“I want to be the best in the world”
Identifying a great film is no challenge. Films merit themselves admirable labels based on the positive attributes that critics such as myself assign them in their reviews; subjective observations that over time can build into a consensus which can lead into a legacy. Great films sometimes amount to nothing more than fads – hot commodities of the moment that occupy a significance that only lasts a couple of weeks or months – but others will maintain a presence long into the future. These great films are pieces of work that will linger on as important features worth returning to and studying, with some eventually emerging as pillars of cinema history. Some of these discoveries are made retroactively, like in the case with what is considered the greatest American film ever made, “Citizen Kane,” while others make their historical mark almost instantly, like “The Godfather” and its first sequel. Though what defines the classic and cultural significance of both “Godfather” films and “Citizen Kane” differs in analysis, today there is an absence of argument against the labels of both films; these staples of cinema, and specifically American cinema, each possess the air of a masterpiece, a cinematic scent so powerful it becomes foolish to refute its potency.
Bennett Miller’s “Foxcatcher” brings along that familiar scent. It’s a film that’s mastery can be clearly identified during a first viewing, but is packed so deeply with astute observations, critiques and engaging themes that it warrants several more. It’s an introspective true crime drama handled with such impressive subtlety and methodical craftsmanship – not a frame wasted or an edit misplaced – that it becomes an enveloping tragedy where much of what occurs extends far outward beyond the confines of the titular Pennsylvania farm. The Academy Award nominated Miller, who directed both “Capote” and “Moneyball,” appropriates the confined historical incident onto a vast canvas navigating between static objectivity and unsettling subjectivity with ease. This slow-motion psychodrama is a challenging, affecting watch that evidences not only Bennett Miller’s induction onto the list of America’s greatest working directors, but revises and revamps the talents of it’s three leads – Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo – who deliver three of the most brilliantly channeled and transcendent performances to grace the big screen in some time.
Gold medal winner Mark Schultz (Tatum) is a lost soul unable to remove himself from the shadow of his older brother, Dave (Ruffalo), the more widely known Schultz Olympian. While prepping for the 1987 World Championships, he receives a call from the secretary of John Eleuthère du Pont (Steve Carell), a member of the prominent du Pont empire which had amassed a multimillion-dollar fortune from chemical manufacturing. An obsessive hobbyist, du Pont was also an eccentric patron of amateur wrestling and his middleman operated invitation to Mark Schultz was the first step in du Pont’s revivalist plan to open a freestyle wrestling training facility on the 200 acre plot owned by John’s parents, William du Pont and Jean Liseter Austin (Vanessa Redgrave), known as Foxcatcher Farm. Upon Mark’s acceptance, he begins as the lead coach for Team Foxcatcher enabling him to emerge as a singular strength and an athletic force to be reckoned with, which is proven in the public eye when he wins Gold at the World Championships. However, his relationship with du Pont becomes tainted quite quickly with du Pont’s treacherous insecurities taking a toll on Mark’s infantile psyche. Things only worsen when du Pont recruits Dave to join Team Foxcatcher, which ignites a self-destructive flame inside Mark, followed by a familial tragedy that begins to unravel du Pont’s psychopathy. As history tells us, the conclusion of this tale is tragic and Miller constructs these snowballing events so finely that the harrowing outcome is reinforced with vitality and horror.
The most impressive aspect of “Foxcatcher” is its internality. For a film that escalates to a kind of ‘explosion,’ it never pushes outward in a way that a story like this could easily threaten to do. It remains steadfast and direct, never playing toward an audience leniency; it demands attention. I call the film challenging because of this: There aren’t ‘Oscar’ moments that can be pointed to as singular examples of greatness, but rather it’s a work about quiet escalation and psychological destruction. The audience is tested with their patience, in a format reminiscent more of “Capote” than “Moneyball”, but Miller’s precision is more formally profound than in either of his two previous works.
Miller capitalizes on the economic script by E. Max Frye & David Futterman, which maintains clarity with strict storytelling. This brings out Miller’s focus and allows for the director to utilize his documentarian roots more than ever before. He creates objective frames that speak volumes in terms of character and tone doing away with conventional exposition. The naturalism of the environments tends to enhance this as the characters are influenced greatly by their surroundings. Miller’s affinity for a mix of jaw-dropping landscapes with more intimately, sometimes incongruous, close-ups enables the filmmaker to navigate from his objective beginnings into more subjective sequences, which consist of stirring two-person dialogue scenes and, more viscerally, the wrestling tournaments. Director of photography Greig Fraser (“Zero Dark Thirty”) is a huge asset, bringing so much beauty out of every stationed shot, yet still draping each moment in foreboding discomfort.
Echoing Miller’s pervasive subtlety is the sparingly used, unobtrusive score by Ron Simonsen (“The Spectacular Now”). The sad melodies provide atmosphere instead of emotional cues (thankfully), but better yet is Miller’s use of deafening silence. Noticing when Miller decides to erase all sound is more amazing than observing when he layers it because the director packs great impact into his silences. The vacuum of all noise – both music and diegetic sound – is actually terrifying, especially because its uses accentuate the key moments of narrative build. When we find ourselves paralyzed by the silence, we sense the painful end that is to come. Needless to say, we find ourselves in silence pretty often.
