Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Foxcatcher

Has anyone seen this? Your thoughts?

by Anonymousreply 56October 16, 2019 1:33 PM

The guy was obviously a deeply repressed homosexual.

by Anonymousreply 1November 14, 2014 5:50 AM

bump

by Anonymousreply 2November 14, 2014 4:05 PM

Man -- I am surprised so little activity!

This is a subject made for DL -- wealth, mansions, boy toys, repressed sexuality, Mommy issues, true crime...

by Anonymousreply 3November 26, 2014 6:12 PM

Good, but vastly overrated.

Howard Stern asked Carrell about the possibility of DuPont being a closeted, repressed gay and Carrell said that was a real consideration and wouldn't surprise anyone but that the film makers decided not to go with that partial angle.

by Anonymousreply 4November 26, 2014 6:31 PM

Don't spoil it for me! I haven't seen Exodus either, so don't tell me how it ends. My friends were discussing whether Moses parts the Red Sea, so I had to leave the room.

by Anonymousreply 5November 26, 2014 6:37 PM

Carrell could become one of our best actors. Intense portrayal.

by Anonymousreply 6November 26, 2014 6:38 PM

In other words, R4, the entire fucking movie is obtuse.

by Anonymousreply 7November 26, 2014 6:38 PM

Who is "our"?

by Anonymousreply 8November 26, 2014 6:39 PM

Wow -- Steve Carrell. Interesting role for him

by Anonymousreply 9November 27, 2014 2:18 AM

R8 American, obviously.

by Anonymousreply 10November 27, 2014 2:34 AM

A repressed gay man with mommy issue. Give it an Oscar.

by Anonymousreply 11November 27, 2014 2:42 AM

Investigation Discovery: Behind Mansion Walls, ran a twofer on the DuPonts a week or so ago. The real Foxcatcher story was quite good with an interview with the victim's son. Yes, DuPont clearly had mommy issues, as he was so weird mom paid kids to be friends with him.

by Anonymousreply 12November 27, 2014 3:33 AM

Is there nudity? I only leave the house for nudity.

by Anonymousreply 13November 27, 2014 3:41 AM

A spectacularly joyless, gray-hued movie movie. The only character who ever cracks a smile is Mark Ruffalo's Dave. Channing Tatum's Mark appears mono-syllabic and semi-retarded. Steve Carell's John has a weird beak of a nose, unlike his true life character, and only speaks in a monotone, which gets, well, monotonous. Just weird choices all around. Looking at pics of the real Schwarz brothers makes me think they were actually better-looking than their Hollywood counterparts.

by Anonymousreply 14November 27, 2014 4:25 AM

A lot of early buzz about this movie that amounted to nothing. Virtually unwatchable.

by Anonymousreply 15November 27, 2014 5:15 AM

[quote]A lot of early buzz about this movie that amounted to nothing. Virtually unwatchable.

Too bad -- it could have been interesting.

Perhaps behind the scene machinations from the Du Ponts or their people?

by Anonymousreply 16November 27, 2014 2:55 PM

It's funny to me that director Bennett Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman seem to be very interested in queer (or potentially queer subjects), with this and Capote. And yet the films themselves really shy away from showing anything remotely queer.

by Anonymousreply 17November 27, 2014 3:17 PM

It is ridiculous that the lust of the main character was excised from the film. He built his own rough trade pop-up shop on his own property! Any fool could see that.

by Anonymousreply 18November 27, 2014 3:22 PM

What r17 said

by Anonymousreply 19November 27, 2014 9:22 PM

Saw it the other night. Channing Tatum did a pretty good job as a humpy-bodied, lost and sad sack of human meat. Steve Carrell was good as creepy John DuPont.

They skirted with the idea that DuPont's interest in wrestlers and in Mark Schultz in particular was basic homolust, but they didn't really "go there".

Maybe Du Pont didn't either. He may have been afraid of, or disconnected from, actual sexual urges involving his genitalia.

