The Power of the Dog: Analysis of Phil and Peter
The movie, 'The Power of the Dog' is a dissection of power, control, repression, and traditional masculinity in a Western. Under the direction of Jane Campion and the masterful depiction of the characters by Benedict Cumberbatch and Kodi Smit-McPhee, Phil and Peter can assume a role of importance throughout the film.
Phil, a cattle rancher and one of the owners of the Burbank family ranch, in Montana, is shown to be quite coarse and clipped as a character. His habits are rough and rugged unlike his older brother, George Burbank. He seems proud of the Burbank family name and is avidly interested in pursuing the family business. George, however, is unenthused about the business and looks at it as a duty without caring much for the legacy or the honour, that Phil considers it to be.
Phil is shown to be an extension of the Burbank family ranch at first, through his demeanor with the other cowherds, and George, in contrast to this, stands out, with his disinterest in the affairs of his ranch. However, Phil proves to be the most cunning, brilliant, and sinister of the two as the film progresses and it is mentioned that he studied classics and graduated from Yale as a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
From Phil's first appearance, the audience is introduced to what appears to be a stereotypical unmannered rancher, undignified and unworthy of further analysis. But what they fail to take into account is the awe and fear that he inspires in those around him. He surveys the wide expanse, gazes at the hills, and takes in all that he owns. He's efficient, talented and some may say an expert at his work. Despite having academic brilliance, his character on screen is contradictory.
Or is it?
Every move he makes is calculated. He most desires power. What he feels when he takes in the grandeur of his ranch, is control. Over the property, over the cattle, and perhaps even his brother, George. Meek and altogether too cooperative, George is someone that Phil overpowers. Calling his brother 'Fatso', Phil demeans George and takes complete control of the ranch while George acts as more of a figurehead.
Even after George marries Rose and she comes to live with them, Phil is openly antagonistic towards her, making his distaste for their union clear from their first interaction wherein he forbids her to call him, 'brother'. Through her time in the lodge, she begins to feel uneasy in his presence. Phil is characterized by short, crisp sounds, like the twang of his fingers running over the teeth of the comb, the clinking of his spurs, and the subtle sounds of rolled tobacco leaves and huffs while he smokes. Curt, yet effective, these sounds push Rose into a sense of mental panic and anxiety as she becomes wary of Phil.
Through the duet scene, Rose and Phil battle it out, even though not a single word is spoken. Rose, with a piano, and Phil, with a banjo. While Rose keeps messing up, Phil plays to perfection, almost as if plucking at her nerves to push her over the edge. The mere presence of Phil wreaks havoc on Rose, emotionally and she feels as if she is inadequate (after the failed duet) and as a result, pushes her to alcoholism.
Through many such instances, the audience gets to witness Phil's cruelty and his extremely conniving nature, enjoying tormenting and teasing both animals and people to such an extent from which there is no return.
Phil is a representation of toxic masculinity. Portrayed as brutish and crass, he makes fun of Peter, Rose's son, for being effeminate and sensitive for making paper flowers as decoration for their table at the inn where the cowherds dine. Harboring a strong distaste for his effeminate actions and his lack of typical 'manly' qualities, he teases Peter often and once refers to him as a 'sissy'. Even as Peter comes to live on their property, and tries to extend an olive branch, Phil rejects his advances, signaling his men to surround him and frighten him with their horses.
Only after Peter catches him masturbating to Bronco Henry's handkerchief and discovers his hidden magazines, does Phil reach out to Peter. Although he may have an ulterior motive of restricting Peter from mentioning the incident to anyone else, silencing him later on if necessary, he does grow to become affectionate towards him. Phil's main goal is to continue the psychological warfare against Rose, by trying to cause a rift between her and Peter. Later, however, he is shown to genuinely care for the boy, and perhaps even develop a slight attraction towards him.
Peter, a young adult in college, studying medicine, is shown, physically, as the opposite of Phil. Tall and gangly for his age, he is an anomaly in the world of cowherds and cattle ranchers. At first glance, he seems to be a timid and quiet boy, warranting our sympathy as Phil mocks his qualities, derogatorily. However, his character takes on a larger and larger role in the film through the scenes as a more unemotional yet simultaneously dangerous side of him comes to light.
