|
This was a drat fine film. I loved the part of the score that played, among other instances, when Mark was driving to Du Pont's estate, leaving his old life behind. It featured this compelling dichotomy between patriotism and a kind of uneasiness, certainly the overall tone of the picture, which reminds me of the music from Pakula's 70s thrillers; America is glorious but something's off about the way we're expressing it. Body language was mentioned as a highlight and I have to agree. All of Mark's embraces with both John and his brother were so fascinating in how they resembled a kind of empathetic subversion of a wrestling position. Tatum, Carell, and Ruffalo were all just incredible in this; their performances were so completely beyond the act of emoting.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
That's another thing that struck me about the story. We're told that everything is being done in the good name of this great country but we never really see much more than the estate. Maybe that's intentional to portray the delusions of grandeur but I felt like the point wasn't driven home well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
What he's referring to is his family's legacy. The condition of royalty/nobility is that it carries "greatness", and a part of that condition is a fierce patriotism, however ill-defined.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
American old money is so bizarre. I couldn't help but think about Being There; there's so much space and lavish decor but the whole area is just so damned quiet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:American old money is so bizarre. I couldn't help but think about Being There; there's so much space and lavish decor but the whole area is just so damned quiet. That's really the core of the culture - "All of this is mine and there is more of it than I could ever possibly need or use but it is mine and I derive joy from it being mine alone and no one else's aside from those I choose to bestow a portion of it upon." Greedy, weird, rich fucks are pretty much all the elite really are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What he's referring to is his family's legacy. The condition of royalty/nobility is that it carries "greatness", and a part of that condition is a fierce patriotism, however ill-defined. That's a good point. Their patriotism is probably defined by the simple fact that the American economy is the reason for their wealth. They don't actually love the country, they just love what they were able to gain because of it in a roundabout way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:it is obvious that the real john dupont was deeply mentally ill, but that the film version is strongly pointed toward a disturbed relationship with his mother... all the blame is gone toward this broken rich family or blah blah. To be fair their real-life relationship was terribly disturbed. a stylist of Mrs. DuPont told me herself that she would often show up with bruises on her face barely covered with makeup that she'd dismiss with "oh John's had another bad day" etc." There are a lot of skeletons in that closet few like to pry into, so for me at least that reading of it is not that hard to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Decent film, painfully slow paced at times, but well directed and Ruffalo and Carell really impressed me with their performances. Tatum's character came across as a bit of an oaf, really. I admire his physicality as an actor and he really went for it here but there's almost no subtlety or mystique to him, everything's just... there. No wheels turning underneath. I was also disappointed how Carell's performance wasn't given much room to breathe but they just constantly wheeled him out and told us to look at him as though that would be enough. I mean it changed my perception of Carell as an actor completely because in the past I've found him completely annoying and unfunny, and now I definitely think he has the chops to do more drama from here on in. But still, I wish they'd delved deeper into his character instead of simply presenting him as a creepy eccentric rich guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:There was no trace of Michael Scott I feel like there was one Michael Scott-esque "cringe" moment in the film: the scene when he is "coaching up" the wrestlers to impress his mother and then she just wheels away in disgust was one of the most cringe-inducing scenes I've ever seen. That was brutal. Jewmanji posted:
Great find, Carrell nails duPont's bizarre delivery perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkSchultzy/ I don't think Mark likes this movie anymore.  There's a bunch of other tweets that he deleted called the director a "punk", "pussy", and "die die die die die" repeatedly. His Facebook posts makes it sound like he read a few reviews about the tension in that night wrestling scene, and he's flipping out that people are commenting on a possible homosexual subtext.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Suddenly casting Tatum as Mark seems like an unintentional stroke of genius.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
  I'm a way better wrestler than my brother, and totally not gay, guys. Has anyone read his book he just released, Foxcatcher: The True Story of My Brother's Murder, John du Pont's Madness, and the Quest for Olympic Gold? I was curious, but some of the reviews make it sound like it's mostly a story about Mark's career and technical wrestling minutia, and that DuPont doesn't show up til 2/3rds of the way through the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:
I can't believe he's making such a big deal about 1: how good of a wrestler he is and how much better he was than his dead brother, who he supposedly idolizes and respects. 2: how he was ok with a part of the movie but now he's mad because some critics thought of it a certain way. I thought about giving his book a try but he's losing any sort of allure I've had for him with all this social media ranting. It actually retroactively makes me appreciate Foxcatcher more for just being a loving film that takes some liberties instead of what Schultz would have liked it to be which I assume would have been a documentary about how great he is/was. Sounds like another character in the story actually doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
It's an unflattering characterization but clearly not wholly innaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:I can't believe he's making such a big deal about 1: how good of a wrestler he is and how much better he was than his dead brother, who he supposedly idolizes and respects. 2: how he was ok with a part of the movie but now he's mad because some critics thought of it a certain way. I mean, some of his points are ridiculous, because he's definitely done interviews where the yeah, the details are off, but the feel remains the same. He's complaining about one wrestling scene might be construed as homosexual subtext, when he almost named his book after John wanting to grab his testicles. http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201411/foxcatcher-mark-schultz-john-du-pont-secrets-movie-tatum-ruffalo quote:SCHULTZ: Du Pont was so weak, he couldn't defend himself against anybody. That's why he carried a gun around. It was like Richie Rich, all grown up and hooked on drugs. That is exactly what Du Pont was like. At one point I actually thought he cared about me, but it was a weird feeling, like there might have been something sexual to it. And complaining that they didn't show enough of his victories. They showed him at home with that giant shelf full of medals and trophies; I think the audience got the point that he was pretty good at wrestling. And the big victory in the middle of the movie! His crazy breakdown almost makes me like his characterization more, because he is just so drat defensive about being the best, which definitely comes through in Channing's portrayal.  Gee, I don't know. Maybe they should have just shown him winning titles and then had his brother show up and subsequently die in a postscript during the credits. (PS GREATEST WRESTLER EVER AND TOTALLY NOT A HOMO)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
He's trolling for publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
From that interview:quote:TPG: Are you happy with how it portrays your story? Also I'm going to start grabbing people's balls and instead of saying "no homo" I'm going to say "Mark Schultz, bro."
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:From that interview: I want that in the extended edition and all of the critics' quotes on the blu-ray cover to be Mark Schultz tweets. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
I look at this and I don't necessarily see a sensationalist, homophobic braggart. I see a man who is starting to face some very uncomfortable realities. Think about it: He's won championships, he spent his life passing the fire trials and with that comes a sense of obligation. He has to be strong, because to be weak is a direct refutation of everything he's gone through in his life, everything he's put his body through. If there's ever a point in his life where he lacks agency, he's failed; he's under the mad impression that everything in his life is for naught. The idea that he may not have had that agency in this strange, tragic time of his life is crushing him. I feel that, and then I feel terrible for laughing. But I laugh anyway because come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Maybe the idea of seeing himself portrayed as friend of his brother's killer might peeve him a little. As great as Foxcatcher is, if anyone can be legitimately angry at it the people portrayed are it.
Honest Thief fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Maybe the idea of seeing himself portrayed as friend of his brother's killer might peeve him a little. As great as Foxcatcher is, if anyone can be legitimately angry at it the people portrayed are it. But why the switch now? I mean, this isn't one of those instances where he's been against the movie since it's conception; he has Twitter quotes about how great it is, interviews before it came out about how good it was, he was actually in the movie for Christ's sake. What flipped the switch?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
I recently saw a few of his Twitter posts saying how he has to speak in praise of the film until award season is over or something. Either way he seems like a loving nutbag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:I recently saw a few of his Twitter posts saying how he has to speak in praise of the film until award season is over or something. Either way he seems like a loving nutbag. Oh man, if this is praise, I can't wait til after the Oscars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
I recently watched an interview with Carell where he said that the movie had been edited pretty significantly between the cast/crew/presumably Mark Schultz screening and it coming out in theaters so it could be that Schultz saw and was okay with a different kind of movie than what ended up being released. I mean he's still pretty bananas about all this but it would at least explain the shift in his attitude towards it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:Oh man, if this is praise, I can't wait til after the Oscars. I think that came about after he already flew off the handle and probably redacted some of his previous statements. I hadn't bothered to check.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:But why the switch now? I mean, this isn't one of those instances where he's been against the movie since it's conception; he has Twitter quotes about how great it is, interviews before it came out about how good it was, he was actually in the movie for Christ's sake. What flipped the switch?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:He could have simply not have seen the movie, maybe due to all the Hollywood juice wasn't aware of some of the scenes until someone went "uhh, isn't this.." lots of reasons, but as hilarious as his outburst is, is it really that bananas? People get angry and emotional all the time, it just sucks he went on a twitter meltdown otherwise this would have blown off already. I was under the impression that something just clicked for him after reading reviews about critics picking up on the gay subtext and emotional vulnerability of his character, which maybe didn't occur to him until that point. So basically, he thinks Bennet Miller's calling him a 'fag' and he's hunching up his shoulders about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Bennet Miller films are good but usually full of poo poo. Moneyball was notoriously wrong about a huge number of things. It's about drama and Bennet goes with fiction a lot of the time to achieve that. Perhaps Schultz never really cared for Dupont, and seeing himself stripped down in his skivvies doing cocaine with him pissed him off? Carrel said he saw a different cut originally and maybe it didn't have these things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Well he certainly doesn't seem to really give a poo poo about how well/poorly the film portrays his brother and the tragedy of what happened. He's really super concerned about homosexual subtext and glossing over his wrestling domination though. Sounds like a hell of a guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Schultz did do cocaine with du Pont, and said he was forced to do things like write him birthday cards saying that he loved him. And du Pont possibly fired another coach for refusing his advances and then settled out of court about it later. Movie wise, it feels to me like certain scenes were changed around, but the basic gist of du Pont being a creepy, controlling nutjob were kept. It's different in the details, but it doesn't seem like it's "full of poo poo" to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I was surprised at first that the movie didn't go into more explicit detail as to Du Pont's abuse of Mark. Granted I knew next to nothing about any of this going in, but I was expecting a lot of "whoa look how craaazy this guy is!' kind of stuff but it was actually pretty subdued and mostly let Carell and Channing's performances speak for themselves. There are definitely scenes in which Du Pont's psychosis is on full display but it's not over the top, mustache twirling lunatic stuff. The general alieness of his personality and mannerisms tell you enough about his state of mind and that there is something severely wrong with him. I was glad to see that the real focus of the movie was on the relationship between the two brothers. This could have easily been more of an exploitative "monster" movie with Du Pont filling the role of the crazed killer but instead it plays out (as others have said) like a tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
I did not dislike the movie, but it irked me, and I think it's because I didn't give a poo poo about any of the characters but Ruffalo's? Tatum and Carell romped around in a cathetic stupor that just came off as pathetic, making them sympathy-proof. That may have been the point, a blackly comedic display of some ridiculous, hyper-masculine dudes running amok, and building on top of that by tying their behavior with America and its patriots. That's the interpretation I prefer, anyways, which could be kind of lovely and have a lot to do with how I don't really get wrestling and think it looks generally ridiculous and funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Aside from raiding villages to carry off the girls, wrestling's the oldest sport there is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
 Hell yeah. Hell yeah!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:
Haha, wtf... What's the point of Kojima wearing this? FOX?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
He's a connoisseur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well he certainly doesn't seem to really give a poo poo about how well/poorly the film portrays his brother and the tragedy of what happened. He's really super concerned about homosexual subtext and glossing over his wrestling domination though. Sounds like a hell of a guy. The movie portrayed Dave very positively, so I don't see why he should be concerned about that. As far as Mark being pissed at his own portrayal, I'm surprised people are so unwilling to empathize with him. It isn't just that there was some homoerotic subtext, the movie basically had Mark being DuPont's brainless boytoy, being dominated and controlled by him in every way. It goes so far as to have him attacking his own family at perceived slights towards his master DuPont.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
savinhill posted:The movie portrayed Dave very positively, so I don't see why he should be concerned about that. As far as Mark being pissed at his own portrayal, I'm surprised people are so unwilling to empathize with him. It isn't just that there was some homoerotic subtext, the movie basically had Mark being DuPont's brainless boytoy, being dominated and controlled by him in every way. It goes so far as to have him attacking his own family at perceived slights towards his master DuPont. If he would have just talked about how he never did coke with Dupont or was never slapped by him, the reaction would have been totally different. One of the tweets came across as him making sure everybody knows he's no homo, but actually I can see how that may have been misconstrued. He says suggesting that he had a sexual relationship with DuPont is "sick", but he may have just meant that it would be horrible for people to think he was that close to the guy who murdered Dave. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
I saw this film today, and while it was definitely a slog, I think the worst part of it was the prosthetics they used on Steve Carrell. It's right up there with Looper in that it is distracting and adds nothing to the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If he would have just talked about how he never did coke with Dupont or was never slapped by him, the reaction would have been totally different. One of the tweets came across as him making sure everybody knows he's no homo, but actually I can see how that may have been misconstrued. He says suggesting that he had a sexual relationship with DuPont is "sick", but he may have just meant that it would be horrible for people to think he was that close to the guy who murdered Dave. But he did actually do coke with du Pont. And also cut his hair, and had to write him birthday cards saying how much he loved him. That relationship seemed super hosed up no matter if you're going from the film's POV or Mark's. Also lol: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:25
|
|