My quibbles with the movie were that I knew some things about the real story that would have made the arc toward the tragic ending more interesting. They made some odd choices, in my opinion.

by Anonymousreply 20December 1, 2014 7:23 PM

There's nothing gay about a wealthy man who builds a Harem-like set-up for wrestlers on his land. Stop seeing gay stuff everywhere

by Anonymousreply 21December 1, 2014 7:30 PM

I've seen nothing about the surviving brother in all this. I've seen the dead one's kids and widow all over the place, but not one mention of the surviving guy. Has he disavowed the movie or something? In an article out here in the San Francisco Chronicle they didn't even mention if he was alive or dead... or anything!

by Anonymousreply 22December 1, 2014 7:54 PM

What r22 said

by Anonymousreply 23December 1, 2014 8:29 PM

[quote]American, obviously.

How is that obvious?

Who even thinks of actors this way?

Will he win gold for America at the acting olympics?

by Anonymousreply 24December 1, 2014 8:42 PM

The real shocker is that Sienna Miller doesn't register at all. A complete nothingburger.

by Anonymousreply 25December 1, 2014 8:46 PM

R22 -- Mark Schultz has an associate producer credit and makes a cameo in the film.

by Anonymousreply 26December 9, 2014 3:59 AM

I lived on the farm next to Foxcatcher in Greenville when this was actually going on. He was quite an odd duck, even for a DuPont.

by Anonymousreply 27December 9, 2014 4:50 AM

[quote]I've seen nothing about the surviving brother in all this. I've seen the dead one's kids and widow all over the place, but not one mention of the surviving guy. Has he disavowed the movie or something? In an article out here in the San Francisco Chronicle they didn't even mention if he was alive or dead... or anything!

The opposite. In fact the surviving guy (the main character) wrote the book that *became* the movie. He is apparently like his character in the movie though: very taciturn, maybe even a bit aspergers; definitely not good with public stuff or media appearances.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28December 9, 2014 2:16 PM

God, I don't recall this happening at the time.

How high was I?

by Anonymousreply 29December 9, 2014 3:32 PM

R27, this happened on the Foxcatcher farm in Newtown Square, PA. I lived in neighboring Bryn Mawr and went to school w/swimmers who were on the team. They didn't mention any improprieties, but it was a different time.

Saw the movie. It is sobering, as the situation was, but spot-on. Steve Carrell and Mark R did a splendid job.

I found this youtube video of John duPont, much like the "documentaries" that were illustrated in the movies: his portrayal as a top-flight athlete, coach and his stilted speech. Really creepy. Includes brief footage in Mark S's corner w/Dave Schultz. I don't know about this hospital, but Villanova removed his name from their gym a few years later. Not sure if legalities were involved or if they were slow to respond.

A friend of mine worked at Hagley Museum in DE - the duPont museum. She didn't have many stories about John, other than his contentious relationship w/his mom and the fact he had (known) schizophrenia. (He used to claim he was Dali Lama, Jesus, etc and carry around guns).

The real story was the duPont who founded Longwood Gardens. Gay, married and had a ton of wild parties at his mansion.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30December 11, 2014 3:44 PM

'Foxcatcher' screenwriters wrestled with getting the characters right

When I first sat down with director Bennett Miller to talk about the movie he wanted to make, one of the things that struck me was that "Foxcatcher" was a sports story, but not a sports story in the traditional sense. It was in fact the very mirror image of a sports story.

What begins with two talented brothers and the scion of one of America's most storied families as they attempt to build a wrestling program good enough to compete at an elite level, slowly but relentlessly moves in the opposite direction, finally creating a toxic environment that will compromise the very things that sports and athletic competition are meant to engender.

Instead of building toward triumph and victory, the narrative begins after Dave and Mark Schultz have both won gold medals at the 1984 Olympics, and from that singular achievement follows a dark and twisted path of power and ambition that ultimately leads not to a podium and the national anthem but to murder and ruin.

