General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Jane Campion says Serena and Venus Williams don't 'play against the guys like I have to' [View all]Sympthsical
(11,327 posts)And I did think Phil was repeating on Peter what Bronco Henry did to him. Older man grooming a teenaged boy. Predatorily pick the lone weak calf from the herd. And you got a stray thought or two from the brother on Bronco Henry, which were far less idealized than Phil's.
It was an interesting little start at the end when you suddenly realize what Peter may have done before the movie begins (trying to avoid spoilers). That's why I thought the end worked well. Really good endings can recontextualize what came before.
I think the movie would have been better without the masturbation scene. Let the audience wonder. Because that's exactly where it lost me. It's like the writer and/or director didn't trust the audience to read into what was being set up. They had to set off roman candles to announce, "Yes! This is what you're watching now!" I felt similarly in the beginning with the paper rose and how Phil lingered on it for so long.
If it actually had been a bit more subtle, I think it could've worked. It didn't seem to fit. All the pieces are there for a really solid literary movie, where the audience could question and interpret what happened and what is happening. Instead, the writer/director set out blazing orange cones to follow.
It could have been what so many critics are claiming it is.