criterionforum.org

hearthesilence wrote:Point taken, that's why I had rephrased that line so that it only applied to the specifics of this case. As fictional drama, it can be wholly believable, but without his mental illness as a factor, it would be difficult for me to see John Du Pont inevitably committing this crime.

I think one of Foxcatcher's greatest strengths is establishing how du Pont could've done this without the sort of mental illness he was later diagnosed with. It almost makes it a relatable act, if one puts themselves in the headspace of someone who has led the sort of ego-driven, fraudulent life that du Pont did (and that we see swatches of in the film) having even a fleeting moment of self-awareness before diving right back into that ego and that fraudulence far enough to punish someone for it. In the movie's reality, du Pont could've just as easily committed suicide than cause harm to someone else, if he weren't so damnably convinced of his own importance (and such a coward).

I agree completely. That's what's so great about the way that Foxcatcher, which is largely a character piece, sustains its tension for so long. You get the feeling that, in any given scene, du Pont might be capable of anything.

It's a better film than it had any right to be - it's completely taken over a portion of my brain since I saw it over the weekend, that's for sure. I can't wait to see it again.

The problem with Bennett Miller's Foxcatcher, a retelling of one of the more fascinating stories from the last couple of decades, is that it's ransacked everything interesting about what should be a psychological crime drama leaving behind a character study that's stripped away of plot and context. It's like making a film about O.J. Simpson but saying, 'You know what'll make for a better movie? Leaving out the magnitude of O.J.'s celebrity and the lifestyle that came along with that.' The film takes zero risks despite hinting at various events. What you're left with is sitting in the shallow pool with a walls of Jericho like curtain draped down to block you from the fun happening over in the deep end. The film's subtext of class division — how the rich take advantage of the poor — is as banal a topic as there is and Miller certainly brings nothing fresh here, in fact what he does do is show incredible arrogance if not contempt for his audience by beating you over the head with it. You want to yell "We get it! What about it?" but instead we get a rendition of Bob Dylan's 'This Land is Your Land'.

If you're going to be foolish enough to discard a story that's written itself in favor of a character study you better nail it and give us your character's whys. Instead we get hints, traced montages that leave us with vague impressions instead of a better understanding. We are not given any idea of what's going on inside Dupont, besides the cliché of needing approval, a longing for mommy's love. We see a clear change in Mark but we are left to our own devices as to why — was there an affair between the two men or not? Why did Dave who we are told on more than one occasion would never come to Foxcatcher, then up his family to live there? You wish Miller would delve into these territories, take his shot at it but instead we're given a slew of monotonous wrestling scenes that ultimately leave you searching for a truth that was Miller's job to reveal.

Miller gets lauded for his ability to coax great performances from his actors but this has always been a function of a keen eye for casting rather than a proficiency in directing, in Foxcatcher his narrative choice or lack there of serves to handcuff his actors. Ruffalo's Dave is the only one of the three who is given a trajectory as we see during the interview, the film's strongest scene, when everyman Joe Positive is incapable of finding anything nice to say about Mr. Dupont. Tatum was a lug when we find him and a lug when we leave him but we know that between those points there was an evolution that we are not privy to seeing him explore as an actor. Carell as Dupont isn't given much to do as we often get confused between an actor's ability to mutate, which he nails, and performance that in Foxcatcher thru no fault of his own he's limited to the single note of creepiness.

What's most frustrating about Miller is that he is a director capable of creating an atmosphere which is a product of being attentive to detail, making every gesture and movement count but unfortunately he neglects all detail from Foxcatcher's plot, sapping a story of boundless energy into a well executed but drowsy two hours.

Something has set Mark Schultz off. After lauding the film all year, going to Cannes, and praising Miller as the greatest director, he is now saying he hates him and threatening to destroy his career on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. Apparently, he has decided he does not like the way his character was portrayed.

Ironic, because this is exactly how the character in the film might behave in this scenario. I hope he gets help for whatever's mentally going on there, though far be it from me to speculate.

This is a lengthy explanation from Schultz of his frustration, seems he's taken great offense to speculation of a sexual relationship or sexual abuse in some analyses of the subtext of the film that are out there, which makes me wonder about whether those are onto something.

This isn't the first time someone has been furious at Miller playing fast and loose with his portrayal of them.

Yuck. So after basking in the celebrity schmoozing and book sales that the film has brought him over the past year, he's now concerned that people might think he's gay, so fuck that movie.

Also,

Mark Schultz wrote: I was not emotionally fragile as critics suggest.

Ummmmm....

YOU CROSSED THE LINE MILLER. WE'RE DONE. YOU'RE CAREER IS OVER. YOU THINK I CAN'T DO IT. WATCH ME.

YOU THINK I'M GOING TO SIT BACK AND WATCH YOU DESTROY MY NAME AND REPUTATION I SWEAT BLOOD FOR. YOU AINT' SEEN NOTHING YET DUDE.

I BUILT THIS HOUSE AND I'LL TEAR IT DOWN. YOU THINK I CAN'T TAKE YOU DOWN COZ UR A DIRECTOR. WATCH ME BENNETT MILLER. YOU CROSSED THE LINE DUDE. YOU'RE GOING DOWN.