In creating the character of John du Pont, I paid great attention to writing dialogue that reflected the real John du Pont's talent for sounding dull and uninspired. He had authored several books that are full of clichés and platitudes about winning and being a champion, and I used the tone and texture of his own words to build a character who tried hard to inspire people but left them unmoved and often embarrassed. 'Foxcatcher': How Steve Carell's physical transformation caused unease Caption 'Foxcatcher': How Steve Carell's physical transformation caused unease 'Foxcatcher': Channing Tatum describes a scene behind the scene Caption 'Foxcatcher': Channing Tatum describes a scene behind the scene 'Foxcatcher': Steve Carell discusses what drew him to the film Caption 'Foxcatcher': Steve Carell discusses what drew him to the film

Where a more traditional sports story might have a parent or coach give a rousing talk before the big game, in this film every line of dialogue that John du Pont speaks is meant to do just the opposite. His words are intended to sound banal and trite, his encouragement meant to appear hollow and self-serving, so that instead of leading his athletes to victory he corrupts their character and destroys their ability to perform. Contrary to what might be expected from a sports story, there are no go-ahead touchdowns, no last-second free throws and no winners in "Foxcatcher."

— E. Max Frye

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31December 14, 2014 3:21 PM

I remember the incident and at the time I thought DuPont was just a mean son-of-a-bitch.

It seems like the state of Pennsylvania simply doesn't like the Du Pont family.

by Anonymousreply 32December 18, 2014 2:57 PM

[quote]In fact the surviving guy (the main character) wrote the book that *became* the movie.

No.

Mark Schultz wrote a book about his brother's murder by John DuPont that came out this year called "Foxcatcher," but it did not inspire the movie nor was the movie based on it. They came out separately.

The movie is very depressing but quite effective. I was jumping nearly all the time through it. I think it's actually pretty clear in the movie that DuPont fell in love with Mark Schultz for a variety of reasons (because Schultz was handsome and hot and as inarticulate as he was), and killed Dave because of his jealousy since Mark loved Dave more and Dave was clearly the actual coach (and John was just an empty figurehead).

It's an odd movie because it seems to suggest DuPont killed Dave Schultz right after the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, where Mark Schultz lost very quickly, when actually the murder didn't happen for another eight years after that. The solution the movie offers is interesting and is probably partially true, although the skipping over of eight years was very strange.

The movie has some very effective scenes--Mark Schultz and DuPont meeting for the first time and mirroring their mutual inarticulateness back to each other; Mark Schultz trimming DuPont's hair while wearing tiny shorts; and most effective of all, DuPont presenting his formidable mother Jean (Vanessa Redgrave) with a wrestling trophy he paid someone off to win, and his mother making it very clear she knows exactly he did not win it legitimately without her having to say much. Vanessa Redgrave has a tiny role in this but her presence is felt throughout the movie, and I actually thought she was terrific in the part. For once she does not act radiant and charming, but polite and distant and powerful.

by Anonymousreply 33December 20, 2014 5:37 AM

I would love it if Mark Ruffalo wins Best Supporting Actor for this film. He really carries the movie, since Tatum and Carrell play such glum, dark characters, and his character is such a decent and kind person--and he has a terrific showy sequence where he's asked to testify to the greatness of John DuPont as a coach for a video and he just can't bring himself to do it, and he flubs take after take. It's an amazing scene that shows what a truly fine actor Ruffalo really is.

Carrell will be nominated but it's not the sort of role that wins Oscars--he's too hooded, too stunted. But he'll get lots of good work from this performance.

Tatum also shows he's a fine actor, although I'd be very surprised if he gets nominated.

by Anonymousreply 34December 20, 2014 6:43 AM

We just watched this...duPont was in this for the mens, for sure. Great acting all around--Carell was amazing, and Channing gave the best performance I think he has in him

by Anonymousreply 35March 8, 2015 3:26 AM

I'm not into movies like this where the motives are unclear and only suggested and the crime isn't really solved. Yawn. Tell a complete story or don't. Suggestion doesn't work well in this genre. This is why other movies about unsolved crimes have failed to connect, like All Good Things and Zodiac and Black Dahlia.

by Anonymousreply 36March 8, 2015 3:45 AM

r36, I don't think his motives were clear in real life, the movie is just being accurate

by Anonymousreply 37March 8, 2015 3:53 AM

It IS a complete movie, R36. Not everything in the world is black and white, and not every motive or reasoning is clear in the real world -- often not even to the people directly involved.

Foxcatcher is a terribly eerie movie. It was vague in all the right parts, though I agree that the final few scenes make it look like the murder happened immediately, and Mark's UFC career was tacky. Maybe in the 1990s it was, but Mark was a major reason for UFC becoming more mainstream and popular.

