This is one of the most subliminal Leftist films made to pass under the lens of a "normal" film.
Essentially the moral of the story is that men become "toxic" if they don't embrace homosexuality.
I should have known seeing that it was produced by BBC for Netflix.
The trailer really made it look interesting, but boy oh boy was I wrong about this one.
Destroy
Build
Back
Better
DEEP SEATED ISSUES...POSTS LIKE THIS ONE REALLY HIGHLIGHT JUST HOW DERANGED YOU ARE.🙂
shareThank you for helping to illuminate some of the sexual themes and for explaining the ending. But I fail to see what's "Leftist" about this film. It doesn't portray homosexuality as intrinsically good or desirable, firstly in that, as you have demonstrated, one of the gay characters is a murderer, and secondly if Phil and Bronco Henry had had some sort of a sexual relationship (as is strongly hinted at) such a liaison could be seen as exploitative and even predatory given the large age difference.
I also think it's a bit reductionist to view Phil's personality as wholly defined by his sexual orientation, or even as wholly "toxic" - he does have some good qualities after all, he's smart, self-reliant, focussed, hard-working, he isn't entranced by the trappings of success and he doesn't seek to ingratiate himself with his social superiors. In fact, think he's a better role model for a young man than George, in some ways.
You bring up some really good points, and I think that's what helps juxtapose the narrative of the film about "toxic masculinity".
For instance...
he does have some good qualities after all, he's smart, self-reliant, focussed, hard-working, he isn't entranced by the trappings of success and he doesn't seek to ingratiate himself with his social superiors. In fact, think he's a better role model for a young man than George, in some ways.
But I fail to see what's "Leftist" about this film. It doesn't portray homosexuality as intrinsically good or desirable
(contd) what mattered was that he didn't align his ideals and behavior in ways that was conducive for the rest of the ranch, which included Rose and George (both of whom seemed to suffer the most from Phil's antics).
Notice how Left-leaning websites praise the mystifying qualities and (im)moral justice doled out in the film, as outlined in the links below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/movies/the-power-of-the-dog-ending.html
Decider literally acknowledges that murder is okay if it's "right". Here is a quote from the article...
"It’s diabolical, but Peter was right—with Phil out of the way, both his mother and George already seem to be much happier. Sometimes being a good son means poisoning your abusive uncle with anthrax!"
https://decider.com/2021/12/01/power-of-the-dog-ending-explained-plot-twist-meaning/
Same applies to IndieWire, who also championed Peter's immoral sadism to match Phil's subversive sadism. Here's what they wrote...
" It may not turn out how that other cowboy drama did, but the last laugh feels as empowering and triumphant as this world allows."
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/12/queer-films-oscars-power-of-the-dog-flee-1234683207/
Murder is empowering when exercised against someone for simply being mean? Really? As you stated, Phil was a better role model to Peter than George was. At least he was teaching him how to ranch and survive; George wasn't. Yet Phil was the one who ended up in the box
And the list goes on...
In the mind of today's Leftists, they're completely okay with murder if it aligns with their view of justice, regardless of the morality involved, hence the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" mantra they live by. It's why they're okay with rioting, looting, murder and even rape (as in the case of one of Kyle Rittenhouse attackers, a man who sodomized more than 11 little boys) so long as the person aligns with their viewpoints.
The novel this was based on was written over 40 years ago so easy before any modern wokeness for you to whine about.
The gay character here is the one who became toxic. But what was the reason for his anger and hostility?
His hostility was really directed at modernity and changing of the norms of the old west. He didn't like things like cars and women owning businesses and other changes to ranching that his brother accepted.
He loved an old man of the west and after he died the only way he could hold on to that forbidden love was to hold on to the old ways of his lover and reject the future.
The guy in the film was toxic.
That’s all
There is a very good movie out now you might like called Riders of Justice. It is one of the best films of 2021. It’s on Prime Video and you have to pay for it. Also, it has English subtitles. It’s Danish with Mads Mikkelsen. It’s a great action movie - with revenge and even comedy. It is worth seeing.
shareYes, thanks for the recommendation. I actually saw that earlier this year. It's a fantastic film.
I love Mads Mikkelsen, so it was an easy watch and well worth it!
Plus, it was a film that celebrated masculinity (flaws and all) instead of dogpiling on it.
Very revealing. lol
share