Brooding. Sparse. Disturbing. Foxcatcher makes for enthralling cinema with its unanimously strong performances, excellent cinematography and harrowing story. ┬áA story of sibling rivalry, isolation, class and mental illness, Foxcatcher is multifaceted and narratively rich for those who seek its rewards. Much like Bennett MillerÔÇÖs other films it manages to be about much more than its central subject would suggest. It is a wrestling film that is not really about wrestling. This said however, Miller manages to use the infrequent scenes that depict the sport to great effect. The idiosyncrasies of relationships emerge through physicality, and the employment of ÔÇÿshow donÔÇÖt tellÔÇÖ is really what elevates the film to greatness. The central thesis to dominate or overpower oneÔÇÖs opponent speaks volumes for the way the plot unfolds and the characters interact with each other.

Foxcatcher centres on the true events that took place between John E. Dupont and the Shultz brothers. It must be said that the less you know going into the film the better, but it wonÔÇÖt ruin the experience if you are aware of the story. Given that it is a true story some may find a problem with the artistic licence taken. The film condenses the events and doesnÔÇÖt revel in some of the more sensational aspects of what happened. There is also an implied homoeroticism within the film that has led Mark Shultz to take strongly against it. Although that mustnÔÇÖt be allowed to impair oneÔÇÖs own thoughts on the film. After all it is a biopic not a documentary and therefore entertainment and narrative take precedent over being completely factually secure. It is to the filmÔÇÖs strength that it leaves out some of the more melodramatic elements. It makes for a quiet reflective film that examines its characters, their motivations and the way in which they interact with each other. The film is at its best when making subtleties such as facial expressions and the silences between speaking go a long way. It is within these small details that the true beauty of Foxcatcher can be found.

 

“Simply put, Carell┬áis┬áDupont”

Steve Carell is astounding but it would be easy to give credit simply by comparing it to the work he is usually known for. However this would undersell both his depiction of Dupont and the work he has done in other films such as Little Miss Sunshine. Simply put, Carell is┬áDupont. It is a case of embodiment rather than portrayal. Carell could have fallen back on a caricature, a simple depiction of a creepy rich boogieman, but he provides far more depth than that. He plays the role in a way that is simultaneously tragic and terrifying and is successful in creating a believable three-dimensional character. It is important not to overlook the fantastic performances by Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum who are both on par with Carell. The physical transformations alone are deserving of their own praise but they bring much more than aesthetic realism. Tatum is superb as an emotionally confused younger sibling constantly striving to escape his brotherÔÇÖs shadow. The success of which is visible in the sympathy felt towards his character who is not entirely wholesome and makes many questionable decisions. Ruffalo brings warmth to what is for the most part an emotionally detached film. His portrayal of Dave Shultz extends even to the way he carries himself, it is a complete transformation. Moreover the always welcome Vanessa Redgrave is also convincing in her brief role as DupontÔÇÖs judgemental, controlling mother.

Foxcatcher marks another triumph in MillerÔÇÖs oeuvre as an example of great film making. From the acting to the cinematography, all components add up to make a film that fills its audience with dread but makes it almost impossible to look away. This is mainly due to the magnetic nature of the acting, but MillerÔÇÖs ability to say a lot with very little should also be acknowledged. Amongst all the films vying for awards this season Foxcatcher stands tall as one not to be missed.