femininity
@@caseyaugust1846 He's not threatened by her femininity - he sees her femininity as weakness. And that femininity was directly linked in his mind to his homosexuality, when homosexuality is way more nuanced than that.
Idk why this offends me lol. Why do some ppl associate feminity with weakness
Well said, Fabianne.
FEAR OF FEMININITY? WTF ARE YOU NIMRODS TALKING ABOUT.
Everyone seems to miss that this is about narcissism and how the narcissists use power. Male or female. His death is how the quiet people get revenge, finally. This is the strength of Peters quiet revenge.
No one misses that. That’s the obvious storyline with the running undercurrent of dissecting toxic masculinity and the homoeroticism in American westerns.
Phil was grooming Peter like Henry groomed him
hom
Was he? In both cases I had feeling that Phil is actual victim.
Yep.
@@franemartinic2521 he was the victim of the murder lol but he was looking to groom Peter sexually
There is no grooming.
Is it only me that sees a pattern in the boy's behavior, as well? Phil commenting he needs to be more human. The boy reveling that his own father didn't feel he had enough heart or feelings could be insight rather than just cruelty. Yes, Peter was a medical student yet how many novels have I read that the dissection of small animals from a young age is a precursor. Letting his mother engage with the rabbit before killing it for study with no regard on how it would affect her or others. What of the other viewers that have mention concerning Peter's closeness with his mother? The disconnection from the insults thrown at him or any emotional engagement with others at all. I got a read from watching this film that this was an uneven match of a bully psycho against a methodical killer well hidden in the time period of his life. It was the keeping of a trophy at the end, the rope Phil made, that convinced me. Peter placed it under where he slept even though it was forever prisoned. I imagine him gloving up to remove and cherish it for years to come even if he should add later trophies.
Someone mentioned that he reminds them of Norman Bates.
Yes, I absolutely got psychopath vibes from Peter! That was absolutely my take for all the reasons you've given.
But then I did some research, and in the book, Rose is married to John, a physician, and they have Peter. When Peter is older, John has a run in with Phil, who has always been hostile and abusive to John as he is a "soft" man (Peter emulated his gentle father). Phil and his men beat John badly. John has a long physical and emotional recovery from this beating and self-medicates with alcohol. This is what leads to his suicide.
So, when Peter targets Phil, there's a lot more behind it than what Phil is doing to his mother, and likely explains the smile on his face as he puts the rope treasure away under his bed.
Solid take!
I wish they added even just a little bit of that part in the movie that explains a lot. I really don’t think Peter was a psychopath. He loved his father and put paper roses at his grave, and wanted to protect his mother Debra Bader.
Exaclty. Pete is the actual badass, and he doesn't need a rugged exterior to prove it. If the movie isn't for you, fine; but this is the one we'll continue to be watching afyer 20 o 30 years, while that french remake will be forgotten. Also, I didn't know Elliot was so old to have lived in the old west... Oh, that's right, he's just an actor!
I don't understand how people can empathize with Pete in the end. He *murdered* Phil and you can't justify that!
like.. what did you just said? No body will remember of that film in two Yeats Man, it's not second Matrix or Forest Gump you know that right?
Just go away Debra Bader
Campion was just bringing back an old skill of filming that has not been utilised much nowadays, foreshadowing and alot of it that it makes you go back and watch and see what other nuggets you may have missed throughout the movie.
I totally agree. I have watched it twice and plan to watch it again to check some nuggets I have missed.
So what I understand, quite simply, is that Phil and Peter are extremely fucked up.
"he keeps his scarf in his pants, strongly implies his sexual relationships " really ? thats what gave it away for u ? not the lustful touching of the scarf with his face ? not the touching himself right after? lol
I think she means he always carries around the scarf, I mean how can you misinterpret that?
@@justanotherblackwhitemicke7817 she clearly emphasises on the fact that he keeps it in his pants. she most likey didn't wanna point out the other stuff because youtube is quick to demonetize it that way.
He also rubbed Bronco's saddle while his brother was getting some
And the flower
That's not a porn magazine, the pictures he is looking at are from a early 20th century strength training book, and the man in the picture is probably famous classic bodybuilder Eugen Sandow.
Yeah, but didn't people who were gay back then, pretend to read work out magazines to cover the fact that they were gay? Like when, some guys hitting puberty, look in a women's underwear catalogue to get off, but doesn't want anyone to know that's what there doing.
@@hiimellen-jks6075 Yeah, people will masturbate to anything that gives them arousal, both gay or straight. This doesn't make the object of arousal porn.
