Steve Carell and Channing Tatum Excel Like Never Before in Quiet and Physical "Foxcatcher"

(Photos by Michael Iannucci)

Though stars Steve Carell and Channing Tatum have shown glimpses of serious acting chops throughout their careers (Carell’s most notably coming in 2006’s Little Miss Sunshine and Tatum’s in 2012’s Magic Mike), those have been few and far between until now. The two have, for the most part, stuck to lighter, somewhat silly films (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not), but director Bennett Miller’s “Foxcatcher” is anything but that.

The film is based on the true story of Olympic wrestling champion brothers Mark (Tatum) and Dave (Mark Ruffalo) Schultz and their path to the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games after eccentric millionaire John du Pont (Carell) becomes personally invested in their careers. Following his 1984 gold medal win, Mark lives a solitary life consisting of little more than training with his brother, who is already a settled family man, and occasionally speaking at schools for some much needed cash. Quiet and brooding, he is clearly unsatisfied with his current situation. As he goes about his everyday life, arms wide and shoulders tense, only speaking when spoken to, he resembles a caged animal and in his interactions with Dave, he is the baby brother wanting to step out of Dave’s more celebrated shadow. 

After being mysteriously called upon to visit the home of du Pont and learning that the philanthropist wants to sponsor Mark’s career, Mark is boyishly elated. He moves out to du Pont’s estate to train, where he becomes a member of “Team Foxcatcher” (the name of the horse racing stable du Pont’s father once kept). The two develop a close father-son relationship, but it is eventually interrupted when du Pont convinces Dave to move his family and join them.

There is a pervading quietness to the film that gives way to a sense of dread. Scenes go by with very few words being spoken, yet the intensity is always such that an explosion seems imminent. This is in part owed to the understated direction by Miller, who has thrived on presenting biographical stories in a hushed tone, just as he did in his previous two films, “Capote” (2005) and “Moneyball” (2011). Carell’s creepy du Pont and Tatum’s physically explosive Mark are center of the atmosphere, however. Du Pont’s exaggerated prosthetic nose, pompous yet insecure gait and slow speaking pattern highlight a man whose own ridiculous behavior is hiding serious mental instability. Though he is physically present, his mind is far off screen. Mark, meanwhile, is a squarish muscle mass who hides behind a scowl until he is driven to physical combustion. When the two are on screen together, the tension is incredible.

Despite the film being a wholly serious endeavor, there are moments that are darkly funny. Du Pont’s relationship with his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who turns out to be a major figure looming behind du Pont’s mental unsteadiness, brings an occasional uneasy laugh. So too does his self-obsession, which borders on the pathetic. His friends call him “golden eagle,” or so he says.

While the film’s quiet nature is a part of what makes its physicality all the more powerful, it is, at times, too quiet for its own good. The film loses a bit of its steam in its final act, but one conclusive explosion in that same act is compelling enough to redeem the slow moments.

  

Although Ruffalo often plays referee to the Carell and Tatum show, his performance would be towering in many other films and is the best from the actor in quite some time. Tatum’s performance on the wrestling mat is also something to behold; much like Natalie Portman’s dazzling performance as a ballet dancer in 2010’s “Black Swan,” Tatum appears to have mastered the craft of the mat in preparation for the role he called “the hardest acting challenge I’ve had to date.”

Overall, “Foxcatcher” is an emotionally distant, yet powerful biographical drama about troubled men who speak little of what they feel but can do little to hide it in their often-volatile actions. In that setting, performances inevitably come to the forefront, and given the chance, Carell and Tatum shine like never before. (Grade: B+)

Foxcatcher comes out Friday, November 14 in select theaters

Paul Thomas Anderson's "Inherent Vice" is a Visceral Experience, Even If It Does Confuse

(Photos courtesy of Warner Bros/NYFF)

Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “Inherent Vice,” asks an important question of its viewers: Where does a coherent plot factor into what makes a movie “good” or “bad?” If you place heavy importance on plot, then you will likely leave the film extremely frustrated. If you tend to rely on the feel of a film rather than specifically what is going on and why, however, then you will find it a hypnotic experience unlike anything else in cinema. 

