Foxcatcher (15)
four stars
Dir: Bennett Miller
With: Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo
Runtime: 134 minutes
IN his previous films, director Bennett Miller was concerned with men and their obsessions: in Moneyball, for sports and stats; in Capote, for a story of a crime committed in cold blood. He returns to the same territory in Foxcatcher to gripping, disturbing effect.
Unless one is the type to thrill to the sight of a lion stalking its prey, this is not always an easy film to watch. But as in the lion-wildebeest scenario, it is impossible to look away, such is the intensity of the drama and the quality of the performances.
The picture opens with the legend "based on a true story". The interpretation of that story is now being disputed by one of the protagonists, who had previously given his support to the film. That is an argument for elsewhere (primarily, it seems, on Twitter). What is not in any doubt is that Miller has crafted a picture that that grips from first to last frames.
The story begins with a wrestler, Mark Schultz (played by Channing Tatum), giving a talk to school children for $20 in expenses. Schultz is not just any local athlete: he is an Olympic gold medallist and world champion. By rights, or by the standards set in other sports, he should be fighting off multi-million dollar sponsorship offers. Instead, he is struggling to pay the rent never mind raise the money to compete at the next Olympics. His brother, David (Mark Ruffalo), also a successful wrestler, at least has a family around him and a coaching business.
So when Mark receives a call saying a Mr John du Pont of Foxcatcher Farms wants to speak to him, he makes the trip to the country mansion, no questions asked. There is a similar dearth of inquiries when the fabulously wealthy du Pont (Steve Carell, just about recognisable under the prosthetics) says he will sponsor not just Mark but an entire team of wrestlers to go to Seoul. They will come and live on the farm and have the best of everything. "I am a patriot," he tells Mark, "I want to see this country soar again". Mark spies a great opportunity; David scents something else, something he can't quite put a paw on for now.
Over the next two hours, Miller and his screenwriters, E Max Frye and Dan Futterman, tease out the rest of the story. Like David, the audience suspects from the off that this is one rich man best kept at a distance, so it is quite an achievement to keep the tension going, and build on it. The cast play their part with performances that are skilfully low-peep throughout. Ruffalo is always at his best playing a fundamentally decent Everyman slightly baffled by the low deeds of others, and he does much the same here. As an added pleasure, Vanessa Redgrave rolls up as du Pont's mommie dearest.
The main focus is inevitably on Carell and Tatum, two actors hitherto associated with lighter, comedic roles. Here, the pair lift ten ton dramatic weights as if they were feathers, each transforming what could have been two dimensional characters into something more fascinating. That funny men often make seriously good dramatic actors is hardly news - Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Adam Sandler (Punch-Drunk Love) and others have seen to that. But Carell and Tatum take matters further, losing themselves in parts that are as far removed from their usual roles as it is possible to venture. This is a true coming of age as an actor for Carell, the 40-Year-Old Virgin himself, even if it takes some time to get used to the sight of that prosthetic nose. As for Tatum, if he wasn't such a joy in comedies, or such a blast in action movies, one would be tempted to wish he would stay with the serious roles.
Like a wrestling tag team, one great performance follows another into the ring, the whole show orchestrated expertly by Miller. With the awards Olympics now underway, this is one Miller's tale not to be missed.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article