“Foxcatcher” is director Bennett Miller’s follow-up to 2011’s “Moneyball”, making this his second “based on a true story” sports drama in a row. The first trailer was actually unveiled over a year ago (September 2013) because the film was originally scheduled for release last December. However, Sony Pictures Classics decided to take “Foxcatcher” out of 2013 Awards Season contention and push it back to 2014. At the time SPC said, “We support the decision of the filmmakers to allow for more time to finish the film.”
The move surprised a lot of people, considering there was already plenty of buzz about funnyman Steve Carell, who went through a drastic physical transformation to play multimillionaire John du Pont, delivering a career-defining dramatic performance worthy of a Best Actor nomination and possibly a win. But co-screenwriter E. Max Frye (who penned the original draft in 2007), told me that additional editing was indeed the reason for the delay.
So, after more than a year in hiding, “Foxcatcher” is now out – unfortunately, with mixed results. There’s a lot to like about this film, but it also has enough problems which, in my mind, keep it from being worthy of Best Picture consideration.
The set-up of “Foxcatcher” is stunningly slow, as we are introduced to Olympic Gold Medal wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum in one of his best roles), who’s struggling financially with his career and his personal life. Mark’s older brother Dave (played by Mark Ruffalo) also won Gold at the ’84 Games. Dave has a big personality, is running a training facility, and has a wife and two kids. Even though they are brothers, in some ways they are exact opposites. But both hope to represent the U.S. again at the ’88 Olympics, which are a little over a year away.
Mark is contacted by a man he is unfamiliar with, but will soon know all too well – John du Pont, heir to the du Pont chemical fortune. Along with his many hobbies (and being one of the wealthiest men in the world) du Pont is a wrestling fan and would-be coach. He flies Mark to his Valley Forge, Pa. estate so they can, as John puts it to Mark, “talk about your future”. The snail-like pacing doesn’t end here. Practically every line of dialogue, particularly conversations between John and Mark, and Mark and Dave, includes lengthy, dramatic pauses that get more and more annoying as the film goes on. Even if this is how these people talked in real life, it really hurts the flow of the film. Just eliminating these pauses alone could have gotten the 2 hour-15 minute runtime under 2-hours.
John convinces Mark to come work for him, and soon convinces USA Wrestling to move their official Olympic training center to du Pont’s estate, becoming part of “Team Foxcatcher”. But things do not go smoothly, and when Dave enters the picture, the relationships between the three of them – the “love triangle” as Frye describes it – leads to problems and, ultimately, tragedy.
“Foxcatcher” isn’t “The John du Pont Story”, as many people may expect. It’s more “The Mark Schultz Story”, but the problem is he’s the least interesting of the three main characters. Carell, who at times looks more like Alfred Hitchcock that the real du Pont, gives the showcase performance, captivating the screen with several powerful moments. When you string all of Carell’s scenes together, you get a dominant, nomination-worthy effort.
In my mind “Foxcatcher” would’ve been a stronger film had du Pont been the main focus. In fact, two of the best scenes in the movie involve du Pont and his elderly mother (played by Vanessa
Redgrave) who doesn’t care for wrestling
or any of her son’s achievements. They provide insight into du Pont’s mental state and some of his future actions. Redgrave’s role is very small, but she and Carell provide an emotional layer to the film that’s missing elsewhere.
What surpised me the most at the screening I attended was that the majority of the 400 people in the theater didn’t know how this true story plays out. If you followed the news coverage of the events at the time, or read about them since, chances are you will still be surprised, as Miller does a nice job portraying the climatic events in a very simple, matter-of-fact way (which is how they actually happened) – even though the time frame is compressed drastically. Many are attacking Miller for altering the years in which some of the key action takes place, but the story wouldn’t have worked any other way.
“Foxcatcher” is rated R for language, brief nudity and violence. It’s worth seeing for the three showcase performances (Carell at the top of the list) and for the somewhat suspenseful story. But the plodding pacing and soap-opera feel prevents it from being gold medal worthy.
On The Official LCJ Report Card, “Foxcatcher” gets a B-.