It comes as no great surprise that the film’s helmer himself is an advocate of the latter contention. At his “On Cinema” masterclass at the New York Film Festival, where “Inherent Vice” premiered to mixed reviews this past weekend, Anderson stated: “I never remember plots in movies. I remember how they make me feel. I remember emotions and I remember visual things that I’ve seen and my brain has just never connected the dots of how things go together.” This almost seems to be an indirect response to the early criticism of his film, which almost entirely centered on its confusing plot. While it is certainly reasonable to be put off by a movie that (so far) seems to universally confuse, there is far too much else to “Inherent Vice” to simply write it off.

The film follows Doc Sportello, an often-stoned hippie private eye with long greasy locks and prominent mutton chops (played by a typically excellent Joaquin Phoenix), as he tries to appease ex-girlfriend Shasta (exciting newcomer Katherine Waterston) by investigating the disappearance of her new lover. Set in a drugged out ‘70’s Los Angeles with a hazy noir feel, Doc must weave his way through a maze of characters ranging from a saxophone player turned undercover cop (Owen Wilson) to a cocaine addict dentist (Martin Short), who is not above corrupting a young blonde patient of his, in order to find out just what the heck is actually going on.

The rest of the ensemble cast includes Josh Brolin, who plays Bigfoot, a hippie-hating cop who harasses Doc every chance he gets, Benicio Del Toro, Reese Witherspoon, Maya Rudolph, Jena Malone, and musician Joanna Newsom, who narrates the film. While the plot can at times be even more confusing than it sounds, perplexity is actually a part of this film’s charm, something it owes to its source material, the novel of the same name by famously reclusive novelist Thomas Pynchon. This marks the first time that Pynchon has allowed one of his novels to be adapted to the big screen, and according to his readers, the chaotic nature of the film can be directly traced back to the novel.

“It was a bit episodic and there was a sort of jumping from stone to stone to stone and sometimes these connected pieces were made in the book, sometimes they weren’t. There were various blind alleys and dead end streets,” said Anderson of adapting the novel.

Indeed, the film has a rapid pace and often the viewer is introduced to characters and situations that quickly disappear and end up having no real bearing in anything. That’s life; everything is not going to directly tie into everything else. In the detective field, that must be dealt with regularly. In that way, “Inherent Vice” honors realism, but it is really its surrealism that is eye catching.

In the lead up to the film’s first viewings, most expected Anderson to return to his “Boogie Nights” roots. In other words, most expected a lighter and more formal ensemble comedy. Instead, the film is much closer to Anderson’s most recent film, “The Master,” in its look and feel. Throughout that film, there are moments that although apparently embedded in reality, feel surreal. An apparent dream that ends up having some bearing in actuality towards the end of the film comes to mind. The same can be said of many moments in “Inherent Vice,” such as an odd trip to a psychiatric hospital by Doc.

Despite all of its outrageous comedic elements, there is a brooding sadness just below the surface of “Inherent Vice”. Pynchon readers say this is also present in the novel. However, it is also a common theme in Anderson’s work. In “The Master,” beneath lead character Freddie Quell’s (also played by Phoenix) corrosive veneer, there is a very detectable sorrow. The same can be said of most Anderson protagonists, but “Inherent Vice’s” contrasting tone is highlighted by raw, often sensual camerawork and an eventual sense of self-discovery by the protagonist, just as it is in “The Master.” Also, at the heart of the two stories are a girl and the regret of love lost, both of which come to an explosive peak in an incredible long-take between Doc and Shasta in “Inherent Vice.”

It is interesting to note that Anderson has reteamed with cinematographer Robert Elswit for “Inherent Vice.” The two worked together for all of Anderson’s films except “The Master,” yet the look they create in this is closer to that film than any of their past collaborations.

