A few notes:
- I have a new pet peeve:
people who make their disapproval known in movie theaters. When a character
does something you disapprove of, don’t sigh or go “tsk, tsk” or whatever. It’s
obnoxious.
- I failed at seeing all three Hunger Games films, but I did see the first two. By next week, I'll have seen the third. Maybe.
Foxcatcher (Bennett
Miller)
Foxcatcher has
been one of my most anticipated films of 2014 ever since it was announced. The
story of the bizarre relationship between John Du Pont, a man born into the
richest family in America, and Mark and Dave Schultz, two brothers who both won
gold medals for wrestling in the 1984 Olympics, seemed ripe with possibilities,
especially when considering its bizarre conclusion. The final product is
unfortunately a disappointment, but only because I loved so much of it that its
massive flaws were even more frustrating.
The
film’s biggest issue is the same aspect that has been garnering the most Oscar
buzz, and that’s the performance of Steve Carell as John Du Pont. I adore Steve
Carell. His Michael Scott is one of my favorite characters from any medium, and
I will always have be willing to give the man a chance. No single film will be
able to change that. But his performance in Foxcatcher
simply isn’t very good. Du Pont is a fascinating man, but Carell only plays him
as a creepy, awkward mystery. He speaks with long pause, he walks almost as if
in slow motion, and he’s always very still. This is incredibly effective in the
early scenes, when it feels like the possibility of something deeper is being
hinted at, but then we get scene after scene of the same weird ticks, and
eventually it becomes clear that the only real purpose they serve is to make us
thing, “man, this dude is strange.” It’s no coincidence that all of the film’s
best scenes are the ones without Carell in them.
Despite all of the Best Actor buzz for Steve Carell, the
real lead performance in Foxcatcher,
and the one that actually deserves the nomination, is Channing Tatum as Mark
Schultz, the wrestler and Olympic gold-medalist. Tatum’s mostly taken roles
that emphasize his natural charisma, so it’s a bit unnerving to watch him play
a character who seems uncomfortable in his own skin. The film’s masterful
opening depicts his lonely and heartbreaking existence, awkwardly speaking at
an elementary school about his experience at the Olympics, and later a
fantastic scene of him training with his brother Dave, which tells you
everything you need to know about their relationship without a single line of
dialogue.
Equally
great is Mark Ruffalo as Mark Schultz brother and mentor Dave Schultz, who
represents everything Mark is not. He’s charismatic and friendly and he’s got a
family that he will do anything for. Everything seems to come naturally to him,
while nothing comes naturally to Mark.
Foxcatcher tries
to depict the consequences of unearned privilege, but the film makes its points
on this subject so half-heartedly that it’s hard to really care. Miller tries
it into to a larger indictment of the idea of American exceptionalism, but even
his exploration of that feels lazy, consisting of a few patriotic lines from Du
Pont and some heavy-handed American iconography. Foxcatcher works far better as a portrait of two men who feel
isolated from society and want desperately to prove their worth to the world
and to themselves.
Then there’s the ending. For those who don’t know how
this real life story played out, I won’t spoilt it here, but I will say that
the film struggles to match the story it wants to tell with the story it has to
tell. The conclusion is certainly shocking, but it doesn’t feel earned.
Foxcatcher
is the most frustrating film experience I’ve had all year. It can be a powerful
and even haunting experience at times (when Carell is not on screen), and a
complete mess at others. It comes so close to greatness that its massive
missteps are all the more infuriating.
Rating: 3/5
The Theory of Everything (James
Marsh)
I wasn’t even going to write a review of this. I was
going to find a nice .gif of a steaming pile of dog crap that would have done
the job just fine, but I decided that would be in poor taste.
Anyway, The Theory
of Everything is the worst film I’ve seen in 2014. I’ll qualify that by
saying I don’t see a lot of genuinely awful films (if you’re into that sort of
thing, I'd recommend this). That said, this is just unbearable.
Stephen Hawking undoubtedly has lived an incredible life.
He’s lived with motor neuron disease his entire adult life, but hasn’t let that
prevent him trying to uncover the origins of the universe. It was only a matter
of time until they made a film about him. Unfortunately, it was inevitable that
Hollywood would concentrate less on his great achievement on his personal life.
The film trivializes his work even further by putting the focus on his
unremarkable relationship with his ex-wife, Jane Wilde Hawking.
Eddie Redmayne does an excellent impression of Stephen
Hawking, but the performance, by its very nature, can only remain on the
surface. Instead of trying to overcome this, director James Marsh instead
decides to give equal attention to Hawking’s ex-wife Jane. As played by
Felicity Jones, she’s a strong, devoted, and completely uninteresting woman. As
their completely generic love affair plays out, Hawking’s ground-breaking
theoretical research gets pushed to the side and is only occasionally
acknowledged.
Stephen and Jane Hawking divorced over two decades ago,
and the film tries to acknowledge this while also trying to convince us their
love is one for the ages. As they both drift in to new relationships, we’re
asked to believe that they are still passionately in love with each other.
The Theory of Everything succeeds at turning the life of one of the most fascinating
men of the last century into one of the most banal biopics in recent memory. This
is about as tame as drama gets. Of course it’s going to be nominated for Best
Picture.
Rating: 1/5
