I was lucky enough to attend this year’s Savannah Film Festival where I had the opportunity to screen director Bennett Miller’s (of Moneyball and Capote fame) latest feature Foxcatcher. Following the hype leading up to this film’s premiere for several months prior, I was somewhat skeptical about what path Miller had chosen to lead former Daily Show correspondent and The Office alum Steve Carell down with such sinister material to tackle. The actor, who is typically known for his screwier turns in both cinema and television, abandons that jokey facade for heavy amounts of prosthetic makeup and chesty, monotone speech to undertake the role of anguished multimillionaire and convicted murderer John E. du Pont.
In future, some may reminiscence back on Carell’s performance here as a model example of casting against type, but if one were to scrutinize the similarities between Carell’s du Pont and his Michael Scott – as silly, and rightfully so, as that may sound – they might see that perhaps this wasn’t the greatest departure Carell has traveled outside of his element. Both Scott and du Pont are stubborn as mules, both are known for their varying levels of sociopathic behavior, and both strive for notability. However, acknowledging their similarities without acknowledging their differences would make for an unfair evaluation. And unfortunately, du Pont’s darker demeanor proves to be Carell’s Achilles heel. His Michael Scott brand of comedic stylings manage to somehow shine through in a noticeable way, robbing away from what could have made for a brutal display of spite, malice and vengeance in the hands of an actor with less of a fluff streak. That said, it would be absurd to call this an utterly botched attempt; when Carell goes to bat for this role, he really goes to bat for it.
Those unfamiliar with the 1996 murder of Dave Schultz needn’t worry about digging into the finer details of the events in order to follow the proceedings; Miller scants with backstory himself, which ultimately works in the film’s favor in terms of enhancing its bleak tone and leaving an arid taste in viewers’ mouths walking out. In fact, despite the vast amount of acclaim pinned on Carell, Foxcatcher is more of a warped Cain and Abel tale hinged on the relationship between two brothers, Mark Schultz, played by Channing Tatum and his older brother Dave, played by Mark Ruffalo. Both brothers are renowned Olympic world championship wrestlers, alas, while Dave is enjoying the fruits of his labor and is happily married, Mark is in flux, yearning to accomplish more with his burgeoning wrestling career yet seemingly incapable of reaching any higher highs. This is where John du Pont steps in to properly shake things up for the brothers.
Receiving an unexpected invitation from du Pont to enlist and train on a national U.S. wrestling team with its eyes set on Seoul’s 1988 Olympic Games, Mark becomes stoked about revitalizing his prospects in the wrestling game. He later asks his brother to tag along on his latest pursuit after relentless persuasion from the obstinate du Pont, but David is unyielding in relocating without his family in tow. So the entire Schultz family winds up on du Pont’s massive estate outside of Valley Forge where the affluent wrestling enthusiast’s neurotic side comes into clearer perspective; be it through rigorous training, a worrisome fascination with firearms or delusions of grandeur that range from being the savior of American wrestling to being a skilled wrestler himself. This dismal portrait of du Pont is painted at an accelerated rate and done so in a manner that leaves little doubt of du Pont’s deteriorating mental state in viewers’ minds. What’s left somewhat cryptic would be the motives underlying du Pont’s final act of terror – the eventual homicide of Dave Schultz – but given Miller’s and Carell’s depiction of the man on screen, deducting any conclusion outside the spectrum of the “unbalanced affluenza-ridden sociopath” variety would seem moot.
The categorically winning quality of this film is unquestionably the stony tone it grounds itself in. Perhaps with ironic intention on the director’s part, Foxcatcher’s brilliance rests in knowing how masterfully Miller was able to transcend a film surrounding a sport as violent as wrestling – not to mention a film illustrating an act as violent as the one du Pont committed – into such statically cold territory. Referring to Foxcatcher as “hollow” might come across a tad disparaging or even harshly critical, but the word’s used here as more of a compliment than a reproach.
The film never once allows you to draw in too close to any of its key players (as to analyze them decisively enough) du Pont especially. His goals are clear, his troubles are sparsely hinted at, and his nature is ruthlessly industrious, but this is all shown on a surface level. Miller restrains himself from delving too far into areas of du Pont’s life and the controversy surrounding the infamous shooting of Dave Schultz itself – on some novel, introspective level – that the public themselves aren’t privy to. Some may consider this a major flaw as it leaves a substantial amount up to one’s imagination, but to the contrary, the fact that Foxcatcher leaves you with so much to chew on after that final shot is a sign of exceptional storytelling, the kind that never resorts to spelling everything out or underestimating the audience’s intellect.
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment