Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IronChef

Mark Schultz rant on Foxcatcher director

Recommended Posts

gutfirst wrote:

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

 

Of course, "so cheaply" is unnecessary, as any amount in my opinion should be insufficient.  Nonetheless, we found it incredulous that the Wrestling Federation, for a mere $400,000/yr., would allow duPont to sit in an athlete's corner under the guise that the wrestlers requested his presence.  Think NFL, NBA and NHL owners have to pay $100s of millions for such privilege!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This film took roughly 10 years to make from concept to completion. I have to admit that I find it very, very hard to believe that Mark Schultz didn't know what was going on with the majority of the film. He also saw this at Cannes back in May 2014, some seven to eight months ago, and is only recently bashing the film? I suspect there's a lot more going on here than Mark simply being mad about some journalist's opinion that Miller was asserting DuPont and Schultz had some sort of homosexual frustration in their relationship. From this point of view, all of Mark's recent statements scream "BUY AND READ MY BOOK... PLEASE!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing for me was reading a reviewer's comment about how "refreshing" it is to see men touching men on film, and he was specifically talking about Mark and Dave warming up (Dave warming up Mark's arms) and the light pummeling. This stood out to me and I commented on it to my GF, because that's just part of the sport. We give massages, stretch each other out, and roll around all the time. I think it's a really great part of the sport that this very macho driven mentality is also progressive within today's homophobic society. As an example, watch the interaction between coach and athlete before a semis or finals (where there's a long wait), and you will often see the coach give the athlete reassuring contact in the form of (e.g.) back cracks, light russian tie, massage the neck, etc. These are mico-signs of affection and comfort, a way for the coach to let the athlete know "I'm here with you as you go into battle." I like that part of this sport. It's unique. Our society tends to be hung up on touching, especially men touching in any way, so that's why reviewers say things like how "refreshing that is." Whatever. Get over it. Move on.

 

I think in Mark's case he's taking the above comments about the movie in general on his shoulders, and also he's taking the inuendo way to personally (which makes sense). It's kind of classic looking glass self. He needs to be confident in his sexuality and let this work of fiction roll off his back, but I'm sure that's easier to say than do. And I also agree that it's really weird for Bennet to fabricate something like putting a mat in the library as a way to make a point, but more specfically the position they were in and the angle of the camera, he pushed that scene a little, and that's freaking Mark out. If you read the book there's very clear mention of du Pont's fondness for the "Foxcatcher five" move (nuts grab) and maybe that tipped Bennet's hand toward a weird sexual under current? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Book sales may be a small part of the reason, but it is much more than that. If that facebook posting is really from Mark, he shows that he has a lot of issues about Dave being regarded by most as the more accomplished wrestler and smarter of the two. I was stunned about how he went through many areas and compared himself to Dave such as NCAA's, coaching, intelligence, etc. There was no need to do any of that unless he needed to get some frustrations vented. This only reflects poorly on him and really validates the way he was depicted in the film.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw Foxcatcher yesterday. Thoughts:

 

1. Good movie overall. As a fantasy.

 

2. Not so great respect of source material.

 

3. Was absolutely astounded by the added homosexual understones between Du Pont and Mark. It was so ridiculous and so out of nowhere that it felt like it was added there just for the LOLs.

 

Well, the director sure did pass Du Ponts mental problems with this. He did it, because he was gay. Gawd.

 

Movie would have been way better without the training session with Du Pont and the aftermath of it.

 

5. Where were all the other athletes? Did I miss something?

 

6. Don't think this movie did the wrestling community any favors.

 

As for Marks rant, I get him overall, even if the Twitter rage went overboard. I can't think of many things that would piss a straight man off as much as being marked as gay for the community. Du Pont in the movie is gay. Apparently wasn't, but fine But why make Mark as one too? Just to piss him off?

 

My wife laughed her ass of when she saw Marks dyed hair. They couldn't have been any more subtle. It was a very bad way to treat a persons legacy. I'd be pissed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of many things that would piss a straight man off as much as being marked as gay for the community. 

 

Maybe if you are a middle school or high school age boy.  Adult men realize that there are in fact far worse things that can happen to you in life than to be falsely called gay.  Obviously Mark is upset by the movie, but this is what happens when you sign away rights to a story for a major motion picture.  They do what they want with it in exchange for money.  Stephen King was (and still is) furious with the movie version of The Shining, even though it was highly acclaimed.  He felt it wasn't true to his novel.  Such is the way of Hollywood.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of many things that would piss a straight man off as much as being marked as gay for the community.

uh, i can think of a few things. but that's just me.

 

maybe with all the extra footage that was supposedly edited out of the movie Miller can release a 'wrestlers' cut which actually tells the story of Mark and Dave and their attempts to achieve international success that was tragically derailed by an insane rich trash person. i felt like there was so much more story involving Mark's first Foxcatcher team that he assembled, and we hardly got to see anything of when Dave was running the place.