Although he's studying to become a surgeon, arguably one of the most altruistic pursuits, there is a blasé nonchalance in the lengths that he will go to, to further his study. Posit the instance of the rabbit he catches in the fields. Bringing it to Rose, first, as a distraction from her blatantly obvious alcoholism, he lets her play with it and stroke it before he takes it back to his room. When Lola, the house help, enters, brandishing a carrot while searching for the rabbit, she steps back in shock after peering over Peter's shoulder and hastily exits all while Peter, unaffected, tells her to shut the door as she goes.
The sight that sends Lola into a frenzy is that of the aforementioned rabbit, lying dead on his table as Peter carefully dissects it while making notes in his book, completely unbothered by his actions.
Even though the rabbit was killed for the purpose of his medical study, it lends a sinister quality to his character, making the audience's original perceptions of him alter drastically. His ability to kill a living being without a second thought is quite troubling which ultimately signals to his later actions.
Aware of the difference between him and the other men on the ranch, he makes an effort to avoid not only Phil but also the other cowherds who tormented him previously with a simple nudge from Phil. However, after he discovers Phil masturbating, he and Phil form a sort of 'mentor-mentee' relationship in which Phil is shown to take him under his wing.
Phil and Peter's relationship is quite complicated. Although Phil's initial dislike for Peter fades to some extent, he still views Rose as the cause of his effeminate nature, telling Peter to not let his mother turn him into a sissy. Peter, who silently takes in all that Phil says, merely states that he would not be a man if he didn't protect his mother.
Moreover, Phil might see Peter as an extension of him at times. When Peter stands alongside Phil, looking at the hills, Phil poses the same question to him as he had done to his cowherds. To his surprise, Peter can answer correctly. The hound on the hill, its jaws agape as it barks at the unknown.
Upon this revelation, Phil grows closer to Peter. Perhaps Peter reminds him of himself when he was younger, what he thinks to be naive and unassuming, yet perceptive enough to truly understand him. He can share the true nature of his homosexual relationship with Bronco Henry, even opening up about the night when they shared naked body warmth with each other to survive.
Phil can also see a resemblance of Bronco Henry in Peter. The ability to look beyond, what Phil thinks as truly understanding, is a similarity the two share which prompts Phil to become more open, and therefore more vulnerable with Peter. Once Peter has earned his trust, he sees a newer, less boorish side of Phil. Phil, with the realization that Peter is akin to Bronco Henry, may have even developed a slight attraction, both mental and physical, towards Peter.
However, Peter is unaware of this fact and uses Phil's vulnerability to gain the upper hand. He surprises Phil when they come across a wounded rabbit and he kills it swiftly, by twisting its neck. Unlike Phil, Peter prefers to hide his charisma under the guise of altruistic motivations. Phil however is open with his sly taunts, choosing to take time to torture his victims, much like removing wood from the rabbit bit by bit, which makes him slightly less dangerous of the two.
Peter's sheepish nature, in the beginning, is what makes his character shift quite drastic as he reveals his true motives at the end. Much like Phil, he is calculating and makes use of his medical knowledge and his superior intellect to kill off Phil. Even though the two become close, he remains utterly guiltless and detached as he kills Phil, ultimately, by disguising a cowhide infected with anthrax in a pile of normal cowhide strips so that Phil comes into contact with it, weaving it together into a rope with an open wound, and dies the next day.
The cold and harsh cruelty of Peter becomes blatantly obvious at this point. Despite Phil being rude, an obvious bully, and an upholder of toxic masculinity, it is Peter who becomes a murderer.
Previously, in an earlier scene with Rose, he had stated he would do anything it took so that she wouldn't have to resort to drink. A frighteningly protective gesture on his part, the answer being to get rid of Phil and to give Rose respite from Phil's quiet torture.
Taking advantage of Phil's perception of him, he kills Phil off much like he did the wounded rabbit, making it swift and almost painless.
In the end, he is shown to be reading a psalm, as he carefully hides the toxic rope that killed Phil with gloved hands, watching as Rose and George kiss outside after returning from Phil's funeral.
Be it the inherent power, ever-present in the characters, much like the hound on the hill that rises from its dormancy with the slightest of desire, or the power in the powerless, that of the underdog, Peter and Phil are two sides of the same coin, having an unchangeable and inherent cruelty in themselves.
References:
https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/what-even-is-the-power-of-the-dog
https://sandracohenphd.medium.com/the-power-of-the-dog-5b39692d3fdc
Comments
Post a Comment