THE POWER OF THE DOG (PSALM 22)

 

I recently watched the acclaimed Netflix film “The Power of the Dog,” directed by Jane Campion. It was nominated for a number of Academy Awards and won Jane Campion her second Award for Best Director. Since the title comes from the Bible, I thought it might be interesting to analyze since, like Jesus' parables, it is quite ambiguous in its meaning and requires one to ruminate over it quite a bit. But to do so, I will have to reveal the plot, and so I advise you not to continue reading unless you have already seen it or are not planning to do so in the future.

As a film, it takes its time in advancing the plot and appears to be rather simple on the surface. It concerns two cattle ranchers in Montana during a transition time in the Old West between rough-and- tumble pioneers and the coming of civilization (as explained by Thomas Savage, the author of the novel from which the movie was adapted). Phil appears to characterize the past attitudes in that he gets down in the dirt with the ranch hands and commands their respect through sheer fear of his disapproval. By contrast, his brother is rather unassuming and mild, and is willing to change with the times and mingle with upstanding citizens such as the governor and his wife.

All is well between the brothers since Phil seems to crave his brother's company while, at the same time, constantly putting him down with his remarks. But then the brother decides to settle down and marry a pretty widow who has a rather effeminate and sensitive son who spends his time making paper flowers. Phil does not like anyone coming between him and his brother, and so he takes out his anger openly on his new sister-in-law and her “sissy” of a son, Peter. This eventually drives the woman to drink, especially when she finds she is pregnant and her ineffectual husband does nothing to stop Phil from constantly berating her.

At this point in the story, Peter returns to the ranch for the summer after his first year in medical school. One would expect Peter to avoid those who have been picking on him, but somewhat unexpectedly he parades right past Phil and the ranch hands in his “dude” clothes to the jeers of the cowboys. Just as surprisingly, Phil actually takes Peter under his wing: teaching him how to ride, braiding a leather lasso for him, and promising to take him on a long trip into the mountains.

Peter's mother gives all of Phil's drying cowhides away to a passing Native American, which enrages Phil since he needed some more hide to finish the lasso for Peter. But Peter, who had found a dead cow in the hills earlier, tells Phil that he has already cut up some hides into strips and gives them to Phil. Phil softens the leather strips in water, kneading them with his bare hands, one of which has an open cut on it due to a previous accident while castrating bulls. Phil contracts anthrax and dies. In the last scene, Peter is in his room reading Psalm 22:20 – “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.”

There are a number of ways to interpret the meaning of this film, and certainly the psychological make-up of the characters must be taken into account. About half-way through the film, we learn that Phil had actually been attending Yale University where he majored in literature and was quite musically inclined in addition. Apparently, pressures had forced him to abandon whatever personal plans he may have had in order to take care of the family's cattle business full time.

Then the audience, and Peter, learns that Phil has a secret hideout in the woods where he can be alone to commune with nature and look at homoerotic literature he has stashed there. That helps us understand Phil's constant reminisicences regarding Broncho Henry, his now departed older mentor, “adopted father,” and probable lover. This key figure in Phil's life apparently took him under his wing when Phil was forced to work back on the ranch and taught him to stifle his sensitive side in front of the other cowhands or they would rib him mercilessly. Phil really starts to bond with Peter when both of them are staring at the surrounding hills and Peter points out that the rock formations look like the head of a howling dog. Phil is amazed that he has seen so quickly what Broncho Henry had pointed out to him years earlier.

At the same time we are getting more insights into Phil's mind, we also begin to change our attitude toward Peter a little bit also. It turns out that Peter is the sort of sensitive person who can capture a rabbit, tenderly pet it, present it to his mother as a gift, and then kill it in order to dissect it. So we are not totally surprised when he rides out alone into the hills, finds a cow who has died of anthrax, carefully puts on a pair of surgical gloves, removes the hide, cuts strips off of it, and later presents it to Phil after Peter's mother has “coincidentally” eliminated all of Phil's other supply of hides. At this point, it is not much of a stretch at all to view Peter as a rather cold-blooded killer who possesses not nearly the sensitivity as Phil, even though Phil has had to suppress his feelings over the years out of necessity.

So what should we think regarding this movie, especially the title The Power of the Dog, and its relation to the biblical text? In the first place, there is a general correspondence between the Montana cattle ranch setting in the movie and the reference in Psalm 22:12 to the many strong bulls of Bashan who surround the author. A.A. Anderson notes, “The major part of it [i.e. Bashan] was a table land between 1500 and 2300 feet in height, well suited for the growing of wheat and raising of cattle.”

Secondly, as Holladay says, “Of the laments, none is more awesome than Psalm 22.” However, one of the unique features of this particular psalm is that the speaker nowhere protests his innocence.” That alone introduces a point of ambiguity, so that there is the possibility that he is in fact deserving of the treatment he gets. (Beigent and others)

In one thing most of the reviewers agree (quite mistakenly in my opinion) -- Phil is the “dog” and Peter is forced to act out of self-defense and to protect his mother and unborn child. These critics even propose the rather farfetched idea that Phil is plotting to lure Peter into the woods in order to kill him, making it look like an accident. (If that were Phil's plan, he certainly didn't need to spend all of his spare time during the summer laboriously plaiting rawhide strips for Peter's rope just in order to get him away where he could safely kill him.) One critic states, “Phil's power comes from demeaning people (see vv. 6-7, 22).” And another one says, “It is Phil's ability to prey on others' inadequacies and insecurities – thus making them question their value and feel like 'worms' – that is the dog's power.”

As for Peter being the innocent party whose thoughts are expressed in the words of the Psalmist, they point to two verses in Psalm 22 on which to hang their case. First, they say that the reference to “my darling” in v. 20 obviously refers to Peter's mother, whom he is trying to protect. Secondly, there is verse 7 in which “all who see me mock at me.” This appears to be expressed in the movie by the scene in which Peter is mocked by the cowboys as he walks by them in his city clothes.

As a rebuttal to that general view, let me offer the following facts. In the first place, although in v. 6 the Psalmist does say, “I am a worm and no man,” that statement could just as easily describe Phil as Peter. A.A. Anderson explains the phrase 'no man' as “perhaps 'an unwanted nobody', one who does not belong anywhere, and who has become an island in a sea of hostility.” I would defy anyone to see the movie and feel that this applies to Peter more than to Phil. After all, Peter can easily get away from what little heckling he gets at the ranch by just avoiding most of the others during the summer and then escaping entirely during the school year. On the other hand, it is Phil who has to be constantly surrounded by hostile men who would tease him mercilessly if they knew Phil's secret, and perhaps they did just that before Broncho Henry started to mentor him on how to get by.

Regarding the phrase “my darling” in the King James Version of v. 20, this is a total misinterpretation of the literal Hebrew “my only one.” Modern Bible scholars and interpreters almost universally understand this phrase to be synonymous with “my life” in the first part of the verse. Thus, it refers to the Psalmist's life, all that he has left. NEB translates it as “my precious life.” And Anderson gives the opinion that this phrase is “probably a description of life as the only thing left to the sufferer.” Thus, this verse should not be used as proof that the Psalmist should be equated with Peter.

At this point, it is helpful to look at what Jane Campion herself had to say since she was not only the director but also the co-writer of the screenplay. In one interview, she was quoted as explaining that “the psalm is sort of warning to the faithful and refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is [in effect] Jesus himself in the story who speaks of 'a pack of dogs that surrounds and besieges.'” So is Psalm 22 a sort of veiled prophecy of Christ's life, especially his last days? On this, the Bible scholars would overwhelmingly agree with her. Just consider some of the ways this psalm was fulfilled in the New Testament.

                                                                                              Psalm 22        New Testament

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”                       v. 1                 Matt. 27:46 and parallels

He is scorned and mocked.                                                          vv. 6-7            Mark 15:29

He is asked by others why God doesn't deliver him.                   v. 8                 Matthew 27:43

His enemies surround him.                                                         vv. 12-13,16a  Matt. 26:67-68; 27:27-31

His dying agonies (on the cross) are described.                          v. 14

He is thirsty.                                                                                v. 15a              John 19:38

He dies.                                                                                       v. 15b              Luke 23:46 and parallels

“My hands and feet have been pierced (or shriveled)”              v. 16b              John 20:25-27

Onlookers mock him.                                                                 v. 17                Matthew 27:39

They cast lots for his clothing.                                                   v. 18                Mark 15:24 and parallels

He prays for deliverance.                                                           vv. 19-21         Mark 14:36

God listens to him and releases him from his agonies.             vv. 21b-24       Luke 23:46

He calls believers “brothers and sisters.”                                  v. 22                Hebrews 2:12

Future generations will be told about God's deliverance.         vv. 29-31         Philippians 2:10-11

So, assuming that Campion is correct in her comment, and no one should doubt that fact, then we should expect to see a Christ-figure in the movie. But who is it, Phil or Peter? At least one reviewer out and out stated that it was certainly the gentle Peter, not the brutish Phil. But is that really correct?

