I completely agree. I think it's important to remember that Peter is not the hero of the story, but his motives are incredibly complex. Driving a person insane is as bad as killing it, and with the movie's opening lines, it is well established that Peter will do anything to take care of his mother. Not justifying what he did, but it is incredibly complex. Phil out of his own insecurities, maybe even a toxic history with Bronco was extremely bitter and violent and what he did to Rose was despicable. I just loved the scene where Rose taught George how to dance, they both were so pure, and Phil always was rude to them, it is incredible how George didn't go insane. By the way, I did not even notice that the name of the channel was "Vegan Watching". I loved the video, but I think many people would turn off just by your channel name rather than the content which is a shame. I am not saying you to change the name, it is your decision, but I think more people will have an open mind to your takes had your channel name be different. Again, it is your right, but just a suggestion from a commenter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Yes, the complexity takes it to another level: we get to recognise the nuance of character. Useful to know! I have actually been contemplating whether to change it for a while - for exactly that reason. To make it a personal name, for instance. Will definitely take some time to re-consider again.
The other part of the conversation is how WOMEN encourage and uphold such toxic standards in the way they raise their boys and how they spitefully accuse their men of being less than completely heterosexual whenever it becomes convenient to do so.
I'm missing in this analysis an open examination of Phil's obvious homosexuality and the loss of his lover Bronco as a factor in his behaviour and as a key trait of his person and character. Prudishly insinuating a "hidden desire" is not doing it justice at all.
I think that Peter is able to see the dog, like Phil and Bronco Henry, indicates they share dark traits. We as viewers may well see Peters action as heroic, as the defender, but in the end he's a cruel (toxic?) person, too.
That was a great interpretation, thank you. But I also thought that there was some sense of mystycism and symbolism in the movie, that I can't quite grab. Like what was the dog supposed to symbolize? And the rope? Peter's father hung himself and now Phil is making a rope. Why burn the hides(is it spelled this way? Not a native speaker) Do you have a theory about that? Anyway amazing movie.
El perro en la montaña no simbolizaba nada PERO el echo de que Bronco y Peter pudieran verlo sin ayuda a diferencia de phil da a entender que ambos se parecian y al final de la peli ambos comparten algunos rasgos oscuros y ademas tenian poder sobre phil Mas tarde Peter lee la biblia para el funeral de Phil y ve la cita " libra mi espalda de la espada y a mi alma del poder del perro " porque Phil siempre vio a Peter como un debilucho algo inferior un perro pero el el perro al final tiene el poder de matarte ( con garras y dientes ) y al final phil mata a peter .
Of course! Best to watch it knowing as little as possible 👌 Let me know what you think of it! I personally felt it was one of my favourites - if not THE favourite - of the year.
@Dr. Buster Cheeks M.D., Proctologist at Stanford Lol, great minds right? I mean christ, even the Brokeback Mountain guys seemed like they could survive a two day camping trip.
Imagine someone makes a movie review and names it "Toxic femininity" then proceeds to project all sorts of misogynistic commentary. Far less people would think it has a "deeper meaning" imo.
That’s what this film was going for, but i say it missed the mark by painting inconsistent character motivations and personality. However as a vegan I’m shocked you didn’t discuss the questionable use of real dead animals (slaughtered not for food but only to rot on the ground). The very real terrorization of a horse (there are ways to show his anger without attacking an animal). And perhaps most shockingly an actual castration of a bull (something very easy to recreate with a prop). I don’t feel any of this animal harm was necessary to tell this story.
Hong Kong consumes more meat per person (695 grams per day or about 1.5 pounds) than any other nation, with a life expectancy of , the world's highest. Meanwhile, India has the second lowest per capita meat consumption in the world, and the average life expectancy is 68.3 years.
Incredible analysis. I think watching this while being sleep deprived was kind of a bad idea 😂. But your analysis did help me to understand it a lot better. I think a re-watch when I am not sleep deprived would make this one of better film of 2021 in my ranking.
Thank you, happy to hear it resonated. Since it's such a slow burn, adequate sleep is probably a good idea 😅 Feel free to share what you thought upon rewatching!
Oh, it’s supposed to be a commentary on “toxic masculinity” and here I was thinking it was a boring, pointless, slog that was a complete waste of time. Lol! The more vague and directionless the movie the more people who sniff their own farts can make long videos about its “deeper meaning”
Oh come off it. The "masculinity" in this flick is no more authentic than the setting in Montana, New Zealand. This modestly talented crew are merely the emperor's new tailors...
