It was an arrowhead, I think. It looked like a collection of them. And earlier in the movie when talking to the boys about the mountains he says something like “you might even find an arrowhead!”
I think I had an experience roughly opposite yours in terms of piecing the film together: I was pretty sure right from the opening credits that expectations would be undermined and Peter would prove quite sinister, based mainly on those menacing first lines, but my intuition was hazy and I was completely oblivious to the details with the anthrax until it was pretty well spelled out at the end (I was probs not paying a ton of attention, but I’ve always had a much keener eye for themes, metaphor, artistry, etc. than for plot details).
It’s such a great film to discuss! The line that kept sticking in my mind afterward was when Rose noticed that Peter’d gone riding with Phil and she yelled at no one in particular, “no, I don’t want him going anywhere with Phil at all!” Could she have actually been worried for Phil?? Or, more practically speaking, worried what Peter might do? Or am I giving her way too much credit? I wanted to rethink her character at the end almost as much as Peter’s.
Also, interesting that you mentioned Nathaniel Rogers… I’ve been reading his blog The Film Experience for literally decades, and I used to be quite obsessed with it when I was younger, particularly during my Brown years.
Thank you for your exposition. I just watched this film and was searching for some discussion around it. I agreed with your explanation. For me, there was something Hitchcockian to the piece; one review compared it du Maurier's Rebecca. Other stand outs were the score - horribly fractured during the mother's breakdown, and the cinematography - framing and contrast/lighting. The last scenes are almost picture in picture - the rough edges of the ranch are clipped out; with Phil gone, his brother can now fully realise his aspirations.
“we see Phil tuck away a sample of something”
It was an arrowhead, I think. It looked like a collection of them. And earlier in the movie when talking to the boys about the mountains he says something like “you might even find an arrowhead!”
I can’t wait to watch this again.
(Spoilers ahead for anyone reading the comments)
I think I had an experience roughly opposite yours in terms of piecing the film together: I was pretty sure right from the opening credits that expectations would be undermined and Peter would prove quite sinister, based mainly on those menacing first lines, but my intuition was hazy and I was completely oblivious to the details with the anthrax until it was pretty well spelled out at the end (I was probs not paying a ton of attention, but I’ve always had a much keener eye for themes, metaphor, artistry, etc. than for plot details).
It’s such a great film to discuss! The line that kept sticking in my mind afterward was when Rose noticed that Peter’d gone riding with Phil and she yelled at no one in particular, “no, I don’t want him going anywhere with Phil at all!” Could she have actually been worried for Phil?? Or, more practically speaking, worried what Peter might do? Or am I giving her way too much credit? I wanted to rethink her character at the end almost as much as Peter’s.
Also, interesting that you mentioned Nathaniel Rogers… I’ve been reading his blog The Film Experience for literally decades, and I used to be quite obsessed with it when I was younger, particularly during my Brown years.
Thank you for your exposition. I just watched this film and was searching for some discussion around it. I agreed with your explanation. For me, there was something Hitchcockian to the piece; one review compared it du Maurier's Rebecca. Other stand outs were the score - horribly fractured during the mother's breakdown, and the cinematography - framing and contrast/lighting. The last scenes are almost picture in picture - the rough edges of the ranch are clipped out; with Phil gone, his brother can now fully realise his aspirations.