Feedback Friday: Power of the Dog Clues and Foreshadowing (Patreon)

In an effort to streamline the podcast and encourage a little more conversation around some of the feedback letters we receive, we're going to start putting some of them here and responding to them individually. Up first, listener Bennett writes:

Your recent discussion on Power of the Dog highlighted that its earned ambiguity is why it’s one of my favorite movies of the year. Talking to friends and reading reviews, it’s clear that different people are interpreting the ending and the characters’ motivations in different ways, and the film shows and hides just enough to let the different takes all have legitimacy.

In particular, my family and I discussed at length some pieces of foreshadowing, and I was curious what you thought about them. For example, is it possible Peter killed his father? He said he was the one who found him hanging, and the opening narration could point in that direction.

When Rose chooses to stay in the sun during a migraine because Phil is in the house, she tells Peter, “It’s just another man, Peter,” surely implying the first man is his father. And when Rose comes to bring Peter to the ranch, she encourages him to leave his medical books at school, but he insists on bringing them and cites his father, who was a doctor, as his reason.

But was he always planning on using his books to murder Phil? For what it’s worth, at a cast roundtable, Kirsten Dunst and Kodi Smit-McPhee shared that they had a secret on set that they believed Peter did kill his father. Further, Rose is screaming after Phil and Peter when they ride off together, and she says she doesn’t want them spending time alone together, at first we assume she’s worried about Phil hurting Peter… but if Peter killed his father, could she actually be worried about Peter hurting Phil? Or maybe she thinks Phil is smarter than her late husband, and is worried he’ll catch on to Peter’s plot? 

But maybe she’s just worried about Phil hurting Peter or Phil grooming Peter. I just love that the movie allows for these different readings and discussions.

-----

Tasha says:

This is an interpretation of the story that hadn't occurred to me, and it's a fascinating one, because it implies that the threat in the story isn't where it seems to be. Peter seems incredibly vulnerable to Phil's judgment and abuse, and even to the possibility of physical assault, given Phil's roughness and confidence compared to Peter's effeteness. But if Peter killed his father, Phil's really the one under the gun, because he's unaware of the threat, and doesn't realize he's building a case for his own death with every abusive act.

I personally interpreted Rose's "just another man" comment as a weary reminder that trying to run a business as a woman alone during that time period was a difficult task, and running a boarding house in particular would expose her to an endless series of crude, demanding transient boarders who would feel entitled to different things from her, and who she'd have to manage carefully. And I find it hard to believe Rose was trying to save Phil's life by keeping Peter away from him, given Phil's open and ongoing cruelty to her. But there is certainly reason to believe she'd be worried about what another murder might do to Peter's outlook on life, or whether he'd be able to once again pull it off without getting caught.

And the methodical, calm way Peter goes about setting and baiting his trap certainly offers some fuel for your theory. For someone so vulnerable, he's certainly confident when it comes to plotting a killing. I have to wonder, though, how he would have faked a suicide by hanging. In the end, I agree with you that it's an interesting read, and that Jane Campion doesn't do much to definitively rule it out or speak for it — it's a bit of ambiguity that you can use to flavor the story one way or the other as you choose. Thanks for writing in!