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 don’t really believe in guilty pleasures. I like to subscribe to Susan Sontag’s thought of no highs and lows. I think dismissing popular culture and popular films can be really dangerous because they may seem innocuous, but some are works of art and even when they’re not they can say so much about the culture that they’re reflecting. This also gets into the idea of canon. What is good and isn’t good? Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about that. Specifically, who writes these canons? Mainly, straight white guys — which basically rigs the system. So, if you have a knowledge of female filmmakers, queer filmmakers, African or Asian filmmakers, some people won’t give them the same culture capital. They’ll say, “Oh, that’s nice niche knowledge.” No, it’s not. You’re just seeing it through the prism of something white and male. Like Shonda Rhimes’ ‘Scandal.’ I love that show, but is it a guilty pleasure because it’s a soap on TV? No. I think it has incredible writing, incredible thought and characters, so we should take it seriously. That’s a long-winded answer to say, “Yes, I love Titanic.” I was 10 years old when it came out and my mom took me to see it three times. I was so obsessed with it. A big thanks to my mom who’ll never get those nine hours of her life back.”
~ Toronto Int’l Programmer and Critic Kiva Reardon

“A lot of us felt blindsided,” Van Vliet told me. In the seventies, Van Vliet was drafted out of film school by Industrial Light & Magic, where he worked on The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now 62 and semi-retired, he said, “Once you get into your fifties, you’re pretty disposable.” Van Vliet was in the middle of reviewing DVD screeners before casting his Oscar votes, a process he estimated would take a hundred and twenty hours. “The Academy is essentially asking us to give them three weeks of labor, and then they’re going to take our results, put them into a ceremony, and sell it,” he said, referring to the seventy-five million dollars that the organization earns from the television broadcast. “Then they’re turning around and kicking us in the teeth.”
~ “Shakeup At The Oscars”