Foxcatcher was one of those films that is getting a lot of good press, but I am not so sure it deserves all the press it gets. Most of the critics loved it, but I am so-so about it.
The story is actually pretty simple. Based on true events, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo play Mark and David Schultz, a champion brother wrestling team (both were Olympic gold medalists) who joined Team Foxcatcher, a team sponsored by John E. DuPont from the DuPont family for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Events take an unexpected turn with tragic results.
Based on a true story. One critic wisely said those are some of the most dangerous words in cinema. Obviously movies are not documentaries, nor are filmmakers historians, nor should they be. But those five simple words have caused more misunderstandings of historical events because of the dictates of good storytelling. But because of those five words, it gives any filmmaker a free pass on what they decide to show or use the story to push their political agenda under the guise of "It's not my fault. It's a true story." Because of the perceived realities of film, people take these stories literally and it causes a group misconception. Shows like Argo, Blackhawk Down, and We Were Soldiers, with their differing levels of liberties taken with people and events make me question the authenticity of any of these stories now. And now, since these types of stories are becoming so ubiquitous, it no longer seems like any of them have any shred of truth. It gives the filmmakers a crutch in my opinion, a lazy way out on taking a stand. Yet they still fascinate because of those five little words.
The movie itself is fine. It is quite fun to see Steve Carrell plays such an oddly menacing guy. It is such a departure over his usual fare. While Carell is a gifted comedian, I have found comedians tend to make some of the best actors out there. Steve Martin, Gene Wilder, Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks. I think the reason they all make such good actors is that they have to be hyper aware of what they do for comedy. Every nuance, every gesture, every tic, every inflection can kill what would otherwise be a good joke. This hyper-awareness of themselves is precisely the same kind of skill that is required for good acting to be convincing, especially since good comedy tends to be an inflated sense of reality and must be real enough to be convincing. That said, the movie is, in the movie vernacular, "deliberately paced." Most normal people would call it slow. I have been seeing that the movie is getting a lot of accolades for all the acting, but the overarching theme of the movie seems to be awkward silence. The whole movie seems to be based on nobody saying much. There are no dramatic confrontations, no fast-paced action, and therefore a tad boring. It is an interesting story, but this is something that can wait to rent.
No comments:
Post a Comment