I got the impression that he ripped out a bunch of pictures of muscular men and put them together to make his own porn magazine.
@@suburbantimewaster9620 I may be wrong, but the magazine looks a lot like the book "Strength and How to Obtain it" from Eugene Sandow.
@@thalesanastacio760 No, you might be right but I also recognized one of the pictures as Ancient Greek art. So Phil might have taken the picture of the body builder and the art to make his own gay porn magazine. Which he would’ve had to do since there was no gay porn back then.
Wish I’d seen the movie, I will someday, I read the book. It’s great. Phil is anti-change, he wants everything to stay exactly as it has been, no new people in their world, no new power structures, no self-examination.
Sounds like the actors were fabulous.
The first time I saw this, I payed most attention to Phil. The second time I watched it, all I could focus on was Peter.
Holy crap, I didn't see the dog in the mountain, but there it is! Mind blown 😲
Full disclosure, I didn't care for this movie much, and I'm rooting for a couple other Best Picture nominees tomorrow, but this video gives me a new appreciation for it. Really well done
I paused the emovie and didnt see it and when this movie showed it right there in plain sight, I was like I guess I can't see things the way Phil said. lol
I needed it pointed out too
what were you rooting for?
I see the barking dog
I saw it instantly! hahahaha
Okay this video deserves wayyyy more views than the video which actually has the most views for this film. You guys smashed this analysis on a ton of levels. great job!
Thank you The Take: I needed this analysis. I love, love, love Jane Campion beyond words - she is a master of expressing desire, need and inner turmoil. I really understood her imagery, and I love how the rope/leather motif throughout the film was a symbol of phallic, raw, masculine power - the power to beget, wield, tame, create and destroy - depending on whom and why one uses it, depending on the motive and intention. There's just so much theme in this film and the more one analyses, the more one finds meaning. The ending was dumbfounding and very chilling and so I tried to research an explanation - this upload is very much appreciated.
“He’s not a cowboy he’s an actor” lol so true
What a burn
Peter: My dad always said I was too strong
Phil: lmao well he was wrong
💀💀💀💀
I feel peter found something in broncos stash outside maybe talking about the dog in the hills and phil always stared trying to see it but never could...and peter either reading something about it or maybe even actually seeing it himself knew if he said that to phil itd earn his respect...which Peter either planned on revenge the whole time poisoning Phil at the end with the gloves...or Peter could have backed out and never intentionally poisoned him but Phil still got infected from the cut...makes you think which way it went. And also as other people mentioned...could be meaning that we are treated by the gloves we make for ourselves(leather ones for generosity, and rubber ones for infected).
What's your take on the last shot of the movie where Peter walks away from the window, which reflects a shape that looks like a noose? When I first noticed it, I thought it meant Peter was going to use it like his dad did, but it didn't make sense to me because his stated purpose at the beginning of the movie was to protect his mother (and ensure her happiness). Is it there as a symbol to point towards his role as a sort of executioner, or to remind us of the impact of his father's suicide (if that is what it was), or maybe to symbolise the death of innocence? Or is it simply there to leave us with a question at the end, a feeling of ambiguity, an open-ish ending? (like Campion's movie 'The Piano' did in my opinion)
Great movie and great video! I always enjoy your analyses
He killed his father, no?
@@nataliaalfonso2662 Kodi Smit-McPhee stated in an enterview that prior the shooting of the film he and Kristen Dunst (who played his mother) agreed to play the movie as if he had been the one who killed his father and she knew, though she never mentioned it to him. Even though it wasn't in the screenplay they put that intention in the acting and after the movie was premiered some people noticed it and he said he was happy about it. Hope this is helpful to you.
In the book, Rose is married to John, a physician, and they have Peter. When Peter is older, John has a run in with Phil, who has always been hostile and abusive to John as he is a "soft" man (Peter emulated his gentle father). Phil and his men beat John badly. John has a long physical and emotional recovery from this beating and self-medicates with alcohol. This is what leads to his suicide.
So, when Peter targets Phil, there's a lot more behind it than what Phil is doing to his mother, and likely explains the smile on his face as he puts the rope treasure away under his bed.
@@msdarby515 I did not know how it was described, but I DID have the impression that there is more behind Peter's revenge than just Phil harrassing his mother. I put it down to the fact that Peter perhaps also had homosexual tendencies like Phil and did not appreciate him rubbing it in his nose in front of all these strangers (by burning the flower). I also thought that Phil was somewhat envious of Peter because Peter openly acknowledged his "effeminate" side. Though the film makes much of showing that Peter has a hardness of his own...He might even be stronger than Phil, or strong in another sense.
Responding to Eliot’s comment. While I do not codone homophobia and sexism, I could find another way to rephrase the comment.
Bear with me here. I could see someone thinking adding queerness into the western takes away (again bear with me) the stories of brotherhood by immediately thinking it is filled with homoeroticism.
For example with men bathing together, why does it have to be homoerotic? While it does mean that they know each other, are used to together, and have the same parts, it makes sense why they can bathe with each other without fear. Why can it not mean that they are dirty and need to bathe and it is easier for them do it together while being in a schedule?
I like seeing the friendships within the westerns more than romantic ones because we don’t always see friendship for life stories like Tombstone.
However, there is room for romantic queer westerns which is not a bad thing either.
I agree, its the same thing with the military. Like yes there is a sense of brotherhood and there is also room for queerness. It doesn't have to be one or the other and they don't have to ruin them either
@@Ashbrash1998 exactly.
@@walanganman i think I was coming from it from a general standpoint.
Not “the power of the dog” but westerns in general.
If it is a story about friendship and just that, people should not overanalyze or assume that just because you have a small group of men or a large one that it is automatically homoerotic.
For example, we want guy and girl friendships without it being oh here is this girl and here is this guy. They will get together. No just let them be friends.
With queer storylines being the mainstream, we see that no matter who appears on screen, sometimes there is this automatic assumption that the protagonists will get together romantically no matter what sex they are.
I think I was trying to say that in a general sense not talking about this particular movie.
I believe there is room for both types of stories to be told and should not yell at others for telling a story we as individuals may not like. Art is subjective.
Ill grant him the "chip & dale dancers" dig, they did looked nice but, really? Where were those guys lifting? then people go and throw a fit when any female character in a video game doesnt look like Ms. Trunchbull! There is a double standard
I can understand that point, but that doesnt excuse talking like an asshole against the director
Thanks for explaining this...I didn't understand this at all.
The Take, I love what you guys are doing. Could you please do a video on this topic?
The Pregnant Woman trope in the horror genre, such as:
Women getting impregnated by aliens.
Women turning into bloated hives for alien reproduction.
A woman giving birth to a demonic child.
A woman carrying a baby for an evil cult.
Even men getting impregnated by an otherworldly seductress.
Misogynist, sexist, rape culture, shock horror or just pushing a fear of aliens and demons?
Is it possible to make a good horror/sci-fi movie without resorting to otherworldly beings impregnating women?
Is it possible to make a story arc where the woman that was impregnated, is recovering from this mental scarring?
Alien vs Predator: Requiem and Slither are all levels of wrong. Don't forget Buffy The Vampire Slayer and The X-Files.
(For anyone who reads this, I would like to know your thoughts)
Wow, my gosh. How have I never really thought of this a topic for this channel? Essentially it seems the woman all in all, is a vessel to carry out and birth the whims of agenda driven individuals. A type of body horror sub genre , this trope is dependent on the primal fear of things going wrong with a pregnancy, taken to disturbing levels. It's painful, traumatic, bloody, and potentially life-threatening. Babies possibly morphing into grotesque monsters, is common in works about fearing parenthood. I would like to see this explored as well. No matter the impregnators or offspring, it all circles back to the fact that the woman is a surrogate for their ideals.
@@BloodOfMadara I have a question.
Is it empowering to have a betrayed woman turning into an alien mother, only to kill those who wronged her? How would you write her character?
This could work, like Starcraft's Sarah Kerrigan.
I don't think that it roots from the rape culture. Pregnancy, motherhood and children are highly regarded in all cultures as symbols of love, innocence, safety and trust. The thought of a mother being scared of her child or the fetus not belonging to her(species) is very unsettling. I think that's why this trope with high shock value was used in the movies.
Also, on secondary, it also feeds into female audiences phobia of rape, unwanted pregnancy, abortion and male kink/perversion of impregnating a woman
@@saimaharaj109 I humbled by your question and I must admit I am less of a writer and more of an opinionated viewer. I won’t go into details but I’m afraid as of now I lack the literary talent necessary to do the topic the justice it requires. If they happen to cover this topic, I hope they highlight the importance of humanizing women and they are above all more than a device that moves the plot along.
@@BloodOfMadara Okay then, thank you for the insight.
A couple of decades later, his mother remarries to a man with a motel. Life goes on until the arrival of a woman portrayed by Janet Leigh.
Jane Campion's such a great storyteller. Those long stretches in this movie where seemingly nothing happens, are suddenly full of meaning in retrospect. Without any gimmicky plot twists or "gotcha" moments, either.