I shall put forward, for badness, an antithesis to your well crafted review: Phil - strong, hard working and successful rancher who doesn't suffer fools gladly. Bit of a Bully, but his men appear to respect him. Not happy about his brother bringing his wife and her son home, a well founded concern as it happens. Engages in offensive behaviour including not changing his clothes when asked by his brother, and whistling a tune at inoppertune moments. Phils brother- nice, shy, retiring man who looks down to the ground alot. Even stared into the distance on one occasion. Wouldn't strike you as the type you can depend upon if the sh;t hits the fan. Brother's wife- hard working sensitive soul or self destructive boozehound who conveniently blames Phil for her predilection for the good stuff. Not really a fair reflection of the strong women in the early 19th century mid West who probably would have wedgied Phil to within an inch of his life before he could have finished shouting "down with the feminists". The son- this weak, effeminate, backstabbing spawn of Phils Brother's wife is supposed to be the hero of the hour. Manys a viewer delighted in seeing this treacherous weasel put an end to Phil in a cruel and underhand manner, using the same poison that cowards post to government offices, but when is the murder of an individual less of an affront to moral decency than being a Bully? If toxic masculinity is a term to describe the worst characteristics of the male species then this spineless excuse of a boy-man ticks all the boxes. Unintentionally, the movie is an allegory for our times, in that the strong and hardworking have been supplanted by the weak and treacherous ...Damn them to hell. I liked the cinematography though and the acting was v good.
Yes this film angered me too. Phil didn't really do anything that was unforgivable. He was redeemable. The idea that because he is confused and displays toxic masculinity doesn't mean he deserves to be snuffed or gaslighted into believing he should end his life to end his torment and restore balance. Nasty nasty film.
I think at it's core toxic masculinity is about dominant control and power over others. Sometimes it presents itself in ways that are not recognized as easily. Like a cultured man in a suit who uses his power and money to control others.
I thinks it’s strange that you can choose not to eat animals because of the moral implications but are happy to describe a character who murders another human as sensitive, pragmatic and a saviour.
@@Oreo-vh7rk that could be a response to anything, really couldn’t it? We not post judgement. I do think it’s an odd to watch a film in which someone murders someone and think the murderer is a saviour and sensitive, and yeah i think is relevant if your online persona suggests a higher moral standard than the norm too. I though the whole point was to undercut the presumption that you might have about who’s the victim is.
@@mattgumbley1317 I just don't see the correlation of choosing not to eat meat in real life and having empathy for a fictional murderer. Two completely different things and yet your mind links it together and baffles itself
I think maybe we are “over analyzing” this movie. At its base it’s just a movie about a gay frustrated cruel cowboy, his kind brother & bullied wife, a gay young boy (man) who will do anything to protect his mother - even murder. . No need to keep digging deeper. Love to read the multiple explanations though.
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I completely agree. I think it's important to remember that Peter is not the hero of the story, but his motives are incredibly complex. Driving a person insane is as bad as killing it, and with the movie's opening lines, it is well established that Peter will do anything to take care of his mother. Not justifying what he did, but it is incredibly complex. Phil out of his own insecurities, maybe even a toxic history with Bronco was extremely bitter and violent and what he did to Rose was despicable. I just loved the scene where Rose taught George how to dance, they both were so pure, and Phil always was rude to them, it is incredible how George didn't go insane.
By the way, I did not even notice that the name of the channel was "Vegan Watching". I loved the video, but I think many people would turn off just by your channel name rather than the content which is a shame. I am not saying you to change the name, it is your decision, but I think more people will have an open mind to your takes had your channel name be different. Again, it is your right, but just a suggestion from a commenter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Yes, the complexity takes it to another level: we get to recognise the nuance of character.
Useful to know! I have actually been contemplating whether to change it for a while - for exactly that reason. To make it a personal name, for instance. Will definitely take some time to re-consider again.
The other part of the conversation is how WOMEN encourage and uphold such toxic standards in the way they raise their boys and how they spitefully accuse their men of being less than completely heterosexual whenever it becomes convenient to do so.
It's definitely a universal, not gender-specific issue. In this case at least, Rose appears to be a supportive, accepting mother for Peter.
I admire your ability to analyse, explain and present in such an intense (as in captivating and entertaining) way. Keep going!