Fans of Anderson will most certainly be pleased with all of this, but the film interestingly has the guns to keep general audiences satisfied as well despite its plot difficulties. The part deadpan, part outrageous stoner comedy script is hilarious. Look for the film to gain cult status among the same group that holds films like “The Big Lebowski” so high. Because of this, it should serve as a confirmation of Anderson as one of the most versatile directors in the world today. Also, the environment is so rich and expertly crafted that is will likely compel both those who lived through it and those who did not.

The score, another product of the Anderson-Jonny Greenwood marriage now in its third film, is fun and an effective match to its on-screen material. It features everything from Neil Young’s “Harvest” to original work by Greenwood. Performances of the actors are as compelling as one would expect from such a talented cast, particularly Phoenix and Waterston (although Brolin just might be a show stealer of sorts).

Overall, complaints of a confusing plot feel weak in comparison to all that “Inherent Vice” has going for it. Cinematic history is riddled with confusing films that have nonetheless been deemed masterpieces. Take “2001: A Space Odyssey,” for example. Widely considered to be lofty among the greats, the film is also considered to be one of the more confusing films in history. If someone could explain the entire plot beginning to end without theorizing, they’d be the first. So the question then becomes, if deeply serious films can become revered without an entirely discernible plot, then why can’t comedies? Especially one as beautifully crafted and spellbinding as “Inherent Vice.” (Grade: A-)

Takeaways from "On Cinema: Paul Thomas Anderson" Include How Charles Manson Ruined It for the Hippies, an "Interstellar" recommendation and a Grimes Music Video

Paul Thomas Anderson talks with New York Film Festival Director, Kent Jones, during his masterclass at the festval.
(Photo by Michael Iannucci)

Just a day after Paul Thomas Anderson's hotly anticipated new film, "Inherent Vice," premiered as the New York Film Festival's centerpiece, the revered American director took the stage at Alice Tully Hall to talk all things film in the festival's annual "On Cinema" masterclass. Topics of discussion ranged from "Inherent Vice" and influences to the revelation that Anderson has seen and highly recommends Christopher Nolan's upcoming "Interstellar." While my review of "Inherent Vice" is still on the way (it is a lot more to digest than I anticipated), here are some highlights of Anderson's masterclass:

On Neil Young's "Journey Through the Past":

“It just looks like my idea of heaven on a Saturday afternoon, cruisin’ around with your girl and parking with a brook nearby and taking a joint out and eating strawberries. I don’t know how it could get any better honestly.”

On how Charles Manson ruined the perception of hippies:

“There’s a passage in Inherent Vice the book (that didn’t make the movie), but it was this discussion between Bigfoot and Doc, and they’re talking about what happened with Manson and how it just fucked everything up for all these hippies because it used to be that the straight world would just look at them and think ‘Oh look how cute they are! They’re kind of like monkeys in a zoo; the husband is carrying the baby and the mom is paying for the groceries’ and everyone treated them like cute caged animals and then Manson came along and suddenly it was ‘Stay away, they might mass murder all of us’ so there was this shift.”

On Robby Müller's cinematography in "Repo Man" and its relation to shooting on film:

“I’m always trying to get night interiors to look like Robby Müller did and I can never do it. I don’t know how he did it. It doesn’t look like there’s any lights on; it looks like how it really looks. And there’s gotta be a million lights on! I just don’t know how he did it. It’s like a magic trick. He had a magic with it that I can’t quite figure out. It’s something to look for in his photography that he was a master at. There are people who are good at certain things and he was a master at night interiors, which can be very difficult.”

“I would hate to think that there won’t be more artists like Robby Müller out there knowing the art of movie lighting. To be good at movie lighting is like a life-long job; to be skillful at it; to be great at it. So skillful, and that skill was required from them because they were shooting on film. I don’t want to say anything bad here but the skill level has been diminished when you shoot at night and you don’t need to put any lights up because you don’t need to put any lights up. And I would hate to think that that is going to be lost; that the job of someone who can light a movie set would go away.”