This movie was painfully slow. Most audiences either hated or loved it. at first I hated it, in fact, I finished it in two sittings. In the end I see Phil as the dog! Peter saw who he really was and used that knowledge to remove him from ruining his mother's life. Phil thought he saw Peter fully but never saw the strength in him. I don't believe that Peter was gay. He mentioned a friend at school (she). This would make Peter even more cunning, devious and intentional.
For me movie is just boring, and bigger problem than being slow is that movie is pretty cold. For me only charachter who had some kind emotions is Phil. Both Rose and George are just cowards. For me dog is actually Peter and Phil is victim in many ways. First he is victim of Bronco, than his is victim of society where he need to act like tough guy to hid his homosexuality, and at the end he is victim of Peter. For me Rose isn't a victim of Phil, she is victim of being coward and weak, same as her husbend who is also passive. Peter is just someone like Norman Bates.
@@franemartinic2521 Norman Bates. Good comparison. I can certainly see your point of Phil being the victim of Bronco. I kept waiting for the reveal that his father didn't commit suicide after all. I wanted Peter to be the bigger monster who just had to put down another "dog" to protect his mama. But that's my desire for a little more meat in this flick.
@@franemartinic2521 this right here 👆🏻
@@franemartinic2521 Phil is weak like Rose and her husband. He feigns strength, but it holds him hostage. His weakness is in allowing that to happen, not his homosexual feelings.
@@pamelaross5969 In the book, Rose is married to John, a physician, and they have Peter. When Peter is older, John has a run in with Phil, who has always been hostile and abusive to John as he is a "soft" man (Peter emulated his gentle father). Phil and his men beat John badly. John has a long physical and emotional recovery from this beating and self-medicates with alcohol. This is what leads to his suicide.
So, when Peter targets Phil, there's a lot more behind it than what Phil is doing to his mother, and likely explains the smile on his face as he puts the rope treasure away under his bed.
Well, this movie went right over my head. Very good acting, cinematography, excellent music (and I'm a classical music only guy), but I couldn't follow the story or figure it out. Maybe I'll try to watch it again some day. For me it was like hearing an airplane go overhead at 30,000 ft, but on a cloudy day and you can't see it.
Fascinating story. I must watch this film.
Two questions: what to you think means when the old lady gave Rose some jewels? Do you think peter killed his own father and he likes the sound of the comb because of that?
In the book, Rose is married to John, a physician, and they have Peter. When Peter is older, John has a run in with Phil, who has always been hostile and abusive to John as he is a "soft" man (Peter emulated his gentle father). Phil and his men beat John badly. John has a long physical and emotional recovery from this beating and self-medicates with alcohol. This is what leads to his suicide.
So, when Peter targets Phil, there's a lot more behind it than what Phil is doing to his mother, and likely explains the smile on his face as he puts the rope treasure away under his bed.
In the book, Peter’s father committed suicide. As for the comb, I always saw it as a nervous tick.
Worst brother in law ever
I think technically he'd be a step-Uncle?
@@robchuk4136 He is a brother-in-law to Rose.
What you said about relationships between boys and older man in Greece is not a historical consensus, in fact in Greece older man could have death sentence for flirting with a minor. Everything else was a great explanation for the movie
Damnnnn...your analysis was TOO great!! Nurturing them good before killing them. Woahhh...this literally blowed my mind 🥵🤌. Never gonna underestimate an Oscar movie 😮😮
What is the music thst starts at 00:05 @ The Take?
I’m still rooting for this one to win even though almost everyone else are guessing CODA. My personal favorite is WSS but I know it doesn’t stand a chance 😞
I love this analysis, thank you for making this video!
Personally, I was surprised to feel devastated when Phil died. For me, it spoke to how history erases LGBT people and holds up mediocre white men like George. As horrible as Phil was, he was a genuinely good rancher invested in both the making the ranch run and the people who worked for him. He was a brilliant man who shunned society because, it is implied, wealthy society despite its outward femininity/softness was even more homophobic and unaccepting of him. Meanwhile, George only seems to be interested in the ranch for the comfort and status it provides him, which he only takes advantage of after failing out of college. It is gut wrenching to see him inherit the ranch and watch the family accept his family in a way that never would have been possible for Phil.