Here are a few contrary indications to mention:

    This Psalm is being spoken in the first person by King David, who was well known as being musically inclined and especially skilled at playing a stringed instrument. Not coincidentally, Phil is shown at being musically adept in the same way.

    Another very obvious fact is that it is Phil who dies in order that other people around him can be delivered, not Peter. That hardly paints Peter as being a type of Christ.

    Thirdly, Phil dies as a result of a betrayal by one very close to him. That clearly points to Peter being Judas and Phil playing the role of Christ, especially since Peter's act of betrayal is disguised as an act of love for Phil just as Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss.

    Of course, the biggest objection to my thesis is that Phil can't be either the sufferer portrayed in Psalm 22 or Jesus since he is not at all an innocent party. But keep in mind two facts: (1) as mentioned above, this lament psalm is unique in not pointing out that the speaker is innocent and (2) when Christ died on the cross, he bore all the sins of the world on himself and therefore paid the required price of death for them. And in doing so, he brought salvation to all around him, including unborn generations such as Peter's coming half-brother.

For additional confirmation of this interpretation, it is important to take into account another comment by the director of the film. She told interviewers, “The power of the dog is made up of all those impulses, the deep and uncontrollable ones, that can come out and destroy you.” Totally ignoring that statement, one film critic stated, “Phil's power comes from demeaning people.” That certainly is true on the surface, but as Campion points out, we are encouraged to look a little deeper into the psychological motives, not just the superficial actions. Is she talking about Peter's uncontrollable urges? That would be highly doubtful. He is carefully controlled and methodical in what he does. On the other hand, Phil is shown to be a highly conflicted person who has struggled to overcompensate for his sensitive nature by coming off as even more brutish than his fellow cowhands. Thus, it is Phil's homoerotic attraction to Peter that comes to the surface and totally blinds him to Peter's treachery.

Another important point to discuss is the use of the term “dog” in the Psalm and in the film. Kiuchi says that it “is universally viewed as a contemptible animal” although in Deuteronomy 23:18 it may refer to a male prostitute, as in NIV. Commenting on that particular verse:

    Harrison says that 'dog' is “the Hebrew term for a sodomite.”

    Craigie states that 'hire of a dog' is “commonly taken to refer to wages acquired from male prostitution.

    Thompson agrees and points out that particular usage is known outside of the Old Testament.

    By contrast, Mayes says that “although the context of its use demands that it should be understood as the designation of a male prostitute, it does not necessarily have a pejorative connotation. It means 'a devoted follower' of a god.”

The word 'dog' appears twice in the psalm. The first time it is in the plural and refers to the many enemies of the Psalmist who surround him and are poised to destroy him. In that verse, the definition of 'dogs' as contemptible beings fits the context best. The next time is in v. 20 where only one 'dog' is mentioned, although Anderson feels that it can be understood as a collective noun referring to the dogs of v. 16. And as the film uses that verse in its title, it can refer both to the 'dog' being a contemptible person and a sodomite (i.e. a homosexual). That fact alone does not narrow down the possibilities any since both Phil and Peter can be made to fit either description. So let me mention two more ways in which the movie portrays Phil as a type of Christ much more closely than Peter does:

    One of the first scenes in the movie is of Phil and the ranch hands sitting down at a long table to eat with Phil at the head and Peter as their waiter standing at the foot of the table. It is quite reminiscent of the Last Supper in that Phil has his disciples all at the table together and dismisses Peter (an incipient disciple) from the table with some abruptness just as Jesus dismissed Judas from the table. I even attempted to count the number of Phil's followers at and around the table but could only come up with eleven counting Peter, not twelve. But I may have missed counting all of the men. In any case, it is clearly Phil who has followers gathered around him, not at all the loner Peter.

    There is another scene in the movie with a NT allusion, the time when all of the cowhands are washing in the stream while Phil withdraws by himself to lie down, commune with nature, and recall his happy days when Broncho Henry was still around. This is quite similar to the occasions when Jesus left the Apostles, who were sometimes also on the water, in order to be alone to spiritually recuperate and commune with the Father in prayer.

The above scene also brings up two other important points. Jesus needed to escape on occasion from those he was constantly around in order to get spiritual renewal. This was especially necessary due to the strain of having to deal with very unenlightened minds who were often incapable of misunderstanding who He was and what he was saying. The same appears to be the case with Phil. But those times in which the cowboys do seem to hang on his every words are when Phil tells stories about his departed surrogate father figure Broncho Henry (God the Father) and the miraculous things he could do.