More obvious than Miller’s refined and engrossing direction and the technical facets that are aces all around are the three lead performances that inhabit the film. Not to dishonor the strong work on the periphery, which includes Anthony Michael Hall and a dressed down Sienna Miller, as well as the aforementioned Vanessa Redgrave, who all do fine work (Redgrave has only two scenes but both are killer), it’s easy to forget the presence of other performers when Ruffalo, Carell and Tatum are so mind-blowing. Ruffalo, who outside of his “Avengers” duties, has scored time and again as the ‘cool guy whose life is a mess’ (see: “Begin Again” and “The Kids Are All Right”) or as sturdy low-key support (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “Collateral,” “Reservation Road,” “Shutter Island”) evaporates into the personable and loving Dave Schultz. Sporting a complex facial hair connection design, the disheveled Ruffalo is literally nowhere to be found. Add the measured physicality – hunched shoulders and curled back – as well as the most strategically placed accent and Ruffalo delivers a humanistic anchor to his handful of scenes. Arguably shortchanged in comparison to his co-stars, Ruffalo’s performance adds warmth to a tough and chilly film, which is key in the film’s finale when that warmth is abruptly extinguished. For an actor who is typically in fine form, in “Foxcatcher” he is all-time great, and should be an awards contender if only for one particular scene which finds Dave struggling in a video interview – exemplary supporting work.
Tatum and Carell are honestly co-leads, but they make acting choices that couldn’t be more different: Tatum is all locked up, emoting quietly through his entire body, while Carell simply transforms; they both are all kinds of amazing. In terms of perspective, “Foxcatcher” is unquestionably a story told from Mark Schultz’s point of view, which forces Tatum to make choices that just years ago would never have seemed viable. Through a few key roles, coupled with a winning attitude and collaborations with talented filmmakers, Tatum has been proving his worth over and over again, but Bennett Miller has unearthed something tremendous here. His work is truly indescribable; Mark’s lines are limited, but his emotions are loud. Channing puts the rage, the insecurity, the motivation, and the loneliness front and center, which manifests itself as a wholly physical portrayal of the Olympian. It’s one thing to just look the part – which the beefy Tatum does, no doubt – but Tatum surprises and surpasses expectations to deliver career-best and what is hopefully career-altering work; this is a performance of magnitude and definitely the most impressive of “Foxcatcher’s” main three.
But the most shocking and ‘showiest’ of the trio is Steve Carell as du Pont. ‘Showy’ is a far cry from anything in regards to Bennett Miller for he directs actors in opposition of someone like David O. Russell – inward vs. outward – but the character calls for more eccentricity than the Schultz brothers. Du Pont could easily be the mad creation of a crazed screenwriter but Carell never loses sight of du Pont’s real life identity, wearing the man’s sadness and distance like he dons the Team Foxcatcher fleece. The casting here is obviously against-type, but it’s also wildly inspired, notches above the unforeseen brilliance of Jonah Hill’s straight-faced turn in Miller’s “Moneyball,” because Carell gets to provide shades to the deteriorating du Pont by calling on pieces from his much lauded television character, Michael Scott. At the center of “The Office,” Carell played the socially inept regional manager fearlessly and incredibly, the genius being the balance between ignorance and insecurity. In one moment, Michael would set into motion a series of events so convulsively cringe-worthy, and then immediately follow it up with a scene of grief or sensitivity allowing him to remain an empathetic character. Carell kept Scott human and made him a hilarious creation unlike any other television character in history. John du Pont is, on the surface, as far away from Michael Scott as you could get, but internally their characteristics strangely mesh. Du Pont, of course, committed unforgivable actions and slowly dissolved as a human being, but we can’t help but pity him. Carell doesn’t allow us to hate du Pont, which is huge; instead we are increasingly fascinated and entranced by him despite his repulsive appearance and presence (both of which Carell nails too). What could be a gross, disturbing recreation is actually thoughtfully tragic and thoroughly magnificent. Carell’s awards potential is indubitable.
In a year that is shining brighter and brighter by the day with still no frontrunner for Best Picture secured, I might be at a juncture where the benchmark has been finally set. The number of great films in 2014 is outrageous and a handful have come seriously close to flirting with ‘masterpiece’ status. “Foxcatcher” has made that step; Miller’s film is an incredible triumph on all levels and is an elevation in talent for the filmmaker himself. As great as “Capote” and “Moneyball” are, “Foxcatcher” is that third film security; it feels like the culmination of everything that has identified Miller’s previous works, including his documentary, “The Cruise.” As his third ‘based on a true story’ film, it even feels like it goes well beyond the biographical significance, taking aim at America and donning a spikey cynicism that is more at home in an 80’s feature than in something of the 21st Century. And yet, Miller finds a way to integrate these themes and continue his fascination with obsession, sports, and troubled icons. “Foxcatcher” will have an enduring legacy and it might be the first long-staying cinematic masterwork to arrive publicly in ages.
10/10
By Mike Murphy
Reel Reactions 