#also...... pete is such an unconventional twink

[stephenrea]

('The Power of the Dog' Spoilers ahead)

One thing I found really interesting in 'The Power of The Dog', and I don't know if this was in any way intentional, was how it deviated from the expected "older man helps budding youth explore his blossoming sexuality" trope and actually manages to condemn that sort of thing instead. I haven't read the book so bare in mind I'm reading into the film and film alone here, but hear me out if you care to listen.

Throughout the latter half of the story, the film starts to parralel the relationship between Phil and Pete with that of Phil and Bronco Henry. However, these parralels are somewhat one-sided as we see them solely from Phil's perspective. What I mean by that is that it becomes clear that Phil has this very romanticised memory of Bronco Henry and how their relationship functioned. We never get a flashback of BH. We never hear from anyone besides Phil about the kind of person he was. We just have the biased account of a young man/teenage boy who had an intense, forbidden love affair with a man much older than him. One that was cut short. Phil sees this younger man and presumes... hopes, that such a love affair could be reborn. I confess that when the movie came to a close and I saw Pete holding onto that rope a thought occurred to me (one I now believe to be false) that this rope might be symbolic of the cycle of gay cowboy yearning™ and secret love affairs stamped out prematurely, living on only in the survivor's memorabilia. (ie. Phil's Rope was the new Bronco Henry Saddle).

But no. It was only after the credits rolled that the realisation fully kicked in: that Pete intentionally killed Phil. And that he did not love him. He is almost definitely queer. Unlike Phil he doesn't hide the fact; and has fully embraced his feminine/unconventional sides. He doesn't need an Experienced Older Man to help him realise anything and is perfectly satisfied persuing his interests and spending time with his boy best friend: the wannabe proffesor (whose the same age as him if I might add). I know he didn't kill Phil because he thought he was a perv, he absolutely killed him because of his cruelty towards his mother. I really don't think he had any additional reason.

I do think, however; that when it comes to themes and for what this story means for queer cinema as a whole, it's interesting to contrast the direction taken in this movie with that of say, Call me by Your Name. Now, I actually liked Call me by Your Name the one(1) time I watched it, and I'm not trying to say that stories like it shouldn't exist or that the whole thing was problematic, etc. (I'm vaguely aware that there's discourse about that movie on here that I haven't been around long enough to see and frankly I do not care and don't want to know<33). But I am going to point out the uncomfortable phenomenon it's indicative of. To see a younger, more effeminate gay man seemingly break this cycle of grooming by killing a potential predator and leaving the tolken of his love behind- it's quite powerful! Even if there is something much bigger at play here.

I'm almost definitely projecting but I would like to rewatch this movie and see how this lense holds up.