What do folks think is the implication of the final sequence for George? We know Pete is capable and ready to kill George if he finds it necessary. Is he planning to kill George immediately? Or does he hope that George will treat his mother well, but will kill him on the first indication otherwise?
I never felt any concern or read any of that in his looks towards George at all. In fact, while George brought happiness to his mom, Phil was the exact opposite, bringing her worry and anxiety and spinning her out of control.
But obviously after the reveal, we’re unsure of Pete’s future as a character. Maybe he’s turn-of-the-century serial killer to-be, protecting mom along the way, or maybe he goes on to become a surgeon, without a care in the world or fear of another man.
I guess I got some sense of threat from Pete very intentionally keeping the rope.
Tune in for the sequel, The Power of the Cat!
I never thought Pete would harm George in any way. He does what he does for Rose and for her loving husband. They kiss outside his window and he smiles quietly at the happy ending he has accomplished.
I think this is done in remembrance of Phil. A more personal laying-to-rest just under his bed for safekeeping. So he can sleep with him, just not as Phil was perhaps intending.
Just watched this and you can hear more of her meanings in that last big scene between the two …
Good stuff! Camera angles and eyelines are so important for these kinds of power dynamics. We have all kinds of sayings for this like “seeing eye-to-eye” or “leveling with” or “looking down on” or “lording over”…
In that second still, I don’t think Pete has any power just yet, but Phil is purposely relinquishing his. This reads as malice but later we realize it wasn’t that at all.
Thanks for that NY Times link! “Tense and erotic.” Good stuff.
I talked about this with a friend of mine after watching, and while I don’t think Pete was necessarily planning harm to George at that point, it seemed almost inevitable that some line would be crossed where he would decide that George needed to go.
I don’t think George has ever crossed a line in his whole life. What’s there to suggest he would start now?
This moment defines George, from their dancing scene.
Rose: “What is it George?”
George: “I just… wanted to say how nice it is not to be alone.”
The worst thing he does is inadvertent; wanting Rose to perform on the piano not realizing she doesn’t feel up to it.
Pete isn’t a serial killer, for Pete’s sake!
In our judgment? No. But I absolutely believe in Pete’s mind, George could take an action he would consider crossing the line. Let’s say Rose has a relapse with her drinking, or an argument between her and George gets just a bit too heated…doesn’t seem like it’d take too much for Pete to decide she’d be better off without George in her life, either.
I felt it was implied he had been responsible for his father’s death. I don’t think Phil was the first, and I don’t think he’d be the last.
Well, that sure is interesting. I didn’t read it like that, beyond the obvious fact that having a son like Pete could be a challenge for any father.
What a good movie.
Oh, yeah, I definitely got the feeling that his father had been abusive towards Rose, and Pete solved that problem much the same as he solved the problem of Phil.
I didn’t pick up on anything to point me in that direction, and I don’t like what that would mean for the story of the film. I prefer to think of this as Pete’s first steps into this type of strength and masculinity. If he’d already performed something like this in his past, it would rob the story of much of its power… its power of the dog.
To me, it worked because just like Phil, I had underestimated Pete. I had judged him on his appearance, and his manner, and mistook those for weakness.
There are a number of lines from Pete that take on a much more ominous character once you know where things are headed. Just take for example his line about removing obstacles…
Yeah, makes sense. I do like it.
I guess I’m just more drawn to the read that has Pete kind of successfully learning the lessons in manhood that Phil wants to impart as his Bronco Henry even if the result wasn’t exactly what Phil had intended.
Maybe it’s the difference between Phil underestimating who Pete is and Phil underestimating what Pete is capable of.
I got this impression too, or at least thought I needed to watch the movie a second time at some point and see exactly what was said about the father’s death.
There’s no doubt in my mind, based off the opening monologue, that Pete would kill George if he felt he had to. What I think is a bit ambivalent is how he feels about George at the end of the film. George is gone for long periods of time and seems oblivious to how this enabled Phil to harass her and her drinking habit to emerge.
I’m not saying he is a serial killer, but I don’t think it’s out of step for the film to ask the question about a character like Pete.
I got a little of that from him. Certainly a fledgling serial killer but the director was showing us the signs we needed. No concern for killing animals (home boy killed two rabbits without concern. Think of the rabbits, George. And living off the fat of the land.
Sorry, got sidetracked. There was the insinuation that he and his father weren’t eye to eye, as in maybe he was beaten. He’s into anatomy in a strange way.
I mean, all they would have to add here is he peed the bed now or when he was younger and you’d lay out the FBI’s markers for a serial killer.
In the sequel Pete murders everyone on the ranch after his mom dies of alcohol poisoning, then he digs up and fucks Phil’s corpse. You see, that book where he read the titular quote “The power of dog” from is the very same book he ends up cutting the pages out of so he can hide a gun inside of it. Because he’s such a sneaky serial murderer.
What the hell kind of movie were you guys watching?
In my defense I’m addicted to true crime shows. Everyone is a serial killer until I examine the evidence and slowly figure out if they can be people I talk to on a daily basis.
Where were you last night at 8:30PM Pacific time?
Elliott called the film a “piece of shit” and seemed bothered by how the film deconstructs classic Western archetypes such as cowboys. Elliott compared Campion’s cowboys to Chippendale dancers who “wear bow ties and not much else.”
“That’s what all these fucking cowboys in that movie looked like,” Elliott said. “They’re running around in chaps and no shirts. There’s all these allusions of homosexuality throughout the movie.”
“Where’s the Western in this Western?” Elliott asked. “I mean, Cumberbatch never got out of his fucking chaps. He had two pairs of chaps — a woolly pair and a leather pair. And every fucking time he would walk in from somewhere — he never was on a horse, maybe once — he’d walk into the fucking house, storm up the fucking stairs, go lay in his bed in his chaps and play his banjo. It’s like, what the fuck?”
Elliott said of Campion, “What the fuck does this woman from down there know about the American West? Why the fuck did she shoot this movie in New Zealand and call it Montana? And say this is the way it was? That fucking rubbed me the wrong way.”
Jeez, Sam. All you had to do was say something neutral or just say you didn’t like it.
I mean, I too thought it was a Western at first glance, and it’s honestly what made me watch it. It’s not really a western in any sense of what that entails for people expecting it.
Sam should know that. Also, someone that starred in the movie Frogs shouldn’t cast stones. That’s all I’m saying.