I thought the nose on Carrell was pretty good -- Dupont's own nose WAS beak-like and he DID speak in a monotone, so I'm not sure what R14 is complaining about.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38March 8, 2015 4:01 AM

Supremely disquieting and alarming. Channing gave an incredible performance, so did Carrell and Ruffalo.

by Anonymousreply 39March 8, 2015 4:03 AM

Didn't ANOTHER DuPont kill someone?

by Anonymousreply 40March 8, 2015 4:06 AM

Du Pont was buried in his red Foxcatcher wrestling singlet, in accordance with his will.

by Anonymousreply 41March 8, 2015 4:17 AM

(Spoilers)

I still don't understand why Du Pont killed Channing's brother, it was like "you have a problem with me?" Then, BOOM!

by Anonymousreply 42March 8, 2015 4:21 AM

Don't get the Ruffalo love for this. He's a fine actor but I saw nothing of merit or award worthy. In fact Tatum is the one who was snubbed. Haven;t seen a movie this slow in years. I can't believe it runs for two hours and fifteen minutes. If they had cut out the multiple shots of Carrell sitting in a chair mouth agape staring into space they could have cut out minutes.

by Anonymousreply 43March 8, 2015 4:41 PM

Yes, Ruffalo was good, but Channing was outstanding

by Anonymousreply 44March 8, 2015 6:22 PM

Today, ABC aired this ESPN look at the murders, released last year:

Director Jesse Vile’s hourlong documentary version of the DuPont story features an interview with Mark Schultz, who offers his own impressions of both his brother Dave and DuPont. “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” isn’t about Mark Schultz—other wrestlers who trained in John DuPont’s Foxcatcher Farms facility are featured just as prominently—but it does allow him to give his side of the story. Which is why Vile’s decision not even to mention the movie is strange. Would ESPN have greenlit “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” if there’d never been a Foxcatcher? Is there some reason why no one in the doc can say—even in passing—that this episode intends to set the record straight on a few things? Because just about anyone who’s seen Foxcatcher would love to hear DuPont’s ex-wife or one of his wrestlers talk about what Steve Carell got right and wrong when he slapped on a prosthetic nose to play John.

As for those who haven’t seen Foxcatcher… well, John DuPont’s story is still interesting, and Vile (best-known for the very good doc Jason Becker: Not Dead Yet) assembles it just fine. By beginning with the harrowing post-murder 911 call—played over placidly pastoral images of Foxcatcher Farms—Vile establishes the discord between DuPont’s enviable wealth and the psychotic paranoia that led to him shooting Dave Schultz. Through interviews and archival footage, “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” explains how DuPont built a fantasy world for both himself and for his Olympic athletes: a place where they could be paid what they genuinely deserved as champions, provided they were willing to pretend that he was a wizened old athlete himself. The documentary covers a lot of the same ground as the movie in terms of what the DuPont/Schultz saga really means. It’s about a man who wanted to buy credibility in a world he couldn’t otherwise enter, and about the working-class wrestlers who were eager to take his money.

The difference is that “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” mostly tells, where Foxcatcher shows. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Vile has a lot of video of DuPont with his wrestlers, and he’s such an unusual subject—with his blank eyes, wide smile, and nasal monotone—that just hearing about him or even seeing Carell portray him isn’t the same as watching the real guy wander in front of one of his wrestlers’ mini-cams and awkwardly say, “Hi there!” It’s also helpful to see the real Schultz brothers in action: Dave pulling opponents like taffy, and Mark quickly dispatching his rivals and then doing a celebratory flip.

The question is whether “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” ultimately amounts to much more than a belated DVD/Blu-ray extra… or an extended “subtweet.” Even though the documentary itself doesn’t want to be explicit about it, its most fascinating passages are the ones that deviate most dramatically from Foxcatcher: like Mark talking about how he rebelled against John’s efforts to make him the face of the team; or him saying that Dave (who comes across a sweetheart when played by Mark Ruffalo) had a way of getting under people’s skin; or the other wrestlers mentioning that in the months before John snapped and shot Dave, he was convinced that the actual foliage at his estate was moving toward him.

Otherwise though, “The Prince Of Pennsylvania” has the style and feel of a conventional TV true-crime documentary, right down to the wall-to-wall moody synthesizer score. It’s possible that this episode would play better if it weren’t coming out a year after an Oscar-nominated prestige drama. But even if Foxcatcher didn’t exist, there’s something a shade too blunt about this 30 For 30. As it turns out, Mark Schultz is still being used as a symbol of the American class struggle. Its just that this time, the film he’s in is more explicit about what it thinks his story means. -- AV Club

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45March 13, 2016 4:42 AM

I hated the movie. Carell was hammy and awful.

by Anonymousreply 46March 13, 2016 5:23 AM

It was interesting to me that Dave was a gun nut too and this is what made the farm even more attractive to him.

Also, during a party, Dave had been shooting bottle rockets towards the big house, and this made John decide that Dave was "the threat from within."

by Anonymousreply 47March 13, 2016 3:41 PM

The DuPonts were well known closet cases. They would pull up to the Renaissance nightclub (now a parking lot) in Wilmington, DE in their limousines, pick out a young, hot man who was leaving the club, and then have their driver approach him to see if he wanted to go for a 'ride.'

by Anonymousreply 48March 13, 2016 3:48 PM

Channing Tatum was great in this? He looks like he was playing himself...a jock.

by Anonymousreply 49March 13, 2016 4:14 PM

It is also interesting how Mark's stories keep changing from the various documentary interviews he's done to the media reports to the book. In some, he tries to warn Dave off from going to Foxcatcher, in others, he's the one who recruited Dave to come.

by Anonymousreply 50March 13, 2016 4:27 PM

The film’s producers have not only denied the contributions and experiences of the African American team members, including Olympic and Maccabiah gold medalist Robert Pritchett, but were intentional in keeping significant principles away from the film set and its production apparently in order to further perpetuate and stage deception and lies on its set as truth.

You ask for proof, lets go to the film’s script which was presented to Mark Schultz early on, only to be altered later without his consent. The parents of Dave and Mark Schultz have contempt for this film, describing the befuddled director as “without a clue”. Take one of many inaccurate examples of this film’s pathetic incompetency where the decision to recast Mark Schultz’s opponent in his UFC match, Gary Goodridge, into a more marketable ‘White’ character. This very act of the film’s casting is unforgivable and is flat out unforgettably racist. What suitable reason could they possibly have for casting a first generation Black cage fighter like Gary Goodridge as White?

Whitewashing has become a major discussed issue with Hollywood films today and it represents a sad and reflective state of complacency in the industry given how systemic the problem has become. Just last year Exodus: Gods and Kings drew heavy scorn for using an almost all-Caucasian cast to portray explicitly Middle Eastern and North African characters, despite the existence of many qualified actors and actresses who would have been a proper fit.

ESPN’s 30 for 30 documentary will set the record straight by introducing credible principled characters and subscribing to a set of responsible journalistic standards, sharing chronicled perspectives that united a divided community and paid tribute to many of those that were unceremoniously left out, robbed, hurt and cheated by the film.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51March 13, 2016 11:10 PM

R51's article has good points. They always get real stories somewhat wrong.

But if you didn't know too much about the real story, and took the film as it is, I thought it was pretty good, though depressing.

by Anonymousreply 52March 13, 2016 11:17 PM

R48 I'm surer many are, but many are not as well.

by Anonymousreply 53March 13, 2016 11:33 PM

FFS, a wealthy man builds a compound for wrestlers on his property and people still wonder if he was a homosexual. That's a normal thing to do, hmm.

Anyway, I didn't see the film because it was a whitewash of the obvious gay angle. There were many other incidents and details left out in most articles detailing DuPont. For one, he videotaped wrestlers dressing and undressing for his own private use. Some footage was shown during the initial broadcast of the events.

by Anonymousreply 54March 13, 2016 11:49 PM

The movie left out crucial details, like that DuPont was a paranoid schizophrenic.

by Anonymousreply 55March 13, 2016 11:56 PM

How can mark be goodlooking and the other one looks like an over hirsute ape

by Anonymousreply 56October 16, 2019 1:33 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!