The Power of the Dog: P.S.

Given Jane Campion’s track record as a director and the movie’s source in a novel, I have to assume that every twist in the relatively slow-paced drama had a purpose, but the film left me scratching my head with the following questions:

What turned Phil from the meanest, nastiest character in recent film into a sensitive mentor to Peter overnight? Was he grooming him for sexual favors? Did he simply relate as a fellow gay male (but if so, why the change when it happened)? Was he trying to destroy Rose (and by extension his brother’s marriage) by tearing Peter away?

What was the significance of the rope that Phil was making for Peter? Did it have anything to do with Peter’s father having hanged himself? And how do you know, anyway, when a rope is “finished”?

What was the significance of Rose’s first husband having committed suicide? There are a lot of other ways a frontier woman could become a widow.

Could Phil and George really be brothers? One was brilliant, the other was dumb; one was skinny, the other fat, etc., etc. Why did Campion cast two such dissimilar actors in these roles?

Was “the Old Gent” a plausible father to these two men? He said nothing, had no discernible personality and seemed a cipher. Where did the strong personality (Phil) and business success (George) come from?

What to make of “Bronco Henry,” the long-dead cowboy who made an appearance in the script every 15 minutes? Were those references there to keep homoeroticism hanging in the air, much like the skinny-dipping and topless cowhands?

What was Benedict Cumberbatch saying? I couldn’t understand half his lines, muttered under his breath, and was less than convinced by his American accent. (I hate it when a director can’t make the dialogue intelligible and I find myself straining, or even rewinding, to hear something.)

How did Phil get so good at the banjo? That didn’t mesh with the personality we saw at the outset. Of course, neither did the classics degree from Yale.

Why was Phil so upset that Rose gave away the hides (and how did he instantly know)? Why did he like to burn them? Was there some symbolism in the gloves that the Indians made from them?

Why was Phil so opposed to George’s marriage? Although they shared a bed when traveling, it wasn’t like they got along, understood each other or had anything in common – except Bronco Henry, and as it turned out they didn’t really share that either.

We saw Peter surgically slit the dead steer, but how did he collect and preserve anthrax spores, and did he have a plan to use them or was it just chance that Phil needed more leather strips to “complete” the rope and Peter had some in a bucket? As perfect crimes go, this one seemed well beyond plotting.

Peter’s voice-over before the action begins “explains” the plot, but are we to believe that all his interactions with Phil are designed to “save” his mother? It sure didn’t look that way, which is why the film’s ending has such punch. Or is this unearned bookending by the director?

Campion’s forte, I believe, is psychological intensity, borne out here by all the sustained close-ups on Cumberbatch’s face. Understanding him is the key to so much of the film’s action. But, as alluded to, I couldn’t make sense of his psychology or any of his relationships. To take one more example: for the film’s first half, I thought we were heading toward a showdown, or even sexual encounter, between Phil and Rose (see, e.g., Stanley Kowalski and Banche DuBois). But poof! that disappeared, and we went off in another direction. And Phil no longer seemed to care.

Maybe answers to all these questions are out there. Or maybe it’s just more important that the movie made me ask them.