 

Miller wasn't making that movie though. turned out to be a pretty interesting movie imo but it was made for the prestige movie audience and just happened to be about wrestling. when i saw it i'd estimate the average ticket buyer age to be 55+ and 2/3 female. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark has apologized for the language, but not the substance, of his twitter rant. http://www.mmamania.com/2015/1/5/7478651/mark-schultz-blast-foxcatcher-director-for-sickening-and-insulting-lies-film-mma.

 

In this statement, he is very articulate, and I, for one, think he has a point. Even the scene where DuPont slaps him and Mark does nothing is very offensive if it didn't happen (let alone homosexual insinuations, which may or may not be there).  But for Mark the problem is he sold his life rights, which legally bars a defamation claim and permits the filmmakers to portray the story as they please. I hope Mark got paid enough to soften the insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark being protective of his image is understandable. It has to absolutely suck to continue to live in your brother's shadow your entire life... even coming up on 19 years after he was murdered.

 

However, maybe the real story wasn't interesting enough for mass consumption in order for Miller to tell it straight. It's obvious to all of us who follow wrestling and know the story that a major jump was made at the end of the film, as well as some other areas of artistic license to expand beyond the real story. There's a reason why "The Most Interesting Man in the World" commercials resonate so well with people, because no one has a life like that and it needs to be created for entertainment purposes to maximize interest level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShannonSofield

When first hearing of this movie years ago, I worried how they would present the possible homosexual relationship between Dave and DuPont. To me at least, this was a given. I'm not saying they had a relationship, but I thought everyone "knew" about DuPont at least, possibly Dave. I haven't seen the movie. In real life, them having a relationship (or DuPont's advances going unrequited) makes the killing slightly less random and possibly motivated by those feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark being protective of his image is understandable. It has to absolutely suck to continue to live in your brother's shadow your entire life... even coming up on 19 years after he was murdered.

 

However, maybe the real story wasn't interesting enough for mass consumption in order for Miller to tell it straight. It's obvious to all of us who follow wrestling and know the story that a major jump was made at the end of the film, as well as some other areas of artistic license to expand beyond the real story. There's a reason why "The Most Interesting Man in the World" commercials resonate so well with people, because no one has a life like that and it needs to be created for entertainment purposes to maximize interest level.

 

 

You've never hung out with Randy Lewis then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Dirt; listen to what Bas Rutten asks 40 seconds in and Mark's response. That sums it up and his new

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251911-Foxcatcher/video/753693-Nancy-Schultz-breaks-down-Foxcatcher#.VK2dW1pmb7U

Nancy has a different perspective and understands the process. She even makes statements about Mark at about 2:05 and again at 7:15 she really goes into Mark, her relationship with him AND how he feels about the film, as of November. To me, this video, and Nancy's comments and relationship with him, tells you everything you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miller wasn't making that movie though. turned out to be a pretty interesting movie imo but it was made for the prestige movie audience and just happened to be about wrestling. when i saw it i'd estimate the average ticket buyer age to be 55+ and 2/3 female. 

I watched it in a theatre filled with (what I assume based on my own prejudice) "art students."  And not the Tony Ramos kind of art student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mark would be more likely to quote scripture from the Book of Mormon than physically confront somebody these days. But then again, you never know.

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.

Edited by MadMardigain

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.

 

Perhaps it's about what you dont see. I've studied enough film to understand the not-so-subtly hidden messages:

 

- Mark dyes his hair to make himself "pretty" for Du Pont

- The "training" session in with Du Pont in the dark.

- Kneeling before Du Pont topless on the porch.

 

 

As I said, I like the movie, but I also don't think the added flair was necessary. Perhaps it was to cater a certain type of audience, or because the director couldn't handle the mental problem angle of Du Pont. Who knows.

 

Personally, I just thought the movie would have been better if they would have not tried to explain Du Ponts actions.

 

dsnc71 and Jaroslav: A persons sexual identity is his/hers own, and no one else should make these decisions for you. Any psychologist will tell you this. Diminishing a persons own sexual identity, through film or otherwise, is alwaya a bad idea. And the results can be... Well, like Marks Twitter rage. In most films changes/additions like these go through because all the real characters in question are dead. Not so in this movie.

 

Then again, Mark DID see the movie before release. Perhaps he was paid to shut up, or perhaps he just didn't get the undertones before it was released. Oh well...

 

More opinions about the movie:

 

- Wrestling in the movie was great. Probably the best in any movie depicting wrestling, ever.

- Ruffalo was fantastic. As always.

- Tatum was good.

- Carrell was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This old philly inquirer article from 1996 does a fairly decent job of delving into the so-called "gay angle"  or connection surrounding the du Pont/Foxcatcher Farm atmosphere in the years leading up to the Schultz murder.

 

I'm curious about those of you who completely discount any possibility that du Pont may have had homosexual tendencies or motives behind his actions.  If you take this stance then you are essentially calling Andre Metzger a liar, plain and simple.

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...