The Power of the Dog Question (Spoilers abound, so beware!!!)

[LonePirate]

For those of you who have seen all of The Power of the Dog, I have a question about the ending, mostly to confirm my interpretation of the film.

SPOILERS BELOW! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
..
..
..
..
..

Peter's culpability in Phil's death was indeed intentional as opposed to accidental, wasn't it? The very last scene with Peter wearing the gloves while handling the rope suggested to me that he viewed the rope as a trophy of his revenge rather than as a keepsake of a friendship that ended tragically and unintentionally like when Ennis kept Jack's shirt at the end of Brokeback Mountain.

The very slow pacing of the film may cause people to tune out long before the ending despite the magnificent performances, scenery and music. It's a tough film to recommend but it can be very rewarding for some viewers.

I simply went back and forth on Peter's motives and actions as the passage of time in the film and some happenstance events tend to blur the lines between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Any DUers have a different opinion in case I am mistaken here?

[Ferryboat]

1. Definitely murder

Knew what he was doing, he was protecting his mom from her tormentor.

[NoRethugFriends]

2. Murder most foul

[ZZenith]

3. Self-defensive homicide.

Phil was up to all kinds of no good.

[Ocelot II]

4. Definitely murder.

If you watch again you'll see that Peter, who was studying medicine, collected the leather for the rope from a cow that had died of anthrax. He knew what he was doing. There was nothing involuntary about it. The movie leaves you wondering who the real villain was.

[mopinko]

5. i had to watch it twice.

but yeah, def not only intentional, but most premeditated.
2nd watch i picked up all the mentions of anthrax.
i think i spent most of the 1st time waiting for all bloody hell to break lose.

[LonePirate]

6. I didn't miss the anthrax references or the deliberate focus on the cut on Phil's hand.

My focus was on the long game being played by Peter as he had no way of knowing how things would unfold. He didn't cause the cut on Phil's hand. He was not involved with the selling of the hides which created a demand for the deadly ones he procured. He didn't ask Phil to make a rope (at least I don't think he did). A lot of dominoes fell into place which were beyond his control for Peter to enact his revenge. Ultimately, he seemed to me to be a resourceful, smart and opportunistic man which swayed me to the murder determination. The film certainly offered a very interesting character study, not the least of which was the subversion of the internal and external thoughts and motivations of the two men.

[mopinko]

7. yeah, that too.

kept my eye on whether they were gonna get together, or whether he was placating him.
but searching out that cow was quite the deliberate act.

[nuxvomica]

8. I think you got it right

What was also clear to me, based on the seemingly unmotivated animus between Phil and Rose, especially the musical sparring, and some things Phil told Peter about his dad, that Phil had had a relationship with Peter's dad and Rose blames Phil for her husband's drinking and suicide, while I think Phil blames Rose for the same things.