Bennett Miller's Foray Into American Prestige And Madness

Rating: 7/10 (22 December 2014)

This may have been the most bleak movie I've ever seen! *Possible spoilers if you don't know the real-life story*
Foxcatcher tells the true life story of wrestlers Mark and David Schultz and their lives with John Du Pont in the mid-to-late 80's. Du Pont, an extremely rich and powerful oddball, recruits the promising young Mark to his Team Foxcatcher. The two form a very uncomfortable father/son relationship, but more accurately, a pimp/prostitute relationship. Du Pont keeps Mark under his thumb with alternating displays of affection and detestation, money, shelter, and even hard drugs, while Mark wants nothing but to please his benefactor. This dynamic is interrupted at the arrival of David, Mark's brother, whom Mark also looks to as a quasi-father figure. David's presence brings out anger and jealousy in Du Pont, as the man can literally have anything (even a military tank with a mounted machine gun), but he'll never have the kind of love that Mark and David share. I found the bizarre love triangle of Foxcatcher to be really intriguing, but Bennett Miller's screen adaptation of this real life story suffers from a lack of artistic flair. Everything about the characters, setting, timeline, etc, comes off as completely accurate to the actual account, but the film is both glacially paced and dry as a bone. By now, I'm used to watching slow art-house movies, but Foxcatcher takes things to a new level. Nothing particularly stimulating happens throughout, at least nothing apart from the typical troubled-athlete peculiarities (Mark punching himself in the face repeatedly and wrecking up a hotel room). It's just scene after scene of Du Pont speaking vaguely about patriotism and victory and Mark going along for the ride, which is interesting at first but grows more tedious as the film progresses. This repetition was surely the intention of the screenwriters, but the effect of it is numbing to the viewer.
Like the screenplay, the visual style is technically proficient (grim, dark cinematography that perfectly reflects the stark nature of the material) but is void of any passion. Even the simple piano/violin score was too sparse for its own good, conjuring up very little emotion.
Perhaps I'm harping on the negatives because of the huge critical hype following Foxcatcher, but one thing I'm sure of is that the acting is some of the best I've seen all year. Steve Carell gives the best and most memorable performance of his entire career as John Du Pont. Carell nailed every aspect of the character, from his off-putting facial expressions to his awkward, halting speech patterns. Du Pont is possibly the most unnerving character I've ever seen portrayed in a film, and Carell deserves every bit of praise coming his direction. Channing Tatum, an actor I was never quite sure of, was practically tailor-suited for the role of Mark. Tatum doesn't have a great deal of finesse, but he was clearly dedicated to the production and pulled off the 'coming apart' scenes very well. Mark Ruffalo, another actor I've never been crazy about, is brilliant as David, who's actually my favorite character of the film. His intimate interactions with Tatum are highly realistic, as is the chemistry with his wife and children. David seems to be the only character with a steady head on his shoulders, making the end of Foxcatcher all the more bleak.
Foxcatcher is a film I'd have a hard time recommending to people. I didn't really enjoy watching it and I felt severely depressed after it was over. Of course, that doesn't make it bad by any means. It's simply a realistically told, dour story that wallows a bit too much in its own discomfort. I do think the enormous critical praise is excessive, but there are features of it, particularly the acting, that are definitely Oscar-worthy.