• My Linky
    • New Events
    • Mailchimp Blog
    • Subscribe to me
    • Products
    • New Page
  • New Index
  • New Index
  • New Page
  • New Page
  • New Page
    • Production //
    • Form Date Format
    • Blog
    • New Products
    • Cover Home Page
    • New Products
    • New Page
  • Sign In My Account
Menu

Your Site Title

Street Address
City, State, Zip
815-212-6346

ANGELINAMANZUK@YAHOO.COM                                                                                                       815-212-6346

Your Site Title

  • New Folder
    • My Linky
    • New Events
    • Mailchimp Blog
    • Subscribe to me
    • Products
    • New Page
  • New Index
  • New Index
  • New Page
  • New Page
  • New Page
  • New Folder
    • Production //
    • Form Date Format
    • Blog
    • New Products
    • Cover Home Page
    • New Products
    • New Page
  • Sign In My Account

May 1, 2015 Eimear Fallon
Watched: Foxcatcher (2014).Steve Carell is a revelation in this - his John Du Pont is a study in microexpressions, with the camera often lingering on his face as he remains almost entirely still, forcing us to absorb everything we can. I can see why…

Watched: Foxcatcher (2014).

Steve Carell is a revelation in this - his John Du Pont is a study in microexpressions, with the camera often lingering on his face as he remains almost entirely still, forcing us to absorb everything we can. I can see why this film polarised some - it’s a stark, sparsely-populated film, and so much of it depends on what assumptions and prejudices the viewer brings. For me, it was almost tragic - Du Pont in the movie is a man who desperately wants to be validated - by sporting institutions, by his mother, by his athletes - and will outright lie or manipulate others to convince himself that he’s a Great Man.

Channing Tatum is similarly hard-to-read, even as the film invites you to figure out what’s going on behind the eyes. I suspect that’s deliberate - Mark Schultz is the only principal character of the film who’s still living, and he went from open co-operation with the filmmakers to outright condemning the feature upon its release (largely when reviewers started talking about the potentially-sexual tension between Du Pont and Schultz, which I honestly didn’t see), then apparently changing his mind again. Having seen it, I suspect he was so wobbly because judgements of the character were so variable - there’s very little that’s prescriptive here, and that’s what makes it so exciting to watch.

Tags film
← →

Thanks for visiting, we look forward to hearing from you.