I CAN TOLERATE A LOT OF THINGS BUT I DON'T TOLERATE DISRESPECT. WE'RE DONE BENNETT.

Everything I've ever said positive about the movie I take back. I hate it. i hate it. i hate it. I hate it. i hate it. i hate it. I hate it

I HATE BENNETT MILLER.

I HATE EVERYTHING THAT SCUM TOUCHES. EVERYTHING!!!

If there was some form of sexual abuse/abuse of power that went on back then, I could understand some of the frustration if someone who very well might have issues with anger/bipolar might react that way and not necessarily be an out and out homophobe. But yeah, it doesn't look good, and looks like he's working through something pretty serious for the world to see.

This is about how I'd expect someone to react to the implication that they'd had a sexual relationship with the person who murdered their brother. I've seen people get this worked up over less. That twitter and facebook allowed a moment's irrationality to be public is unfortunate.

I kind of pictured someone attached to the film calling him up and almost verbatim screaming all the same stuff he tweeted, albeit directed at him rather than Bennett Miller.

I hope he gets help for the... well, as a sufferer myself I hesitate to speculate - but let's face it... the bipolar that is troubling him. It's some textbook stuff.

Mr Sausage wrote:This is about how I'd expect someone to react to the implication that they'd had a sexual relationship with the person who murdered their brother. I've seen people get this worked up over less. That twitter and facebook allowed a moment's irrationality to be public is unfortunate.

That is exactly what he heavily comments on on Facebook:

Mark Schultz's Facebook wrote:This must be understood. I am a born fighter and a team player. My life story is full of amazing accomplishments, tragedy and trauma. I've lived every breath of it.

My reaction on social media was triggered, not by the movie, but by an interview I saw with Bennett Miller whereon a sexual relationship between myself and my Brother’s murderer was insinuated by a reporter and allowed to breathe. I have no issue whatsoever with the choice of anyone's sexual orientation. When it comes to my own, however, I will speak up as that is my personal life choice.

Regarding my comments about Bennett and the movie, I believe that I have supported and trusted him with my life story and image. I also feel I have supported his interpretation of my story, although there were several points we've disagreed on regarding the portrayal of my character. All in all, I feel like I've helped in the films process by coaching Channing, consulting for 8 years, and adding my voice to what I did and didn’t want as an associate producer.

The particular scene in question during the interview was one of many that I objected to having in the film. It was fictional and inaccurate in its portrayal of my character and relationship with Dupont. I originally demanded he remove it, but at Bennett’s behest I ended up supporting it because I trusted he would clarify it’s ambiguity and overtones in future interviews and I've been learning to understand the artistic and creative process which is his expertise.

What I could not tolerate was a false interpretation of that scene during Bennett's interview concerning a sexual relationship between myself and the man who murdered my brother and caused so much anguish in my life. I hope everyone can understand how this would hurt. During the interview, there was an opportunity for Bennett to clarify this, to speak on my behalf and to defend my position. Given that I was not there to answer the question directly and that Bennett did not, I truly felt that I had no other choice. It was a hasty, emotionally charged reaction.

I did not intend any of the current media storm or public perception around the movie or the issue. I apologize for my methodology, especially to those who I have worked with to make the project a success. I hope this will help in resolving any undue conflict these actions have created.

Sincerely,

Mark Schultz

This was very not good with even the offensive bits (The moneyed class is evil because it has gay rapist mommy issues) being spread too thin by the hilariously awful style to connect together. Miller, who for some reason thought this was the film to shout his importance stylistically for, just drags everything out with a too self serious silence. He's not the only one committed to this style, but that doesn't change the fact that it is basically the modern equivalent to all sorts of serious cinema whether that be Kramer's in the '60s or Selznick's in the '40s. You could easily cut down a half hour, probably more. If the film stuck with a more concise and less portentous style it probably would have been very good. The film even extends this to its actors who, besides the usually reliable Carrell in one of the most laughable comedian drama performance in recent memory, try their best by turning them ugly with overdone make up. Even Tatum who doesn't seem to have the excuse of a receding hairline or nose is given cauliflower ears that the camera focuses on and a nose job that undercuts pretty severely the best performance of the movie.

Ah yes, the ol' receding nose excuse.

I could have phrased that better. I was referring to the nose Carell sports here which along with some liver spots and an odd haircut seems to be the evidence this is a serious performance.

I read someone suggest somewhere that John du Pont should have been played by Ben Mendelsohn, and ever since, I can't unthink it.

I don't think most of knives' objections are fair but I agree (I think?) that Tatum gives the film's best performance. Is there a more underrated actor working today? He is consistently interesting and gets undersold constantly due to being a hunk, but he merited an Oscar nom most of all for his work here (and unlike some of you, I think Carell and Ruffalo did as well)

That Mendelsohn suggestion is so juicy but we'll never know. I wonder when it will be that Tatum finally has earned his worth. Between the Jump series, his Soderbergh work, his Montiel work, even his work here shows an immense versatility and emotional power. One of the few arty scenes that threatens to work here is his temper tantrum and it's pretty much because of how he is able to convey so many different feelings just in the emotion of anger.