Foxcatcher

Foxcatcher 

Directed by Bennett Miller

Written by E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman

The first thing that struck me when viewing Foxcatcher was the quality of the acting on display. I've liked Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo in films before like The Hateful Eight and Zodiac respectively, but Steve Carell really surprised me. I respect Carell as an actor but none of his work is anything I would say I especially enjoyed. He kills it here as real-life millionaire and certified weirdo John DuPont. As a whole I would say these performances are all worthy of at least an award nod, it's just a shame that such great acting is failed by a flawed and often dry script.

The story follows Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), a real life gold medal Olympic wrestler, who lives in the shadow. of his brother Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo), another gold medal Olympic wrestler. He is living his day-to-day life training for the next wrestling event hoping for a chance to win more gold but feeling unfulfilled in early 1980's America. He is approached one day by John DuPont (Carell), an eccentric millionaire living in Pennsylvania who wants to start up a wrestling team named Team Foxcatcher, after his property. Things at first go great, with Mark finding a drive and purpose he initially lacked. But things begin to take a dark twist as John starts to become more and more unhinged.

The story at it's core is basic. I think we've seen this in numerous other films, but the films has really interesting dynamics and characters that it seemingly refuses to focus on. Tatum's Mark is a young athlete who has already proven himself but seeks to really make a name that is separate from his brother's and Carell gives that opportunity to him while he himself is a broken and flawed character. I think the film misses the chance to show the relationship of two people who use each other to attain their goals while both being deeply flawed and eventually leaving one mentally unraveling and the other doomed to a life of relative obscurity and I think the filmmakers could have explored that kind of toxic relationship but they fail to capitalize on it. The film is based on the real story of Mark Schultz and since I don't know if that is what actually happened or not, but assuming it isn't the script fails to replace it with something as interesting or concrete to center around. I suppose the filmmakers didn't want to alter the story in an attempt to stay faithful to the history but therein lies the rub, without anything to solidly focus the story around the whole thing feels messy, even a bit discombobulated.

Major spoiler warning for the next paragraph, skip it if you don't want anything ruined.

I know I mentioned the film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford only a few reviews ago but I think it serves as the perfect comparison to this film. There is a murder at the end of the movie and it is hinted at throughout the film but it isn't built up to in nearly as effectively a way as was Jesse James' murder in the aforementioned. In Assassination, we see Bob Ford's relationship with Jesse James, how he begins to grow and resent him as he realizes just what kind of person his former idol is. This film lacks that same drama because the buildup. The character just decides one day to kill his victim and while we get little hints at perhaps why he does it the film fails to really make us care, fails to really build up the murder and therefore enhance the tragedy.

To be clear, I like where I thought they were initially going. One of the major problems of the film lies in how it doesn't really play on the relationships between the characters. Mark believes himself stuck in his brother Dave's shadow and tries desperately to escape it, I mean there have been whole movies based around this conflict (for a good example of this, watch the film Warrior starring Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy). As well there have also been films based around toxic relationships and characters going insane, whether it be from paranoia or just mental illness (try Alfred Hitchcock's excellent film Vertigo starring James Stewart). There are so many examples of how to do this right the material could essentially write itself but it just fails to make you care or connect you in any meaningful way.

As I've said before, the acting from the three leads is buy-and-large exceptional. Tatum gives one of his better performances as Mark Schultz and you can tell he worked his butt off for the role. The wrestling scenes are so fluid that you really believe he's been a wrestler for his entire life, at least if you haven't wrestled before but I assume it would pass muster for any wrestlers in the audience. Tatum looks, acts and talks the part, even looking similar to how the real life Mark Schultz does which I thought was a nice bonus.

His performance, as I said, is let down by the writing and it really is a shame. There is a lot of room for his character to play in and Tatum seems willing to do the work but he isn't really given anything too interesting or compelling to go off of. Don't get me wrong, it hits the beats that are expected, but the story in between those beats is lacking and it makes those moments that should be compelling fall flat with only a single exception. There is a scene during the Olympic Trials where Tatum must wrestle for a spot on the wrestling team four the 1984 Summer Olympics in Seoul and he loses his first match. The scene which takes place in his hotel room is heartbreaking and Tatum sells the moment one-hundred-and-ten percent. It's a glimpse at what this movie could have been.

Also of note is Mark Ruffalo's performance. Ruffalo has proven on several occasion's to be a fantastic supporting actor and he shines he again as he did in both Zodiac and the Marvel movies. His character is a wrestling coach with a family who only wants the best for his brother but because of his obligation to his wife and children he can't always be there for him. Ruffalo does great with what he's given and steals several of the scenes he's in but again the writing doesn't let him do anything very interesting. He has a few confrontations with Carell that are pretty good but he is rarely allowed to be anything other than the man who is concerned for his brother.

The man who steals the whole movie is Steve Carell as John DuPont. I've only seen him in comedic roles and so I was initially concerned with his casting but my fears were quickly assuaged in his first few scenes. Carell becomes John DuPont, totally changing his voice, his mannerisms and even applying prosthetics that make him seem totally different than how he actually looks. Seriously, look up a picture of the real John DuPont, the resemblance is a little unnerving. Unlike Ruffalo or Tatum the script attempts to give more substance to his character, we get hints of a disapproving mother, an absent father, and a similar strive for greatness and recognition that Tatum has, but the major flaw here is that it never comes together cohesively. I was waiting for that moment where it all comes together and we understand who he is, what he wants, and what he's willing to do to achieve his goals. But we don't, and I see it as a serious flaw in something that could have been great.

The directing is pretty fantastic, as it should be from the same man who directed the excellent Capote starring late Philip Seymour Hoffman. The shots all fit together in an effective and cohesive manner and his direction of the three leads is, again, fantastic. The scenes are all well shot and the placement of items inside them often does a better job of hinting at the character's traits then the script does, a particular scene I found especially notable was one in Dave's office at Foxcatcher where we can see the somewhat blurry photos of each team member on the wall standing in front of a blue background but DuPont's photo stands out as he is in front of an American flag background, setting himself apart from the other members. Another scene comes after Tatum's initial loss at the Trials where there is no auditory dialogue, we are shown a confrontation between Dave and John but don't know what they are saying but the two characters interactions tell us everything we need to know and I loved it.

The music I found forgettable in most places, I remember two licensed songs used  in particular scenes but I didn't find that it really added anything. Perhaps if I saw the movie again I would notice the music more but it left such a little impression on me I don't think it would help.

I'm sad to report that I didn't find Foxcatcher half as good as I was hoping it to be. The story has a lot of room to grab your interest and keep it, the characters have a lot of room to make you feel for them and grow attached, but I think the writing is where the film stumbles badly. It essentially wastes the three brilliant performances of it's leads by not doing enough with their characters. I wish I could say go see it for the acting alone but in good conscience I can't, I just don't think there's enough there to warrant sitting through all of the lackluster writing just for the leads. They deserved a better movie.