Foxcatcher

NYTimes

A few weeks ago, I went to a talk by Boston Globe film critic Ty Burr, who, in regards to the Academy nominating director Bennett Miller (but not the film for Best Picture), said something along the lines of "this is the Academy's way of saying 'Selma and American Sniper were movies that apparently directed themselves…Bennett Miller directed a movie that wasn't worth directing.'" As crazy  as it sounds, this actually makes sense. The film was experimental, and although not always successful, was engrossing. While watching the film, it's as if a lot is going on, but at the same time, nothing is. But even though not a lot of it was  explicitly on screen. That was a gutsy move by Miller, and it paid off. I guess that's the approach that he felt he had to take if he wanted to stretch this out to a two hour narrative film as opposed to a 45-minute true crime documentary on the History Channel.

There's a strange feel to Foxcatcher.  There are moments where we see nothing but Channing Tatum's character eating breakfast, or lingering shots of men running. But Foxcatcher, the story of two Olympic wrestlers working with a mysterious investor and coach, is a film of implication, and not so much plot. It's interesting, to say the least, and frankly a bit head-scratching when you realize how well it works.

In the movie, Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) is recruited by millionaire John E. du Pont (Steve Carell, in a career-changing performance) to lead a wrestling team to a bid for the 1988 Olympics. Desperate to bring America to a state of hope and victory through the sport, du Pont invites both Mark and his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo), also an Olympic champ, to stay at his family's Foxcatcher estate. While Mark is enthused at both the financial and professional possibilities, as well as personal affirmation, Dave declines the offer, despite fervent pleads from both his brother and du Pont. Without the watchful eye of his older brother, Mark gets scarily close to du Pont, whose behavior scarily becomes erratic.

It's clear that the film (which spends nearly two hours switching between scenes of wrestling footage, tender moments between the Schultz brothers, and du Pont being a creep) exists only for its climactic scene. If you don't already know what it is, I won't ruin it for you, but it's a bit unexpected, and after seeing the way it was pulled off, makes me feel the film is being wrongly marketed as a true crime movie. From the eyes of someone who doesn't know this certain information before the viewing, I can only imagine that the film comes off as two hours of nothing and then an insane twist. Part of me does think that if I did not know how Foxcatcher ended, I may not have liked it.

I wish I were a professional movie critic, because when you say "in my professional opinion, I'm not quite sure what to make of this film," it sounds a lot more legitimate than "I'm not quite sure what to make of this film." At the very least, I can say that Foxcatcher has immersive performances, a unique approach, redemptive qualities, commentary of family dynamics, and a gritty feel to its focus on real-life human descent. I can't say that I "enjoyed" Foxcatcher, but I respect its ambition, and I admire it.

Rating: 4/5