Official Competition - review - FOXCATCHER by Bennett Miller

Having greatly impressed in his previous outing Moneyball in the sports drama genre, a genre notorious for having its ups and downs, Bennett Miller returned to helm another project making a leap from baseball to amateur wrestling.

 

While the two sports are deeply rooted in the American sports tradition and both films are based on true stories, they are very different in almost everything else.

 

To begin with, Foxcatcher is much darker, and it could not have been any other way, given the fact that it tells the tale of one of the blackest moments in the history of American sports. This is the story of Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) an Olympic gold winning wrestler who, despite his former glory, appears to be weak, lonely down and out partially due to the fact that he is overshadowed by his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo), a man of greater charisma and living a more content life with whom he shared the accolade. One day he receives a call from a mysterious figure inviting him to the Foxcatcher estate, which will be his training grounds for the next Olympic games and where he will get a chance at redeption.

 

This is also where he meets his new trainer, a wealthy man with big mother issues who first becomes a father figure to him and then turns on his protégé by starting a psychological warfare that only intensifies after his brother his brought into the picture as assistant trainer.

 

Psychological warfare is indeed the key element of this film. Miller respects the seriousness of the story and its subject by allowing a realistic build-up of intensity in the cerebral atmosphere of his film. The camerawork often flows fluidly and slowly, and most of the photography appears to be dark, overwhelming the darkness of the narrative.

 

Another key element to the success of the enhancement of the dense dramatic aspect in Foxcatcher is the dialogue, or better yet, in its silences. The dialogue itself is almost unimportant in the revelations of its character’s restraints, in other words, what is not being said is more important than what is being said. The quiet and almost sinisterly meditative nature of Miller’s direction adds depth to the suspense, a suspense that can be recalled from the drama of the seventies.

 

The defining factor in the film lies in the performances by the leading actors. An absolutely flattering showcase of restraint that must be praised. Tatum, Ruffalo and Carrel deliver three very different performances that reveal all their talent and avoids any danger of artificiality or staging. Tatum’s muttering elevates the importance of his character’s insecurities and vulnerabilities. Ruffalo’s easy going nature shows him at peace with life, yet a scene where he is downright forced to admit in front of a camera that Jon du Pont is an inspiration is breath-taking.

 

It is inevitable, however, that of the three performances that equal each other in quality and can easily be seen as a representation of amazing theatrical synergy - and to put it in a suited sports term, teamwork – Steve Carrel’s performance should arouse more interest and attract more publicity. After a whole career of establishing himself as one of the funniest man in modern film history, here he re-invents himself in a role and a turn that can be compared if not surpass the time when Robin Williams appeared in One Hour Photo.

 

Despite this, whilst he is almost physically unrecognisable thanks to hair and make-up that make him look as slimy and corroded as he should, his presence also works because it is not totally unlike the character of Michael Scott he played in The Office. The annoying boss. It is, perhaps, also for these reasons that some of his antics can seem funny, recalling if not downright mimicking a type of car crash comedy that is so popular on television.

 

However, while there were qualities that made that character likeable, there are none to be found in du Pont His almost ridiculous obsession with himself, his power thirst and spoilt child nature reaches Norman Bates territory. It is also implied that du Pont is challenging a repressed homosexuality that would not only explain his choice of wrestling as a way to greatness but also his troubled to say the least relationship with her mother.

 

On this point it is only fair to point out that with just two scenes, Vanessa Redgrave quietly leaves an important mark on the film in a vital role at pivotal points of the film.

 

With the film’s shocking conclusion ends a just over two hour long disturbing trip into the depths of loneliness. At some point in the middle of the film, du Pont introduces Mark to cocaine. Just when one thinks drugs will start to play a key role in the film, one realises that drugs are a harmless consequence compared to the harm that each of the film’s main players can do to oneself in the course of the film by barricading emotions and choosing clash and contrast over connection, support and compassion. And loneliness is where the real tragedy of Foxcatcher lies.