Foxcatcher

Steve Carell’s performance as John du Pont is the highlight of Foxcatcher

I really, really wanted to love Foxcatcher. I’ve been waiting to see it ever since news broke about Steve Carell taking on a dark, dramatic role. But instead of loving it, I find myself questioning its praise and Oscar nominations—five including Best Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo), Best Director (Bennett Miller), and Best Original Screenplay. The only one that seems to make sense here is Steve Carell for Best Actor. For a film boasting five nominations, a dark turn for Steve Carell, and being based off of a true story, it feels awfully bland.

Steve Carell plays real-life figure John du Pont, heir to the du Pont chemical fortune, who assembles a wrestling team at his estate, Foxcatcher Farms, to compete in the world championships. Included on his team are brothers Mark and David Schultz (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo). Mark agrees to du Pont’s proposition fairly quickly and they establish a sort of friendship, while David takes quite a bit more persuasion to join the team since he doesn’t want to uproot his family to live at Foxcatcher.

There’s been no shortage of hype surrounding Carell’s role as du Pont, especially since it’s a fairly large departure from the more comedic roles he’s known for in projects such as The Office. His performance is good, playing du Pont with laser focused eyes, wheezy voice, and an uncertain, calculating air about him that makes us feel uncomfortable. Carell nails the physicality of the performance and it’s clear right away that he understands the character and is fully committed to the role. Which makes it all the more disappointing that he isn’t given much to work with. There’s just not enough meat to du Pont as a character. Despite the head-scratcher of a Best Original Screenplay nomination, it doesn’t allow for any moments of character development or getting into John’s head. Who is this guy? What makes him tick? We get glimpses of answers, but they’re never fully formed. The character details and insights are there if one looks hard enough—the crippling insecurities, the desire for friendship that he never had, and a host of mommy issues just barely hidden beneath the surface (Vanessa Redgrave as Jean du Pont is fantastic, despite her few scenes)—but we shouldn’t have to. There’s a difference between ambiguity and omission.

Channing Tatum is also surprisingly good as Mark. When we meet him he’s living alone in a small, sparse apartment, tired of living in his brother’s shadow despite the fact that they’re both Olympic gold medalists. Which makes it all the sadder when we see how he is treated by John—built up, then torn down, cast aside like a child grown bored with a toy. A scene where Mark opens his horse stall-shaped front door feels like a wink from Miller to show how he’s treated as a pet. As Mark, Tatum is silent, but hulking, and it’s the subtle ways that Tatum portrays him that give us the best glimpses into his character. Whether it’s the way he moves his jaw, his blank expressions, or almost ape-like way of moving, where the screenplay fails in character development, Tatum makes up for with the physicality of his performance.

Though there are a few occasions where it seems as if the plot and characters might escalate and shake things up, it stays relatively low-key. I was waiting for something to happen, for John or Mark or anyone to do or say something that would propel the film forward, but nothing of the sort happens. It just sort of drags on at a leisurely pace with the film’s volume—both in dialogue and score—barely rising above a whisper. Bennett Miller seems to be content keeping the characters (and film as a whole) restrained, confined to a stable like one of Jean’s prized horses. Even a big scene near the end of the film (which should’ve been climactic and held some sort of emotional stakes) is treated as if it’s a minor occurrence rather than something with incredible repercussions.

One of the things that initially sold me on Foxcatcher was the dark, almost frigid atmosphere shown in the trailers (think David Fincher—The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or, most recently, Gone Girl). An atmosphere with a muted color palette and low score. Right away you can tell that something ominous hangs in the air, that there’s something about John du Pont that’s just not right, waiting to become unhinged, to snap. Now, the atmosphere in the film is cold, is bleak, but unfortunately it’s never utilized to draw us into the characters or become invested in them. Disappointingly, Miller keeps the viewer at arm’s length, making us feel detached from the narrative.

Foxcatcher has all the ingredients to truly have been great. Unfortunately, with its sub-par editing, making it difficult to distinguish just when the film is taking place, and keeping its characters underdeveloped and at a chilly distance, it settles for just good.

7/10

The Guest

Initially I wasn’t too excited about checking out The Guest after finding out that it was directed by Adam Wingard, who directed the terribly overrated You’re Next a few years back. Thankfully, The Guest is much, much, better.

Release Date: Sept. 17, 2014
Runtime: 99 minutes

Dan Stevens plays a solider named David who abruptly shows up at the family house of his friend, Caleb, who died in combat. He knew Caleb well (at least he says) and promised him that he would tell his family that he loved them. David fulfills his promise—and more.

What is great about the film is that it works on many levels, mainly as a keep-you-guessing thriller, as it poses the question: who is David really—and what’s his true purpose injecting himself into the Peterson family? Dan Stevens is great as David, all at once polite, warm, cold, and calculating, so much so that we’re never quite sure of his true motives. Is he truly who he claims to be—just a family friend, looking to relay a message? Or is he hiding something, a secret of some kind, and looking to use the family for something sinister? With all of the Halloween visuals, could it be something supernatural? The fun of the film is trying to figure it out since so many conclusions seem possible. Unfortunately, the reveal isn’t quite as interesting or creative as some of those that viewers will no doubt come up with in their minds.

The actors that make up the Petersons are also solid as well (though Sheila Kelley as the mother is a little distracting with her constant state of surprise) and Wingard manages to give us insights into their personalities with a few scenes. The always reliable Lance Reddick also has a role as someone who crosses paths with the family.

Though the majority of the film is a solid thriller, where it falls short is its fairly abrupt transition from tense and suspenseful to scenes of all-out action. Tonally, it doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the film and cheapens the preceding scenes of well-crafted uncertainty and dread. The film’s cat-and-mouse climax also drags on for a little too long and runs the risk of being something out of a generic slasher film. The same goes for the techno music that plays throughout the film. It’s annoying at first, but works to the film’s advantage—heightening the sense of dread—when utilized in small doses. As for the ending, I would have preferred a real conclusion rather than one that’s open ended. There are some stories that benefit from having a little ambiguity, but this isn’t one of them. It’s frustrating rather than artsy.

In the end, The Guest is a solid, intriguing, and (for the most part) well-paced thriller. It keeps you guessing until the end and although the reveal of David’s background isn’t as satisfying as the buildup, it deserves credit for making the journey getting there so much fun.

8/10