[critical] FOXCATCHER

To READ ALSO, our counter-critique of the film !

Bennet Miller for his latest film FOXCATCHER chooses to adapt the tragic story of the brothers Schlutz and billionaire John Eleutherius of the Bridges, which occurred in the united States between the years 80 and 90. For this he selected the brilliant actors Channing Tatum (Marck), Steve Carell (John du Pont) and Mark Ruffalo (Dave), of which the interpretation is being greeted and guided by Marck Schultz in person. Then takes place a relationship first friendly, then more and more unhealthy, between Marck and John. Until Marck crack… it is his brother who becomes the object of this vicious circle that the billionaire seems to dictate the pace. The experience of the viewer is challenging in the sense that its empathy for the characters, and mainly that of John, is continually being upset, he was torn between pity and compassion and fun, and then between fear and hatred. At this moment you must say to yourself : but why it serves us his verbiage sentimental and psychological as it is a film about the sport? Of course, the theme is: fight, sport, the Olympic games. But in my humble opinion, this is more of a pretext than a real issues. Actually the heart of the film seems to be in the struggle between the characters, in the sense of : domination, submission, struggle, victory. In this sense, the fight would be one of the billionaire lonely to aroused the pride by his mother and his entourage, the struggle for emancipation from the notoriety of his brother for Marck, the struggle for Marck and Dave to be their passion. These struggles are terrifying and stinging weapon : money. If these three characters are brought together, it is because the billionaire was wanted, and if John feels such a passion for the fight is that it is a loophole to the burden of his millions.

We note the dominance of money in the staging and the accessories, the sport is in itself subject to the money. For example, the gym is just one of the homes among the vast estate of the du Pont family. The tracksuits are in the likeness of the name chosen by John “Foxcatcher, instead of display the name of the United States team. The games themselves are rigged during a tournament, to let him win the billionaire, who tries miserably to the fight. The leaders and representatives of the struggle in the United States to bend to the will of Mr. of the Bridge, against the donation of 500 thousand dollars per year. Here are a few of the elements that enable us to evaluate the place given to money in this movie, as a synonym of power and domination.

Miller offers us a film about man in his relation to the other, under the metaphor of the fight

The fight will then take on a value much deep, as synonym of victory to be himself and to others. We can then compare the relationship between John and the brothers Schultz (Marck, in a first time, and Dave in the second), the dialectic of master and slave (cf: Hegel’s Phenomenology of spirit). Hegel meant by the dialectic the relation of strength between two individuals, which the outcome of the battle leads to the submission of one to the profit of the winner. The slave assouvira then the desires of the master, while the master will simply order. The master will think, achieve and become aware of itself, since it will grant these desires (in this case, winning wrestling tournaments for John), but he will not be able to get the recognition he expected (frustration, paranoia, loneliness of John) because he will not treat his slave (Marck) as equal to himself. Hegel demonstrates the necessity of equality in relation to others in order to take consciousness of his being. In the case of FOXCATCHER, Marck does not support the submission unhealthy that requires him John (who goes by the drug, alcohol, and sexual tension). It will then close in on itself, and deny anything that can bring it back to what it was before : a free man. This difficulty to accept, may be illustrated by the scenes where Marck looks at himself in a mirror, every time he breaks his image. John, meanwhile, will be locked in this vicious circle, trying to always send out a positive image of him in the hope of a recognition on the part of wrestlers, his mother, from America. It happens at the beginning of the film, by the speech that he asked Marck to read in front of 400 guests : “John has been a coach but also a father, a role model for me”. And then when his delirium is the most acute, from the documentary to his glory that he commands. The culmination of this circle is the awareness of his failure and his solitude by John, when he looks at only the tape of his documentary. It is after this scene where he looks at himself, as if it was looking at his own image (in the documentary) that he can become aware of the absurdity sickly looking and his ambition is megalomaniac, and take the fatal decision to close the film. And it is a film about freedom, the recognition by others, and the courage, as the only real victory in a fight. It is a film about man in his relation to the other, under the metaphor of the fight with the iron lance the money.

However, on a more technical and aesthetic, the film is not surprising. The assembly is very linear, the fights are often filmed in plans sets bit expressive, even if it allows to better visualize the fight. The strong points are the use of long shot that can let them settle to the voltage. And the leitmotif of the fox, which is ubiquitous in the decoration, on which Miller multiplies the plans. The scenario is interesting but not fancy as it stays “glued” to the reality. Tell a “true story” in a fiction film, still poses the ethical problems of compliance, and aesthetic reconstruction. The witnesses of this story seems to be satisfied by the film (cf: Interview Marck Schultz). The issues seems to be respected since the film reveals the events while delicacy without giving a vision to be a caricature and simplistic. On the contrary, it sets out the underlying and progressive, the ambivalence unhealthy situation. The appellation “true story” reinforces the tension and the value of the film, but on the other hand, it limits the amount of creation. As a film buff so we can be disappointed by the lack of innovation and fantasy of this film which is mainly worn by the scenario.

The notice of Adele.

INFORMATION

 

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top