Will Foxcatcher benefit from good timing? The movie goes into wide national release Friday (Jan. 16), one day after earning five Academy Award nominations, including a Best Director nod for Bennett Miller, a Best Actor nomination for Steve Carell and a Best Supporting Actor bid for Mark Ruffalo. Just as those nominations might pique moviegoers’ curiosity, the film is as available in theaters as it will ever be.
Initially, Foxcatcher drew notice when word of Carell playing a serious role and undergoing a physical (and prosthetic) transformation to play delusional, eccentric billionaire John du Pont began to circulate. But with a cast that includes Ruffalo and Channing Tatum, along with Miller (Capote, Moneyball) directing, this movie was not just a gimmick or vanity project for a comedic actor to show he could do drama. No, it’s deadly serious stuff, with a dark, foreboding tone that hangs over the story throughout its progression.
It’s probably better if you know less about the story going in, and I’m presuming Miller prefers it that way too. (The Oscar-nominated screenplay by E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman plays with the actual timeline of events, though not egregiously, to serve the narrative.) But I don’t think it’s giving anything away to note that Foxcatcher is about the events leading up to du Pont murdering Olympic wrestler and coach Dave Schultz (Ruffalo) in 1996, an incident that was shocking and completely unexpected.
With that knowledge, the question viewers might hold in their minds while watching the film is “Why?” Why did du Pont shoot and kill Dave Schultz? What led him to that murderous impulse? Did Schultz do anything to provoke du Pont? Was this somehow an act of revenge or retribution for how the relationship between du Pont and Mark Schultz (Tatum), Dave’s younger brother, deteriorated?
However, Miller doesn’t seem entirely interested in answering the “why?” of this story. There’s certainly no “A-ha!” moment when du Pont’s character arc leads to a natural conclusion or his motives become clear. That might be frustrating to some viewers, but to Miller’s credit, it’s true to actual events. During du Pont’s arrest and subsequent trial, it was never learned why he suddenly turned homicidal and killed someone he was believed to respect, even idolize. His lawyers argued he was mentally ill, and a jury concurred — at least to an extent.
The movie doesn’t get into any of that, by the way, other than a brief mention before the closing credits of what happened later. That’s because Foxcatcher is ultimately a character study, particularly of two men who don’t feel they’re taken particularly seriously — especially by those whom they look up to.
John du Pont wasn’t loved by his mother, had no friends growing up (which we learn in a rather heartbreaking story), wasn’t athletically gifted and nothing close to the leader of men he believed himself to be. He was incredibly wealthy, and used his money to try and fill those inadequacies, which almost certainly gave him a warped perspective on how he was viewed by associates and the general public.
Mark Schultz was an Olympic gold medalist who allowed himself to become completely defined by wrestling and his achievements or failures in that sport. The same focus that surely made him a world-class athlete hindered him socially. At the beginning of the film, we see Schultz making a speech to grade schoolers for 20 dollars (an audience he’s not particularly suited to speak to) and living in a dumpy apartment. Olympic glory hasn’t done much for him, but to attain it again is all he has.
Worst of all for Schultz is that he lives in the shadow of his older brother, Dave (Ruffalo), also an Olympic champion, but who has found a second career as a valued coach and leader. Additionally, Dave has a family, a wife (an unrecognizable Sienna Miller) and two kids that have given him a purpose in regards to choosing the direction of his life and a reason to make decisions carefully, rather than impulsively.
While Dave does have a protective impulse toward Mark, he does seem a bit clueless about how inferior his little brother often feels. Either that, or maybe deep down, the big brother likes being the big dog in the family.
You could say these three make up a love triangle. Du Pont certainly wants to be loved, whether by his mother or the wrestlers he tells himself he’s leading by opening an Olympic training facility on his estate. Mark Schultz wants the love that should come with Olympic glory, by being the best in his sport. He wants affirmation from du Pont, certainly more than he gets from his brother.
(Some critics believe the film implies there was more going on between du Pont and Mark Schultz, leading to a real-life explosive outburst from the wrestler on social media.)
Dave Schultz gets the love he needs from his family, and he seems comfortable with his accomplishments. Yet he also may enjoy being needed by his younger brother and by du Pont. At the very least, Schultz sees the billionaire as a means to an end. Perhaps realizing that is what drove du Pont to shoot him in cold blood.
Personally, I found the make-up job on Carell distracting at times, like I was looking more at his fake nose than paying attention to his performance. But had Carell not done something to change his appearance, I’m guessing it would have an adjustment for audiences accustomed to him doing something funny.
To me, the revelation of this movie is Channing Tatum, who continues to surprise me as an actor with the choices he makes in roles and directors he chooses to work with, along with his developing skill on screen. It’s been difficult to dismiss him as a pretty face for a few years now. Frankly, I think he deserved an Oscar nod far more than Ruffalo, who does his usual fine work, but his role just doesn’t have the same demands as Tatum playing Mark Schultz.
Come for the premise, stay for the acting. The three people at the heart of Foxcatcher are utterly fascinating. It’s easy to see why Miller devoted eight years of his life to making this film. (Lack of financing at one point forced him to set it aside to make Moneyball.) Yet his disinterest in answering the “why?” of the story keeps the audience at a distance and is what prevents this movie from being truly compelling. I think that’s been reflected in Foxcatcher not being included on many critics’ best of 2014 lists.
But the Academy Awards certainly feel that the acting performances and Miller’s direction were worthy of recognition. No argument from me there. The overall effort — especially from the excellent cast — is certainly enough to warrant seeing this film.