(Photo by Michael Iannucci)

On doing movie lighting in post-production: 

“That’s fucking cheating!”

On plot and "North by Northwest":

“I never remember plots in movies. I remember how they make me feel. I remember emotions and I remember visual things that I’ve seen and my brain has just never connected the dots of how things go together. This movie ('North by Northwest') in particular was a huge help getting ready for 'Inherent Vice' because I knew there was just so much ground to cover and it was a bit episodic and there was sort of jumping from stone to stone to stone and sometimes these connected pieces were made in the book, sometimes they weren’t. There were various blind alleys and dead end streets and all that kind of stuff. It was a helpful reminder to go back to this film and feel that energy again and feel a kind of looseness.”

“If emotional logic is betrayed, then you’ve got a problem. There’s a fine line between ‘No fucking way!’ and ‘Yeah, yeah, I could see that happening.’ If you start messing with the plausibility of someone’s emotions, that feels against the rules a little bit.”

On Quentin Tarantino, the state of film shooting and Christopher Nolan's upcoming "Interstellar":

“Quentin’s a film nerd too, I suppose; it’s a small group of us that’s hopefully growing and sticking together. Quentin’s much more vocal about it though. He wants to tar and feather people over it. I think at the moment things are going around where genuinely there’s such concern and fear in the air about film not even being an option. There really is a movement among filmmakers right now to sort of desperately encourage filmmakers that are coming up, filmmakers that are around and are producing stuff right now that to, if you have a choice, please shoot film. Chris Nolan is sort of at the front lines of all this, I have to say. He’s made a beautiful film. Everybody should get out and see 'Interstellar' when it comes out. But don’t fuck around; go see it in IMAX. Brave the line.”

On the music video for Oblivion by Canadian singer-songwriter Grimes (directed by Emily Kai Bock):

“That gets me going. It’s fucking great. I just saw it and it made me hyper and it made me bounce around the room. I just wanted to bounce off the walls. Not just a great song (‘cause it is a great song) but when everything comes together perfectly; you have a great song, you’ve got this great performer; this great artist matching up with these visuals and everything clicks. Taking her into a real situation; taking this amazing performer into a real situation, and it’s spooky too. It gets you pumped up and makes you want to dance but there’s something spooky about it. It’s so graceful the way she does that. There’s a really good energy, but that kind of energy that starts to get a little bit crazy and a little fevered when you see some of the faces that she got. These kind of frat guys bouncing around and they seem all too real and all too date rapey. So there’s that danger lurking underneath it, but on top of it, it just kind of makes me want to dance.”

On composer Jonny Greenwood's work in "Inherent Vice":

“With 'Inherent Vice' he plays a little bit of guitar, which is nice; sort of a first. He’s sort of reluctant to pick up the guitar sometimes, but the movie called for it. There’s one piece in particular towards the end that he’s had for a number of years with no where to go and it found a really nice home in this film.”

"The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them" is an Original Debut for Writer-Director Ned Benson

"The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby" was originally split into "Him" and "Her" perspective cuts before being combined into "Them" to shorten the film's running time. 

Jessica Chastain’s star seems to be ever rising, even if her pace has slowed a bit since 2011’s ridiculous seven-film burst into the spotlight.  With a resume already featuring Academy Award nominated performances for polar opposite roles in “The Help” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” the versatile American actress may have just turned in her most complete performance to date in “The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them.”

The film has an interesting back-story. Its original release came at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival where it ran a total of 191 minutes split between two different parts titled “Him” and “Her.” The two parts tell the same story of a married couple reeling in the wake of extreme tragedy, but “Him” is shown through the eyes of Conor (James McAvoy) while “Her” is shown through those of his wife, Eleanor (Chastain). The project was widely well received as an ambitious look at the different perspectives involved in a marriage in crisis, but its bladder-challenging running time made the prospects of a wide release tough. As a result of this, a third cut of the film was prepared entitled “Them,” featuring both perspectives fused into a commercial friendly 123 minutes. “Him” and “Her” are set to be released in select theaters in October nonetheless, but “Them” is currently screening in theaters nationwide.

It remains to be seen whether the reduced “Them” cut has lost anything significant in the editing room (and some who have seen both cuts have voiced that it has indeed), but “Them” remains a thoroughly compelling piece of cinema that treads waters few romances do.

The film begins with a vignette of Conor and Eleanor at their youthful best; a playful bailing on a dinner bill followed by a nighttime park embrace amongst the fireflies that closely resembles a scene out of typical contemporary romantic flick. In one small cut, however, we see Eleanor calmly ride her bike to a bridge and jump off. She survives, but moves back in with her parents and avoids all contact with her husband.

Though what happened to bring the couple to this point is unveiled slowly, ultimately, their different methods of coping with tragedy have caused them to grow apart. While McAvoy is steady as Conor, and while the “Them” cut spends about the same amount of time on both of the relationship’s perspectives, the film still feels very much like the Jessica Chastain show. She has been masterful as both meek and powerful women (“The Help’s” Celia and “Zero Dark Thirty’s” Maya, respectively) but this is Chastain’s first big shot at the middle ground. Sometimes strong, sometimes on the verge of breaking, Chastain covers the spectrum flawlessly and in the process, crafts a character that even in the shortened version of the film, seems whole despite admittedly not knowing herself.

In his first feature film, writer-director Ned Benson fearlessly tackles his subject matter. In other hands, the film might have become the standard romantic drama its trailer makes it out to be, but Benson is not afraid to go beyond that (even if he did ultimately have to bite the bullet and cut the film down). The camera often lingers on Conor and Eleanor much longer than one would expect. In those extra seconds, however, it manages to engage the characters on a much deeper level. The pace is at times slow to a fault and some audience members may indeed stir (which leads one to wonder if the extended cut of the film will feel like overkill), but in the end, it is all put to great emotional effect.

Along the way, the film also gets some heartfelt supporting work from the likes of Viola Davis, William Hurt and Isabelle Huppert. The score, moody and melodic, features new (and currently unreleased) tracks by post-rock and alternative hip hop artist Son Lux. Christopher Blauvelt’s cinematography is, above all else, understated. Often, we simply follow the character, seeing what they see as it passes them by, yet the film always maintains a soft beauty similar to that established in last year’s “Her” by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema. All of these intangibles come together exquisitely in the film’s entrancing finale.

“The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them” is one of this year’s pleasant cinematic surprises. What could easily turn out done-to-death in the hands of a first-time director instead serves as an introduction to a talented new helmer to watch, a reaffirmation of a top actress and a fresh addition to the romance genre. (Grade: B+)

Art House Appraisal is back!

Greetings Cinephiles!

After a longer-than-expected hiatus, it is with great pleasure that I announce that Art House Appraisal is officially back and here to stay. Despite being off of the blogosphere for a while, I have been watching this year's films as religiously as ever, so expect many, many reviews and top lists to come. Also, as a special treat, I will be attending several huge events at the New York Film Festival in the coming weeks. First, next Saturday I will be attending the world premier of writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson's new film, "Inherent Vice." There has been a ton of mystery surrounding this one (a trailer likely will not drop until after the premier) so expect a review the very next day to give you all a chance to gauge my reaction to the film as soon as possible. I will also be attending a special version of the festival's "On Cinema" film talk sessions with Anderson himself the following day. The event will consist of discussion of clips selected by Anderson from films that have inspired him, so expect some exclusive content from that as well. Then, the following weekend I will be attending screenings of heavily anticipated upcoming films "Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" by "21 Grams" helmer Alejandro González Iñárritu and "Foxcatcher" by Bennett Miller; reviews will follow! 

Once again, welcome back and looking forward to posting soon and often!