![]() “There’s no harm in looking at a character to get to the root causes of that. Whether it’s on our doorstep or whether it’s down the road or whether it’s someone we meet in a bar or pub or on the sports field, there is aggression and anger and frustration and an inability to control or know who you are in that moment that causes damage to that person and, as we know, damage to those around them,” Cumberbatch said. He also notes that people like Burbank did actually exist back during the time period in which the film and novel are set, and similar people continue to exist today. In the session, Cumberbatch went on to explain how the story and his character Phil Burbank represent very real things in our lives. “I’m trying very hard not to say anything about a very odd reaction that happened the other day on a radio podcast over here,” Cumberbatch said about Elliott’s interview.Ĭumberbatch continued, “Without meaning to stir over the ashes of that someone really took offense to-I haven’t heard it so it’s unfair for me to comment in detail on it-to the West being portrayed in this way.” But you guys clearly didn't read Phil as being as bad a guy as I did so I'm wondering if I was stoned and paranoid enough to totally misread it, I just never felt like he was being altruistic or genuine with Peter (or anyone else in the movie, really). It definitely wasn't a "Western", it was a thriller set on a ranch and the half naked cowboys were allegorical metaphors for Phil's inner conflict or whatever. Phil laughs it off because he thinks Peter is not masculine enough, but I expect Peter means that he is lacking in emotion/empathy, which along with the animal mutilation and pragmatic murder of Phil fits with what we know about the psychology of serial killers. I didn't buy his turn around as pure vulnerability, but felt like the ending was a predator being taken out by another predator (because Peter 100% reads as a sociopath serial killer-in training to me, even down to his wondering if he was "too tough". I felt like there was a predatory bent to Phil's approaching Peter too, and he was clearly seeing himself as the Bronco Henry to Peter. I got the sense that part of Bronco Henry's teaching Phil to be a "real man" was some serious grooming, possibly coming to a head when they had to naked snuggle for warmth (which I know is a totally real thing, but the way Phil and Peter talked about it made me feel like it got weird). I also think it was too long and sort of boring but it can be both fascinating and boring to watch at the same time I guess. I am not a huge Cumberbatch fan, and feel like he was a little miscast here (although I get that that is sort of the point, and it definitely made me feel like he just didn't quite fit in, which is maybe ALSO the point, I just felt like his idea of exaggerated masculinity is to half shout all the time), but I think all the actors had some really good subtle stuff going on and the movie definitely lets you put together the pieces for yourself concerning everyone's motivations. But you guys clearly didn't read Phil as being as bad a guy as I did so I'm wondering if I was stoned and paranoid enough to totally misread it.I just never felt like he was being altruistic or genuine with Peter (or anyone else in the movie, really). Phil laughs it off because he thinks Peter is not masculine enough, but I expect Peter means that he is lacking in emotion/empathy, which along with the animal mutilation and pragmatic murder of Phil fits with what we know about the psychology of serial killers according to all those episode of Last Podcast on the Left I listened to and the 3 seasons of Dexter I watched) It definitely wasn't a "Western", it was a thriller set on a ranch and the half naked cowboys were allegorical metaphors for Phil's inner conflict or whatever. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |