MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Cannes Review: Foxcatcher (spoilers)

I don’t really want to review Foxcatcher. The script is solid. The direction is beautiful. The performances are topnotch.

I’m not really sure how much more I can say about it that is of value.

I can say that I don’t think it is at all about the corrupting nature of money. The money is really beyond the point. John DuPont was a sad, inconsolable rich kid. But the point is not that he had power from his wealth, but that he could never use the wealth to make himself happy and to some extent was trapped by his perception of his position.

There is some drug use, but my feeling is that this is about vulnerability, not power or being out of control. The film infers a possible sexual subtext to the wrestling that wrestlers insist is untrue all of the time. But is there a problem created by the drug use? Well… only if you take the inference of an unusual, abusive sexual incursion under the influence. But even if you go there, that incursion is a breach of the parental relationship, not a “drug problem.”

The following is my take on the story in the film. I am not usually one for retelling the story in a review, but I feel like so many reviews are suggesting that it is some other movie, I feel compelled, if only for my own sanity…

Foxcatcher is a movie about desperation for parental love. The two men at its center, Mark Schultz and John DuPont can’t fill the hole in their lives… Schultz’s caused by the death of his parents at a young age and DuPont caused by his unforgiving mother.

Schultz has a gold medal, but it’s not enough in many ways. DuPont is one of the richest men in the world, but is not interested in being what his mother wants and has found an affinity for a passion she deeply disrespects.

But if DuPont can lead his men to an Olympic gold medal, maybe she will finally respect him. And he knows what Mark Schultz needs (or thinks he needs)… a parental figure who is not his older brother, allowing him to individuation.

DuPont’s money isn’t really important to Schultz. It allows him some space, but DuPont’s mind-fuck is about making Mark feel special, capable, and powerful aside from the older brother who has overshadowed him all of his life.

And for a while, it all works. Mark wins the World Championship. But this does not convert Mrs. DuPont to seeing her son more kindly. DuPont needs more. So he insists on bringing Dave Schultz into the fold.

Ironically, DuPont’s wealth, which meant next to nothing to Mark, is everything to Dave. He has a wife and family to raise.

But once Dave, a natural leader, enters the picture, DuPont dumps his friend/son Mark. It’s every abandonment nightmare that Mark has ever had. And he shuts down.

In turn, DuPont starts to seek parental attention from Dave, who is a leader and otherwise superior in every way – except financially – to DuPont. This intensifies when DuPont’s mother dies and then again as it becomes clear that, even for money, Dave cannot pretend to respect DuPont the way he seeks.

This inevitably leads to DuPont killing his mother – as then embodied by Dave – and Mark being forced into independence, though forever to be haunted by his brother and DuPont as the tale becomes legend.

The movie is really missing the coda of where Mark is today. Is he still living in the shadow? Has he freed himself to some degree? Somewhere in the middle? Disconnected? It’s not my question to answer.

There are many wonderful things in this movie. And I am sure my view will evolve… not necessarily to thinking it something I don’t think it is now… but there is a richness to it that is of great value. But the movie reviews I read right after its screening were, to my eye, of some other movie altogether.

And so it goes…

2 Responses to “Cannes Review: Foxcatcher (spoilers)”

  1. Bob Burns says:

    not all rich people are awful, certainly, but when they are their money makes the awful far worse…. and often dangerous. no one would care about DuPont – and he would probably have done little harm, but for his money.

    everyone’s got his reasons.

  2. PcChongor says:

    Haven’t read the review yet, but thanks for marking it as containing spoilers. Most reviewers seem to think that just because a film is based on a true story (no matter how obscure), all bets are off when it comes to spoiling the plot.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I was 15 when I first watched Sally Hardesty escape into the back of a pickup truck, covered in blood and cackling like a goddamn witch. All of her friends were dead. She had been kidnapped, tortured and even forced to feed her own blood to her cannibalistic captors’ impossibly shriveled patriarch. Being new to the horror genre, I was sure she was going to die. It had been a few months since I survived a violent sexual assault, where I subsequently ran from my assailant, tripped, fell and fought like hell. I crawled home with bloody knees, makeup-stained cheeks and a new void in both my mind and heart. My sense of safety, my ability to trust others, my willingness to form new relationships and my love of spending time with people I cared about were all taken from me. It wasn’t until I found the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre that something clicked. It was Sally’s strength, and her resilience. It was watching her survive blows to the head from a hammer. It was watching her break free from her bonds and burst through a glass window. It was watching her get back up after she’d been stabbed. It was watching her crawl into the back of a truck, laughing as it drove away from Leatherface. She was the last one to confront the killer, and live. I remember sitting in front of the TV and thinking, There I am. That’s me.”
~ Lauren Milici On “The Final Girl”

“‘Thriller’ enforced its own reality principle; it was there, part of the every commute, a serenade to every errand, a referent to every purchase, a fact of every life. You didn’t have to like it, you only had to acknowledge it. By July 6, 1984, when the Jacksons played the first show of their ‘Victory’ tour, in Kansas City, Missouri, Jacksonism had produced a system of commodification so complete that whatever and whoever was admitted to it instantly became a new commodity. People were no longer comsuming commodities as such things are conventionally understood (records, videos, posters, books, magazines, key rings, earrings necklaces pins buttons wigs voice-altering devices Pepsis t-shirts underwear hats scarves gloves jackets – and why were there no jeans called Bille Jeans?); they were consuming their own gestures of consumption. That is, they were consuming not a Tayloristic Michael Jackson, or any licensed facsimile, but themselves. Riding a Mobius strip of pure capitalism, that was the transubstantiation.”
~ Greil Marcus On Michael Jackson