I also think it’s clear George is a villain in the way he tortures Rose just as intensely as Phil, but all while thinking he has good intentions. He pressures her into giving a concert she clearly did not want to give for his own social ambitions, and seems to have abandoned her completely in a house with a man he should know hates her to the extent he doesn’t notice her alcoholism? The gift of the baby grand is so self involved, and obviously shows he married her mostly so that she will reflect well on him. All this while deluding himself into thinking he’s “in love” when he proposes after one week of knowing the woman and it’s obvious a woman in her situation couldn’t turn down a proposal from someone as wealthy as him. George coming out on top at the end of the movie while Phil never gets a shot at redemption is a realistic but depressing encapsulation of how history is made.
Oh my gosh. First, it's 1920. People often married for station and convenience rather than love. Back then a wink and a smile and some flirtation was all it took.
Phil was controlling and brutal and he was threatened that Rose would have control over his brother who was more amiable. And for that crime Rose had to endure his psychological torture.
George pushed her to play the piano in public, yes. But it was Phil, torturing her on a daily basis that was the crux of her insecurity to perform.
Phil was a brilliant man... who abused everyone that didn't measure up properly in his book. He shunned society because it bored him and he'd become mean and hateful in his loneliness.
He began abusing Peter the moment he saw him because he wasn't a rugged, manly-man. He continued that torture until he realized that Peter was an intelligent human being. Suddenly, in his eyes, Peter had value.
Phil is an empathetic character, but he's also a son of a bitch who didn't give two shits about most everyone around him.
I don't even think Pete is gay. Just a very femime guy.
I think he is, and he try to remove the “obstacles” for his mom, also for himself
@@HooverDyson wait what obstacles i might have missed that
@@puurrrr he killed Phil and it’s alluded that he killed his alcoholic father as they were obstacles to his mom’s happiness.
@@stonecake313 In the book, Peter's father is brutally beaten by Phil and his crew. He has a long physical and emotional recovery and self-medicates with alcohol which leads to his suicide.
It's sort of unfortunate that she left that part of the book out. Because it tells us a little bit more at the end why Peter is smiling as he wraps up the lasso made by Phil.
I don't think he's gay. He references a female friend from college. Even so, there's no evidence throughout the entire movie that Peter is gay simply because he's a gentle and soft man. In the book his father was also a gentle person and a doctor. He was beat savagely by Phil and his crew. He had a long physical and emotional recovery and self-medicated with alcohol which led to his suicide.
Damn this looks amazing. I can’t wait to watch this.
It makes me sad that this is another movie that uses gay men to highlight toxic masculinity. It’s like heterosexual men can’t be toxic unless they are repressed. It’s a shame cause Kirsten Dunst has always been one of my favorite actresses and never heard about this till the Oscars nomination and I heard the movie was LGBT so I was planning to watch this. I’m just not interested in seeing more of the “violent repressed homosexual” trope anymore if it’s not being worked through in the plot. I loved Brokeback Mountain since Ennis and Jack were so happy and peaceful together and obviously in love (especially when you contrast it to the loveless marriages) and the world just wouldn’t allow it. Where as if they met today they would be happy and likely unashamed of what they could’ve had.
There’s a lot of toxic masculinity in the gay community, straight toxic masculinity gets represented too.
Ennis and Jack weren't together because Ennis couldn't accept himself. "If you can't fix it you've got to stand it,"
Later in the story he begins to realize that he and Jack could have made a life together, but by then Jack was dead and it was too late.
Yes, there were real concerns about society. But if Ennis would have followed his heart they would have found a way.
In the end he realizes that being closed off lost Jack. But he decides to try and change for his daughter.
Out of all the different takes again Phil many mention when he flusters Rose playing the song on the banjo perfectly & professionally. I bet at the moment everyone made that opinion or when she choked unable to play at the dinner, but did anyone think how everyone at that dinner all asked about Phil bragging how smart & talented he is, yet George goes & gets a brand new piano for Rose when if George wasn't as selfish he may of recognized Phil's talent applauded him & asked what he thinks about performing at the dinner making him feel welcomed to clean up come not belittle him and also he could of took his new wife's feelings into consideration how she was nervous not knowing these snobs and haven't played in a while plus hearing a Phil a talented musician actually perform the complete song she couldn't play that she him not present her as a trophy at dinner.
Feels only intention in coming to that dinner was too embarrass his brother and his sister-in-law. There's no way he would have ever performed for that group of people that he absolutely despised. That's a total fantasy.
I love this movie so much!! I love it more than most LOL it's definitely bit of a polarizing movie with its slower pace. But I adore the symbolism and acting. CODA might win Best Picture, but I hope TPOTD still has a chance! Great video :)
Great Film. Cool review!! Thankyou
Alcoholism is also a theme used brilliantly in this movie.
