Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IronChef

Mark Schultz rant on Foxcatcher director

Recommended Posts

Total guesswork here but it's reasonable to assume that:

 

A) Schultz had mixed feelings about a personal tragedy being made into a film, but agreed to it to make money, have his story told, etc

B) Schultz promoted the movie. Not sure if he had a financial stake in its success but who wouldn't want a movie about them to be successful?

C) people told Schultz the movie did not show him in a flattering light (critics, personal friends, whoever). It's not just a sexual orientation thing- imagine people thinking you had an affair with your brothers murderer! Schultz is also very protective of his athletic legacy- I remember he used to keep a "fixed" pro wrestling loss off his mma record.

D) Schultz speaks our because of these comments. The really odd tweets were during New Years- maybe partying?

 

Mark has posted here before, I'd love it if he corrected my assumptions. Mostly I hope he finds peace and happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the book and watched the movie.  I don't really care much that the 9 or 10 year sequence of events was greatly condensed, that isn't a big deal.  They could have done a better job of showing the manipulator and and erratic behavior without the implied gay undertones.  It made Mark Schultz look like a meat head and coke head and they could have done him more justice.  As for the twitter rants, I never saw them so I can't really comment on it.  One problem with social media is that when people are pissed off it is easy to go on a rant and say things that can't be unsaid.  If he were interviewed following reading a review he didn't like, he would have had opportunity to choose his words.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"THIS IS SO FREAKING HUGE YOU GUYS!!!!! OMG! 3 GOLDEN GLOBE NOMINATIONS!!!! THANK YOU GOD THANK YOU GOD THANK YOU...:

 

Seems like he was fine with the movie a month ago, according to this quote from his twitter account. I believe critics suggesting homosexual undertones made him lose it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not up to date on all of John Smiths teachings, I'm guessing he wasn't quoting directly from the LDS scriptures in some of his recent social media posts.

 

That would be Joseph Smith, and I think Mark was letting out his frustration.  Those outbursts just aren't like him at all, he's a pretty cool guy and it was surprising to see/hear about that.  After I saw the movie I sent him a text message thanking him for helping bring it to the big screen and he responded positively to that.  I think his anger is because a lot of people who don't know the story about DuPont just being plain nuts told him they thought those scenes were kinda gay.  To be honest I never saw it as gay really, I saw it was DuPont acting creepy, because he was, and that since he had paid for Mark to be around he was expecting to be able to have access to him at all times.  The changes in the film Mark went through seemed more like DuPont just corrupting him and trying to play him against his brother.  The stuff he would say about how he needs to step out of Dave's shadow, etc, that felt more like he was trying to mold somebody who was emotionally needy into who he wanted him to be.  But that isn't really the truth either, Mark was very hands off with DuPont and didn't really like him which is why he left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be Joseph Smith,

Thanks I was thinking Joseph Smith and must have brain-farted on that one. No he's definitely not the Jamestown Colony, Pocahontas guy.

 

I think his anger is because a lot of people who don't know the story about DuPont just being plain nuts told him they thought those scenes were kinda gay. To be honest I never saw it as gay really, I saw it was DuPont acting creepy, because he was, and that since he had paid for Mark to be around he was expecting to be able to have access to him at all times. The changes in the film Mark went through seemed more like DuPont just corrupting him and trying to play him against his brother. The stuff he would say about how he needs to step out of Dave's shadow, etc, that felt more like he was trying to mold somebody who was emotionally needy into who he wanted him to be.

Almost exactly the way I was viewing the reason for Marks outburst. I also thought the same about the movie scenes including many with Mwek as being a way of showing DuPonts thought that his money can given access, and control, and success over anything.

Edited by MadMardigain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the book.  I haven't seen the movie.  The book was very good.  It did not reference some of the things that seem to be depicted in the movie.  I have the movie on a flash drive waiting to watch it.  At this point, I am unsure if I want to watch it though,  Before hearing all of the feedback about the movie, I was dying to see it.  Now I am happy to have read the book first.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book is better...

 

I enjoyed watching the movie, and Mark Ruffalo is great but I do wish they didn't act like Mark Schultz viewed Du Pont as a father figure or someone to look up to... the book says the opposite even from right at the beginning of their relationship. Mark knew what he was getting into and only kept his mouth shut during Du Pont's creepy behavior because he was footing the bill for his Olympic training/ NCAA coaching/etc.  Also, I think Channing Tatum did a good job in wrestling and in trying to get into character but I can see what Mark was talking about with his character.  They had him be very brooding and "meat-head-ish." even when there was no need for it.  They could have kept him like that right before and after competition, but I don't know why they didn't add more depth to his character in other situations.

