Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist

Rating: 6/10 (10 December 2014)

When you have a movie based on a true story, where the producer is one of the characters in said movie (in this case, Mark Schultz) then one must be cognizant of fact that the contents of the film may be skewed in a way so as to not upset the producer's credibility. That said, with the help of some momentarily interesting (but highly flawed) filmmaking from director Bennett Miller (Moneyball) "Foxcatcher" does go places that I didn't think it would go; to the tune of some very obvious sequences of homoerotic innuendo.
Synopsis: This is the story of Olympic gold medalist, Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) a man who constantly lived in the shadow of his older brother David (Mark Ruffalo). In the mid 80's, Mark gets a call from a representative of John du Pont (Steve Carell) an unstable but extremely wealthy man; who touts himself as a bird watcher, patriot and leader of men. Du Pont initially recruits Mark to head up his wrestling team he has prestigiously dubbed Team Foxcatcher. But as du Pont takes Mark under his wing, he forces himself into the role of father figure (a role previously held by David) and then some weird stuff happens, resulting in sequences where Channing Tatum is doing drugs and sporting frosted tips. OK, so while this is a watchable character study, it's not much more than that. Even with its ending, which is highly eventful but so jarring that, for some, it may seem to come out of nowhere, "Foxcatcher" meanders around for a majority of its 134 minute runtime, likely losing most of its audiences along the way.
The biggest issue with "Foxcatcher" is most definitely the pacing. Olympic wrestling is an odd sport to watch on film if you don't know what is specifically going on. Before going into "Foxcatcher" I'd questioned how Miller was going to film events pertaining to the sport itself in a way that would come across as entertaining to all audiences. But then again, some critics used to think the same about filming boxing, since (aside from momentary flurries) boxing would seem like a fairly uneventful sport to film. But since the 70's with movies like "Rocky" and "Raging Bull", it has become obvious that boxing can be shot in a way that is highly theatrical. As for "Foxcatcher", Miller seems unable to solve the problem of translating Olympic wrestling into something theatrically entertaining. Thus, every wrestling match shown hangs there, lifeless, especially if you have no clue how matches are scored or how one wins and loses. This flaw is clearly on Miller and his bland technique of filming these sequences. Also, it doesn't help that about 1/3 of this movie is wrestling matches and training sessions, which I suspect will put some to sleep. The second part of this pacing problem lies with the decision not to add a musical score. Yes, at times, near the end, there is a score. But most of this film is filled with silence and the sound of wrestling shoes on mats. Now, I can see what Miller was going for (with a lack of music brings on feelings of solitude, which represent how Mark Schultz is feeling during most of this movie). But this experiment comes across as awkward at best.
The acting is one of this film's only "bright spots", so let's focus on that for a moment. Tatum and Ruffalo do some of their best dramatic work here, as visually they become these characters; down to the wrestler mannerisms; the way they carry themselves and simply walk around. As for Carell, his performance will be the one everybody focuses on, since he plays a character so far removed from the slap-stick realm, with more prosthetics on than a Lord of the Rings character. And while he does do an excellent job portraying du Pont, would I say, give him the Oscar right now? No. Maybe the most complimentary thing I could say about his performance was that at many times I forgot it was Carell under all of the makeup; which may predictably be the reason he wins the Oscar this awards season.
Final Thought: As wrestling is more of a psychological sport than a physical one (even though it may appear otherwise) so is this movie. That is to say, though there is not a lot of action, there is clear and continuous psychological conflict between the three main characters within "Foxcatcher", which is an interesting take away. This and the acting are things which will garner this film attention from the award givers. But as a whole, does this film resemble anything entertaining or memorable? The answer is, absolutely not.