While the critic was incredibly harsh about it and this movie had a clear message, there is something now in many series of having two ambiguously close male friendships and assuming they are gay, with any word of dissonance being told off as queer bating. Same with butch or tomboy women not being lesbians, or more feminine presenting boys not being trans. At what point have we just wrapped back around to stereotypes? Friendship between adults is just as important
Can we see something on ugly Betty? It was so underrated and so ahead of its time. Would love to see the take do an analysis on this!
Romance, love!?? ehh i don’t think so!! Peter doesn’t have feelings for Phil, actually i don’t think he’s capable of having feelings at all tbh!! It’s giving sociopath and future serial killer vibes to me lol. Once Peter seen that Phil was a threat to his mother happiness he plotted to get rid of him somehow. And by finding out that Phil was gay and is obsessed with BH, he then used that to his advantage to get close to him. He manipulated Phil into believing they have some “sexual connection” but he only saw him as an obstacle. Honestly his father didn’t sound Like a good father or husband either. I wouldn’t be surprised if Peter is the one who actually killed his father because he was another “obstacle in the way”. He protects his mother not because of love but because he sees her as a helpless weak rabbit and it’s his job to keep her happy and alive. He’s twisted, calculated and precise and doesn’t react off emotions because I honestly feel like he doesn’t have any. The twist was the dangerous one was not the one you expected, good movie 👍🏾.
Ps. To me Peter keeping that rope was not about love or anything sexual, that was a trophy of his kill. That’s how I saw it!🤷🏾♀️
Right??? He did not love that man, and it would kinda be gross if he did. I mean claiming he loved the person he murdered is.................. Also please let's dead this notion that gay men are constantly falling in love with their homophobic tormentors when they realize their tormentor is gay too. Or that the only two gay folks in a town have to love each other. I like the idea of Peter being gay too, but more so that Peter is wholly uninterested in that man because Peter is not as repressed. So he does not feel the need to latch onto any type of connection. Phil is deeply repressed and therefore extremely desperate hence why he can be easily manipulated by Peter. Also like you said I doubt Peter can even feel love for another person. And he definitely kept the rope more so as a trophy of his kill.
@@birdiewolf3497 exactly!!! Like how he loves him and still went on his plan to murder him!! Pleaseee Peter did not give af about Phil tbh lol 😂. And yes just because they’re both gay does not mean they’ll automatically fall for each other. Phil was in fact repressed and desperate he latched on to Peter because he was very secure and brave in his sexuality and didn’t care what ppl thought. Also he was some what merging into the roll of BH and thought he would groom Peter the same way BH groomed him, but sadly it was not that kind of movie 😂.
💯
I think Peter killed his father too. And I think the movie possibly showed us the murder weapon? In Peter's room we see a rope with the note 'use in case of fire.' Also I thought right away that Rose was in on the murder too. She was awfully adamant about giving away those hides to the Native Americans, which was essential for Peter's plan to work. No one else seems to think Rose was involved, but I wonder...
@@espo221b read the book. Peter didn’t kill his father. It was a suicide. It’s explained in the movie too.
I love this video (and so many of your videos), thank you for making it. I have been wondering what you guys think about Yellowjackets? Thanks again for all your work!
Very interesting! Thank you!
I loved this movie.
Been waiting for this for so long!! Thank you!
I was waiting for this!
Excellent. I would add that the 'Power of the Dog' may also be that ability to 'lead the pack' through ruthlessness, the mythical Alpha male. That desire to be that Leader.
6/10 not enough dog 😑
I didn't really catch one thing, 21:07 "That's why it make Peter so strong"". Phil was in the deep of his soul loving person and gay and he was suppressing it. But what was suppressing Peter and then overcame it. Because we didn't really see that he is not suppressing his gay nature or something else
Peter isn't gay. If he's suppressing anything it's his intense hatred for Phil.
@@msdarby515 read the book. Peter is gay.
Thanks for your insightful analysis!
11 months ago 😊
I really hope this movie remains relevant in the next few years. I see a lot of people just not getting it at all but I loved it when I saw it.
For me just one part of the movie didn’t add up … why did Phil all of a sudden take a liking to Pete? Can anyone please explain? Did i miss something?
I think at first he just want to take Peter away from Rose. I think Phil like Peter when Peter surprise Phil by notice the dogs on the hill right away.
@@ledagg5190 kind of makes sense… taking peter away from her would be revenge taken on her for taking his brother away from him!
