Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IronChef

Mark Schultz rant on Foxcatcher director

Recommended Posts

Move to the second picture in the linked story. It's a facebook post by Mark (sense deleted) which show some of the thought process he was going through right before his tirade of social media rants began.

Interesting. I like Mark, but there is a disturbing irony in the way he's chosen to go about refuting the accuracy of his depiction in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move to the second picture in the linked story. It's a facebook post by Mark (sense deleted) which show some of the thought process he was going through right before his tirade of social media rants began.

 

He shouldn't have deleted that part. It was actually cogent and on point (fair game). The rest of the stuff I am reading here does no one any good; especially Mark.

 

foxcatcher1n-2-web.jpg

Edited by scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShannonSofield

Mark has had some instances like this come up in the past just from what I have seen of his public persona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was willing to put up with a few bits of fictionalization regarding the real story and the told story, but the suggestive homo stuff as it was perceived by professional reviewers seemed to really push his button. I can't say as I blame him. It's bad enough to experience the total situation of what happened years ago, but then have your story commercialized to a subset audience (gay interest) which seems doubtfully accidental, is yet another level of victimization. In other words, Mark wanted that angle out of the story and the director assured him it wouldn't be perceived that way (that's how I read Mark's account).

Edited by scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i recommend reading Mark's book. beyond just telling a lot more of the actual story, you can see his perspective of the events, which is very different from how his movie character's perspective is presented. i think it goes beyond the homosexual intimations but that may have been the tipping point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did no one explain to Mark that Foxcatcher wasn't a documentary? I THINK most people are smart enough to know that if you want accuracy on a story, you DON'T run out to your nearest movie theatre, Redbox or click on Netflix. 

 

My other thought on this is that book sales may not be going as well as he had hoped/been told. Stirring up some $#!% on such a high profile film and it's film make rand having an audience for it can certainly help that cause... if that is indeed what he was looking to do with his statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publicly implying homosexual tension between a man and his brother's murderer generally doesn't go over too well.

But it *is* great drama. Nothing like public controversy & scandal to fill seats and bolster box office numbers. I'm sure the studio is eating this up. Look at what happened recently with "The Interview" - prior to the hacking scandal, folks couldn't care less about the movie. You can't buy that kind of publicity.

 

Now, whether it does the sport any good is an entirely different matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one made Mark sign away rights to the story.  He was allowed to be part of the filming process and was on the set and he was there in Cannes yucking it up on the red carpet with all the actors and the director.  I don't think "victim" fits the bill here.  Unaware, oblivious, uncomprehending, and yes, possibly even not so bright, but not victimized.  I mean, he goes on these long rants about how he was misportrayed and argues how intelligent he actually is (and not the dumb lug he is portrayed as) yet acts as if the entire project was done without his knowledge or consent--sorry, that just doesn't add up.  I think "read the book to get the real story" is a P.T. Barnum tactic to increase book sales and the whole Bennett Miller death wish rant signals need for mental help and better career management (unless he wants the Vince McMahonesque path for his image and product).  Mark was an amazing athlete and he was part of a heartbreaking tragedy, but I hope those closest to him will give him the support and help he needs to maximize his health, happiness, and future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tenure as USA National Coach ended following the completion of the '84 Olympic Games in L.A. and I remember a happier Mark Schultz than he is portrayed in Foxcatcher.  From '84 until Jim Scherr took over as Exec. Director and I was asked to be a member of the '96 Atlanta Olympic risk-mgmt. committee, I had little contact w/ then-USA Wrestling Federation or John duPont.  Though I generally attended most of the World Championships, other than a large dinner party @ the W.C in Clermont Ferrand and a brief meeting on the Foxcatcher property, I don't think I ever spoke w/ him. Yet I have to say he did serve as an easy target for those of us in the stands at the WC each year, as he sat in the corner of several US Wrestlers and on occasion in Valentin Jordanov's corner. I'd sometimes tease Dave, "Soon I'll be old enough to enter the veteran world championship and duPont doesn't have enough money to buy me off."  With his familiar look, Dave would respond: "You're joking--AREN'T YOU?"    Those of us watching the World Championships generally agreed that it was unfortunate for wrestling that it could be bought so cheaply--though admittedly it was easy for us to criticize since we didn't have the responsibility to fund the programs.   

 

It's unfortunate Mark feels the movie insinuates that perhaps John duPont was gay--though at the time one had to question DuPont's motifs and sexuality.  The director, Bennett Miller, knew John duPont was not gay.  I asked him that exact question: "I didn't know duPont, but many felt he may have been gay."  Miller answered that John duPont was a-sexual.  He said that during his research, he learned duPont had an equestrian accident where he lost his testicles rendering him a-sexual.   

 

Mark has reason to be upset w/ the way Foxcatcher portrays him, but he is best to leave well-enough-alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tenure as USA National Coach ended following the completion of the '84 Olympic Games in L.A. and I remember a happier Mark Schultz than he is portrayed in Foxcatcher.  From '84 until Jim Scherr took over as Exec. Director and I was asked to be a member of the '96 Atlanta Olympic risk-mgmt. committee, I had little contact w/ then-USA Wrestling Federation or John duPont.  Though I generally attended most of the World Championships, other than a large dinner party @ the W.C in Clermont Ferrand and a brief meeting on the Foxcatcher property, I don't think I ever spoke w/ him. Yet I have to say he did serve as an easy target for those of us in the stands at the WC each year, as he sat in the corner of several US Wrestlers and on occasion in Valentin Jordanov's corner. I'd sometimes tease Dave, "Soon I'll be old enough to enter the veteran world championship and duPont doesn't have enough money to buy me off."  With his familiar look, Dave would respond: "You're joking--AREN'T YOU?"    Those of us watching the World Championships generally agreed that it was unfortunate for wrestling that it could be bought so cheaply--though admittedly it was easy for us to criticize since we didn't have the responsibility to fund the programs.   

 

It's unfortunate Mark feels the movie insinuates that perhaps John duPont was gay--though at the time one had to question DuPont's motifs and sexuality.  The director, Bennett Miller, knew John duPont was not gay.  I asked him that exact question: "I didn't know duPont, but many felt he may have been gay."  Miller answered that John duPont was a-sexual.  He said that during his research, he learned duPont had an equestrian accident where he lost his testicles rendering him a-sexual.   

 

Mark has reason to be upset w/ the way Foxcatcher portrays him, but he is best to leave well-enough-alone.

why add "so cheaply" to the sentence in bold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...