Thank you very much! That means a lot - wonderful fuel for consistency 💫
I'm missing in this analysis an open examination of Phil's obvious homosexuality and the loss of his lover Bronco as a factor in his behaviour and as a key trait of his person and character. Prudishly insinuating a "hidden desire" is not doing it justice at all.
I think that Peter is able to see the dog, like Phil and Bronco Henry, indicates they share dark traits.
We as viewers may well see Peters action as heroic, as the defender, but in the end he's a cruel (toxic?) person, too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! There's definitely something to their shared observations...
I don’t think Peter is cruel or a psychopath because I really think that he killed Phil because of what Phil did to his mom.
That was a great interpretation, thank you. But I also thought that there was some sense of mystycism and symbolism in the movie, that I can't quite grab. Like what was the dog supposed to symbolize? And the rope? Peter's father hung himself and now Phil is making a rope. Why burn the hides(is it spelled this way? Not a native speaker) Do you have a theory about that? Anyway amazing movie.
El perro en la montaña no simbolizaba nada PERO el echo de que Bronco y Peter pudieran verlo sin ayuda a diferencia de phil da a entender que ambos se parecian y al final de la peli ambos comparten algunos rasgos oscuros y ademas tenian poder sobre phil
Mas tarde Peter lee la biblia para el funeral de Phil y ve la cita " libra mi espalda de la espada y a mi alma del poder del perro " porque Phil siempre vio a Peter como un debilucho algo inferior un perro pero el el perro al final tiene el poder de matarte ( con garras y dientes ) y al final phil mata a peter .
Basic movie. Touching basic forced fantasy from a director that obviously has no idea what is to be a “man”
This movie is on my "must see" list - so I'll come back to this video essay afterwards to avoid spoilers.
Of course! Best to watch it knowing as little as possible 👌 Let me know what you think of it! I personally felt it was one of my favourites - if not THE favourite - of the year.
How can there be “toxic” masculinity in a film where the actors have the combined testosterone of an 8 year old girl?
@Dr. Buster Cheeks M.D., Proctologist at Stanford Lol, great minds right? I mean christ, even the Brokeback Mountain guys seemed like they could survive a two day camping trip.
That’s exactly my point …it’s a “let’s pretend” we know something about it and let’s worship it.
So your masculinity is not inherent ?? It’s based on little hormones??? 😭😭😭
Did you know that fictional characters can exhibit traits of toxic masculinity? It's independent of hormone. These are characters from a novel, what?
To think CODA beat this movie. What a Joke the Oscars was this year.
Agreed!
Great analysis of the movie!
Thank you Shannon!
Thanks for the review! Sounds like a terrible movie.If you want to review a great Western watch Once Upon A Time in the West.
It should have won.
💯 At least Jane got Best Director!
@@sofiasurreal. yeah. Proud of her.
I don't remember last time I saw a movie multiple times. There's something special about this one. Excellent review by the way.
Thank you. Yes, couldn't agree more. It carries so much beautiful nuance.
Imagine someone makes a movie review and names it "Toxic femininity" then proceeds to project all sorts of misogynistic commentary. Far less people would think it has a "deeper meaning" imo.
What is toxic femininity?
I've not seen the film.
I admire your thesis here on Toxic Masculinity.
you've made some pretty strong points
Thank you! Definitely check out the film when you feel like watching a slow-burner.
The bullies always get their ‘dues’ in the end. Sadly, some have to wait till there’s no breath left
That’s what this film was going for, but i say it missed the mark by painting inconsistent character motivations and personality. However as a vegan I’m shocked you didn’t discuss the questionable use of real dead animals (slaughtered not for food but only to rot on the ground). The very real terrorization of a horse (there are ways to show his anger without attacking an animal). And perhaps most shockingly an actual castration of a bull (something very easy to recreate with a prop). I don’t feel any of this animal harm was necessary to tell this story.
Hong Kong consumes more meat per person (695 grams per day or about 1.5 pounds) than any other nation, with a life expectancy of , the world's highest. Meanwhile, India has the second lowest per capita meat consumption in the world, and the average life expectancy is 68.3 years.
Jesus what a bad review
We need to be masculine this is good
Incredible analysis. I think watching this while being sleep deprived was kind of a bad idea 😂. But your analysis did help me to understand it a lot better. I think a re-watch when I am not sleep deprived would make this one of better film of 2021 in my ranking.
Thank you, happy to hear it resonated. Since it's such a slow burn, adequate sleep is probably a good idea 😅 Feel free to share what you thought upon rewatching!