I thought it was because Peter saw him bathing in the pond and he doesn't know what else Peter might have watched
In this video, they propose that Peter earns Phil’s respect when he again walks back past those cowboys that mocked him.
why did phil hate rose so much?
It may be hard to tell because of the time period but owning the ranch, having maids, having a grand piano in a snap of his fingers, & the governor over for dinner- George had money. Phil mentioned how he could read ppl also & was very educated & smart he was a dick but I think she did marry right away for some selfish reasons- her husband killed himself she was overworked w/ ppl who would start getting drunk early and she moved up and still was depressed w/ a husband her wasn't home & his brother her called her out yet respects his brother by leaving it be Phil literally just ignores her & also goes to work every day.
Sometimes we hate people for no reason.
She was a threat to the control he had with his brother.
Lol at the end of the movie , I was like "what- so the power of the dick?"
The son is the monster!!!
Oh brother...
See, I thought there was some sexual tension between Peter and Phil and people disagreed with me. I was more than sure that he was trying to honey trap Phil in a way.
Who disagreed with you? It’s the point of the movie lol
In the book, Rose is married to John, a physician, and they have Peter. When Peter is older, John has a run in with Phil, who has always been hostile and abusive to John as he is a "soft" man (Peter emulated his gentle father). Phil and his men beat John badly. John has a long physical and emotional recovery from this beating and self-medicates with alcohol. This is what leads to his suicide.
So, when Peter targets Phil, there's a lot more behind it than what Phil is doing to his mother, and likely explains the smile on his face as he puts the rope treasure away under his bed.
There are millions of stories out there, just like there are millions of people. I like Sam Elliott, but I have a problem with what he said about the film, and how a non-American woman shouldn't tell this story about the American West. He an others are acting like this one story somehow taints all other Westerns.
Different stories...
Coded speech always reveals more than it intends to. If Elliot had said that the script or the way the story wasn't true to life, then people could have a conversation. But, as Eliiott didn't do it his homework before commenting, it comes off as dumb and snowflaky.
So did Peter kill his father as well?
this was very interesting, thanks :)
What is toxic masculinity? Versus just masculinity?
In simple terms, toxic masculinity is taking things that we associate with men, like strength, honor, courage, stoicism, etc., and taking them to the extreme. When men are told to value strength too much, they constantly need to prove it and fear being seen as “weak”. Also, anything seen as feminine, like being openly emotional, empathetic, gentle, etc., is demonized. Khadija Mbowe has a very good video on internalized patriarchy, if you’d like a more in depth explanation.
It is influenced by the people around you that supports this toxicity, i.e. family, culture, friends, work etc.
The notion that being "manly" means being domineering, homophobic, aggressive, violent.
Acting tough and avoid at all cost showing emotions.
I do not think Peter was gay. His Deceased father was a doctor and he wanted to become a doctor as well. Peter also wanted to protect his mother in any way possible I also do not think that peter and Phil slept together Debra Bader.
Sensational story
This video was way more entertaining than the actual film
what good timing, I just finished watching this
I am FURIOUS that I thought I was watching a straight cowboy movie!!!!!
Both George and Phill were molested by Bronco Henry, George wants to move on with his life and its clear, like, when Phil asks George about "Lamour" George said, I dont know what your talking about. Which bothered Phil. There is so much symbolism,. When Phil talks to Peter after finding his secret he calls Peter over saying, look at this, as he is stroking the rope and says Ill teach you to make rope. Meaning "Ill show you the ropes" but doesnt realize Peter has more experience than Phil in the gay lifestyle. I also believe Phil died by a sexual desease given by Peter "the experienced or promiscuous young man " but was symbolized by anthrax which was given by Peter". Notice earlier in the film as he casterates the bulls testicles his men ask why dont yo use gloves? because I dont see the need. Phil probably thought, as long as I have relations with clean boys i dont tneed the protection. Watch it again and it will be clear as day
Great video! This is an excellent movie.
Homoerotic connotations aside, Campion’s not totally wrong in her approach to the genre. There have been multiple think-pieces about how our ideas of the Old West - many of which was actually influenced by those movies - are really more myth than history. Deconstructing that mythos to paint a different - if not always more accurate - picture gives a different look to the Western that opens up new discussions. Check out Overly Sarcastic Productions’ video on “The Wild West” for a great example.