Edited by HuskyHero133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I don't understand.  There isn't even a whiff of a mention of DuPont until about page 180, almost 2/3 of the way through the book.   I know movies cut out parts, but it seems as if DuPont is mentioned right from the very beginning in the movie. After reading the book, there is a lot that happens pre DuPont years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I don't understand.  There isn't even a whiff of a mention of DuPont until about page 180, almost 2/3 of the way through the book.   I know movies cut out parts, but it seems as if DuPont is mentioned right from the very beginning in the movie. After reading the book, there is a lot that happens pre DuPont years.  

Keep in mind that this is not a movie of the book.  It's not as if this book has been around for years and then they turned it into a movie.  I'm pretty what happened is that a chapter from one of the very early versions of the book caused Bennet Miller to want to make this movie.  He (and the screenplay writers) then did a significant amount of research (consulting Mark Schultz and many others), along with some fictionalization, to tell the story the way he wanted it portrayed.  This is my understanding at least.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that this is not a movie of the book.  It's not as if this book has been around for years and then they turned it into a movie.  I'm pretty what happened is that a chapter from one of the very early versions of the book caused Bennet Miller to want to make this movie.  He (and the screenplay writers) then did a significant amount of research (consulting Mark Schultz and many others), along with some fictionalization, to tell the story the way he wanted it portrayed.  This is my understanding at least.  

 

I understand that.  I guess it sends a mixed message by sharing the same title.  I have the movie on a flash drive waiting to watch it, I have had the time to do so.  Yet, I haven't and I am not sure that I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really doubt that Mark's book is the whole story.  When people tell a story about themselves it rarely is impartial.

 

I also wouldn't be so quick to discount the movie's perspectives.

 

The screenwriters and director did their homework and interviewed many people that were at Foxcatcher.  Yes, the movie is a semi-fictional account.  Yes, they have financial incentives to spice up the story.  I also know that if it weren't for a rich millennial (daughter of Oracle founder/CEO) this movie might never have been made.  Bennett Miller didn't make this movie to make money.  All of the studios passed because they didn't see the script attracting a big audience.  The drawn out dialog found throughout the movie has made Foxcatcher more of an art film than a blockbuster.

 

If I had to speculate, I'd say that Foxcatcher's creators actually believe there was some homoeroticism between Dupont and Schultz.  Maybe it was one directional and maybe nothing physical ever materialized, but they believe there was a tension.  I'd also speculate that the creators believe that Mark did look up to Dupont as a father figure in some way at some point in time, even if it was over stated in the movie.  To me the difference between the two accounts (the book and the movie) has me wanting to have conversations with people who were there (and willing to talk off the record).

 

Mark is a fascinating character with overflowing athletic ability and tragic flaws, but you'll miss out on the latter if you only listened to his side of the story.  I hope he made enough off this movie to get him through retirement, because it has to be painful to have your personal flaws exposed on a national stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People see what they want to see. I never thought for a second there was a homosexual tone to anything. Sounds to me like some agenda-based movie critics injected their own opinions into what Miller did and it got some steam.

 

I have reached out to Mark (and had no reply) even prior to his social media rant.

 

My biggest problem with this is he was there for nearly everything right? He saw it multiple times. It was "the greatest movie ever made" according to Mark on the No Holds Barred show.

 

Something is not right here. It don't jive.

Thanks Jason....thought it was just me.....and I'm not big movie goer, but seeing this was a must, because of my love for wrestling and for Dave, and the impact his death has had on so many people and for wrestling/  I've been around wrestling a long time, and never got to know Mark, but having been to 36 NCAA Championships, 30 in a row, as well as 17 World Cups when both of the Schultz's wrestled, I have great memories of watching Mark wrestle/compete too.  One of the greatest NCAA matches ever.....it's easy......Mark against Ed Banach......what an awesome match.....Mark was awesome....amazing.....and I don't just mean in that match .....Eddie Banach's great too!!!  That might be my favorite all-time collegiate match.  Getting back to the first sentence....original thought .....I didn't catch the homosexual part either......not with Mark.  I had heard from other athletes that trained there about Dupont's sexual tendancies, but I would never believe Mark or any other athlete there would have gone along with that.   I thought I wouldn't cry til Dave got shot, but I cried way before that when "supposedly" Mark was snorting cocaine on the plane.....it broke my heart and I'm crying right now :(.  After all this, and even then, I don't want to believe it's true.  Got to send this......getting ready to go to a couple of wrestling matches.  Thanks Jason for all you do!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×