Nice one 👏 I've just uploaded my own review and explanation vid of the movie on my channel. Keep up the good work.
Cool, thanks!
FINALLY VIDEO ANALYSIS OF THIS WONDERFUL MOVIE AND ITS THEMES
Glad it resonated with you! Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
damn good analysis. I'm subscribing right away.
Woo! 🥰
Oh, it’s supposed to be a commentary on “toxic masculinity” and here I was thinking it was a boring, pointless, slog that was a complete waste of time. Lol! The more vague and directionless the movie the more people who sniff their own farts can make long videos about its “deeper meaning”
You seem like the kind of person to look at a book as just letters.
@@xanderowl9041 calm down. The pretentious movie sucked. Get over it
There is no such thing as toxic masculinity - this is a made up term and ideology, as far as the film is concerned, I give it a fair review.
Oh come off it. The "masculinity" in this flick is no more authentic than the setting in Montana, New Zealand. This modestly talented crew are merely the emperor's new tailors...
100% agree
I shall put forward, for badness, an antithesis to your well crafted review:
Phil - strong, hard working and successful rancher who doesn't suffer fools gladly. Bit of a Bully, but his men appear to respect him. Not happy about his brother bringing his wife and her son home, a well founded concern as it happens. Engages in offensive behaviour including not changing his clothes when asked by his brother, and whistling a tune at inoppertune moments.
Phils brother- nice, shy, retiring man who looks down to the ground alot. Even stared into the distance on one occasion. Wouldn't strike you as the type you can depend upon if the sh;t hits the fan.
Brother's wife- hard working sensitive soul or self destructive boozehound who conveniently blames Phil for her predilection for the good stuff. Not really a fair reflection of the strong women in the early 19th century mid West who probably would have wedgied Phil to within an inch of his life before he could have finished shouting "down with the feminists".
The son- this weak, effeminate, backstabbing spawn of Phils Brother's wife is supposed to be the hero of the hour. Manys a viewer delighted in seeing this treacherous weasel put an end to Phil in a cruel and underhand manner, using the same poison that cowards post to government offices, but when is the murder of an individual less of an affront to moral decency than being a Bully? If toxic masculinity is a term to describe the worst characteristics of the male species then this spineless excuse of a boy-man ticks all the boxes.
Unintentionally, the movie is an allegory for our times, in that the strong and hardworking have been supplanted by the weak and treacherous ...Damn them to hell.
I liked the cinematography though and the acting was v good.
Thanks for sharing Patrick! Interesting to read your take.
Yes this film angered me too. Phil didn't really do anything that was unforgivable. He was redeemable. The idea that because he is confused and displays toxic masculinity doesn't mean he deserves to be snuffed or gaslighted into believing he should end his life to end his torment and restore balance. Nasty nasty film.
I think at it's core toxic masculinity is about dominant control and power over others. Sometimes it presents itself in ways that are not recognized as easily. Like a cultured man in a suit who uses his power and money to control others.
Well put. It really is so ingrained and nuanced. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I couldn't agree more
I thinks it’s strange that you can choose not to eat animals because of the moral implications but are happy to describe a character who murders another human as sensitive, pragmatic and a saviour.
You think it's strange that other people besides yourself have their own complexities?
@@Oreo-vh7rk that could be a response to anything, really couldn’t it? We not post judgement. I do think it’s an odd to watch a film in which someone murders someone and think the murderer is a saviour and sensitive, and yeah i think is relevant if your online persona suggests a higher moral standard than the norm too. I though the whole point was to undercut the presumption that you might have about who’s the victim is.
@@mattgumbley1317 I just don't see the correlation of choosing not to eat meat in real life and having empathy for a fictional murderer. Two completely different things and yet your mind links it together and baffles itself
@@Oreo-vh7rk it’s more seeing that character as sensitive pragmatic and a saviour. Thanks though. You have really added something here
He's pragmatic
He's sensitive
And he was a savior to his mother.
He's clearly a psychopath also but that doesn't change the three above.
I think maybe we are “over analyzing” this movie. At its base it’s just a movie about a gay frustrated cruel cowboy, his kind brother & bullied wife, a gay young boy (man) who will do anything to protect his mother - even murder. . No need to keep digging deeper. Love to read the multiple explanations though.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
I'd start eating beef if I was you. The much needed animal protein will clear your head.
You can get protein from other foods.
@@xanderowl9041
Poor substitutes.