Ill grant Sam Eliot the "chip & dale dancers" dig, they did looked nice but, really? Where were those guys lifting? then people go and throw a fit when any female character in a video game doesnt look like Ms. Trunchbull! There is a double standard
Bruhhh... manipulation 101 🥵🧠🤯
Are we going to ignore how terrible of a person George is? He ignores everyone on the table and doesn’t even listen to the conversation brother Phill is making (while being distracted by nothing). He marries a girl just days after meeting her. Any brother/friend would be worried by this (just like Phill) and would definitely assume the girl emotionally played with their brother/friend. Later, multiple times in the film it is shown that while Phill tries to make some conversation with George, he mostly doesn’t reply and simply leaves the room (that would be insulting to anyone trying to make conversation with you). George locks Phill’s access to the bathroom without even discussing it with him. He insults Phill when inviting him to the dinner and only apologizes when he needs his conversations (the ones he’s not even interested as shown in the beginning of the film). George never helps around the estate even though he and Phill were both taught the ways around the farm. At the end of the movie, when Phill confronts him about his wife selling the hides (which she only rushed to do after hearing about Phill never giving them away), George shows no indication that he’ll talk it with her or ensure his wife doesn’t get involved in their business (of which remember Phill is a partner). Sure, Phill is a toxic personality but if one had to choose between him and George, George would be a worse friend to have. Also, isn’t Peter is a cold blooded murderer, if that’s the future the film is suggesting.
George had to contend with living with Phil and his abusive behaviour for however many years. He found a soft and gentle woman who, we are shown, truly loved him. I think his coldness towards Phil should be excused and expected.
Did Phil savagely attack the mother?
Well I looked at it this way Phil yeah he was nasty course he was a full closest gay and yeah but the boy was smart he new all about animals I forgot the proper word to that and anyways yeah he got bitten by the rabbit and it look like the rabbit was also bit by something else and Peter legit Cohursted and manipulated Phil so he could distract him meaning he would have no time in witch to see doctor there for the disease got worse But it must have been very hard for Peter Considering in the last moments of the movie Phil was very nice to Peter and yeah idk but tbh The movie was so quick paced but slow-paced as well he only Tormented her literally like 2 times in a movie and made fun off the son abit at the start the mother Was drowning in sorrow and pain ever since she got there it's probably cause George was never around and Son was spending time with the guy she hated
Feels like this hole video is about justifiying Phil's murder and normalizing Peter's coldness...
Something is wrong
That kid is so super skinny. I think I weigh more than him, and I’m 107 lbs.
Not for me. I know that many love these kind of stories.
Deep
So, it had a Mandy Lane twist.
Loved this movie. I felt the 'dog' was toxic masculinity.
While weaponizing it/using it, it seems like man's best friend to Phil. He uses it to suppress his secret desires, his secret like the shadow in the mountains. He feels safe around it, around the 'act' of his version of masculinity for the cowboys around him. His bravado and machismo are his personal guard dog against being seen for who he really is - and having to acknowledge those aspects of himself. But he forgets the power of the dog, which is that dogs are dangerous if they turn on you, if you assume you have the upper hand when the situation changes. His 'dog' turns on him. Because it's his dog that stops him from seeing himself clearly, seeing the danger he's in, and seeing Peter's motivation.
Another point: Sure, George is loving and caring, yet he can't fully protect his wife from his abusive brother. Perhaps it reminds us that merely "caring" for your family is not enough. Sometimes like Peter, you need to step up and be a "man" !
One of Benedict’s best performances
I dont get that the critic sees Peter as strong because he used poison to murder Phil. There is nothing manly about that. Peter is a coward.
It’s not toxic masculinity it’s the power of the dog🙄. Superiority complex is beyond gender so is pain
I feel like POTD losing Best Picture is only going to cause it to age better - there's historic precedent for films like this that lose but continue to be analyzed and talked about years later (Citizen Kane losing to How Green Was My Valley most famously). I think alot of people sensed CODA was a good movie, but it really was a matter of it being "in the right place at the right time" and having a better campaign (the cast went to the White House for crying out loud)
People need this ending to be explained? It was obvious the moment we see him reading about anthrax…
Just skip the deep meaning behind this.
It's simply a story of a bully who didn't know that the woman he was bullying had psychopath for a son.
I agree with Sam Elliott.
I can't believe this masterpiece didn't get an Oscar for best picture in front of CODA. I don't know if I should laugh at the absurdity or cry because of human stupidity. Whyyyyy?!?!?!?
Sam Elliot thinks he owns the western genre because he's spent a lifetime playing a cowboy. His criticism shows his own homophobia, unwilling to allow any blending of western and gay. He takes this movie personally.
Sam is very insecure inside maybe
@@HooverDyson He's definitely sensitive to gay representation in western movies!
These comments are so stupid it makes my head hurt.