One of the lesser known footnotes to modern Olympic
history is the relationship of John Du Pont to the Olympic wrestling gold
medalist brothers Mark and Dave Schultz. It’s a funny thing that no one pays
much attention to the sport of wrestling outside of the quadrennial Olympic
cycle, but there’s something so quintessentially American about the sport Of
course it’s been around since the ancient games of Greece and eastern Europeans
often excel at it, but the American ideal is intrinsically bound to it. It’s a
sport based on physical confrontation one-on-one. You succeed based on your own
abilities. It is a total make-it-or-break-it scenario. It’s about a fiercely
intense combination of brute strength and cunning strategic skills. You have to
be tough and strong, but also to outwit your opponent.
Bennett Miller, who previously directed one of the best
sports movies that wasn’t really about sports, applies his touch to the Schultz
brothers and Du Pont with Foxcatcher,
from a script by E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, who have given us a movie that
is as much about wrestling as Raging
Bull was about boxing. That is to say, the sport is upstage by the
personality of the protagonist who participates in it. Mark trains with his
older brother, Dave, both of whom are preparing for the World Championships and
eventually the 1988 Olympics. There’s love between the brothers made palpable
by the tenderness in Mark Ruffalo’s performance as Dave. As Mark, Channing
Tatum turns physical ability into performance much like he did in Magic Mike. Both roles demand of the
actor a full body commitment. Tatum inhabits Mark and perhaps even channels
some of what Robert De Niro had as Jake La Motta to get at the heart of a young
man for whom winning is the only thing and intensity is a drug.
Du Pont enters Mark’s life by summoning him to his estate
in Pennsylvania and proposing that he come live there to train with his Team
Foxcatcher. Du Pont gives him a speech about American tradition and
exceptionalism, about pride and honor, and about winning and patriotism. I
think he even believes himself when he tells Mark that his only interest is to
help his country win gold. What Du Pont doesn’t understand about himself is
that, at least insofar as Futterman and Frye have written him, he’s a social
misfit who never had any friends, doesn’t possess any real athletic ability of
his own, and desperately seeks approval, especially from his mother (Vanessa
Redgrave), who considers wrestling vulgar.
As a character, Du Pont comes across cartoonish. I don’t
want to beat up on Steve Carell, who does what he can with what I imagine was
misdirection, because I admire him and I think he’s an incredible talent, but
everything about his portrayal of Du Pont is just off. Everything from his
stilted manner of conversing and the discomfort we feel in his presence to the
way he shuffles around with shifty legs and a stiff upright upper body as if he’s
just too lazy to carry himself in the manner his family would expect of him is
an acting misstep. I just don’t believe him as a character. There’s nothing
human in the performance. He has more in common with Gru, the cartoon hero of Despicable
Me, voiced by Carell. Only the cartoon was more convincing.
Truly I blame Miller’s direction. I think he must have
worked with Carell in crafting a character that was as unconvincing as the entire
atmosphere he produced. I can’t recall any film quite as dour as this.
Exteriors are shrouded in clouds, rain, and gloom. Interiors are cramped and
stilting when we’re not at the estate and lonesome and depressing when we are.
The camera moves minimally. No one ever has just a normal conversation. It’s
all sadness and glum announcements.
Any semblance of joy has been sucked out of every scene
including wrestling scenes that have Schultz winning. This is what it looks
like to loathe winning, I think. We should never make the mistake in cinema of
confusing dourness with greatness. Movies are great in part because the
filmmaking style matches the story or subject matter. Here that does not
happen.
Also at issue is the ending of the film and fate of Dave
Schultz, who was shot and killed by Du Pont. The movie takes us to that scene
as the story’s conclusion. Or I should say, the movie shows us. We’re not taken
there by any means, at least not in any sense that meshes with reality. Foxcatcher is so desperate to be about
American modes of masculinity, the search for paternalism, and the desire to be
accepted as a winner that it eventually loses focus on the true story of these
three men. There’s compelling drama here, to be sure. What drove Du Pont to
bankroll the training of a wrestler he didn’t know personally? The movie
provides something only slightly more interesting than a connect-the-dots plot
that indicates Du Pont was a big mama’s boy who wanted to impress her.
As the movie presents it, Mark leaves Foxcatcher and the companionship
of Du Pont while Dave remains with his family as a full time wrestling trainer
and coach. Then Du Pont drives up to Dave’s residence on the estate and shoots
him dead. They make it seem as if one event shortly followed the other, somehow
connecting Du Pont’s agitated state of mind to Mark’s abandoning him and his
apparent jealousy of Dave as a stronger father figure in Mark’s life than he
could ever hope to be. In reality, the shooting occurred about seven years
after Mark left Foxcatcher. Witnesses who knew Du Pont and the elder Schultz
attest to their friendship through those years and Du Pont’s increasing
depression and mood swings. He was likely suffering a mental illness that, left
untreated, got worse and worse and Mark ended up the unfortunate victim of Du
Pont’s madness. No one will ever know what really went through Du Pont’s mind
before and during the shooting, but it’s a disservice to everyone involved to
invent some simplistic motive.
This troubles me for the same reasons I was bothered by
the changes to fact made by The
Imitation Game. There are good stories wrapped up in both movies and
neither needed embellishment to craft compelling drama. And Miller does his own
movie no favors at all by making it completely soulless.
in Foxcatcher, the simple fact is that the true crime explored within is nothing more than intensely disturbing.
ReplyDelete