Read

It’s been argued that Foxcatcher portrays a strong sexual tension between Mark Schultz and John du Pont. These homo-erotic undertones have been disputed in light of Mark’s real-life concerns over du Pont’s inappropriate sexual behavior. Little actual evidence exists proving that du Pont was gay. In his book, Mark Schultz recalls du Pont making inappropriate contact using a so-called wrestling move where he grabbed his opponent’s scrotum (which was actually inspired by a similar move Mark made out of desperation at the end of a past wrestling match). Du Pont first tried this on Mark, much to his disapproval, and then tried it successfully on another wrestler who later told Mark what had happened. While circumstantial evidence, du Pont was reportedly sued in 1988 by a Villanova wrestler for making inappropriate “sexual advances,” but it was settled out of court and the record was sealed.

Mark has publicly criticized the film for its alleged subtext, writing that “the personalities and relationships between the characters in the film are primarily fiction and somewhat insulting. Leaving the audience with a feeling that somehow there could have been a sexual relationship between duPont and I is a sickening and insulting lie. I told Bennett Miller to cut that scene [in the gallery] out and he said it was to give the audience the feeling that duPont was encroaching on your privacy and personal space. I wasn’t explicit so I didn’t have a problem with it. Then after reading 3 or 4 reviews interpreting it sexually, and jeopardizing my legacy, they need to have a press conference to clear the air, or I will.”

After making some extensive, heated criticisms on social media, Schultz later posted the following statement:

“My reaction on social media was triggered, not by the movie, but by an interview I saw with Bennett Miller whereon a sexual relationship between myself and my Brother’s murderer was insinuated by a reporter and allowed to breathe. I have no issue whatsoever with the choice of anyone’s sexual orientation. When it comes to my own, however, I will speak up as that is my personal life choice.

“Regarding my comments about Bennett and the movie, I believe that I have supported and trusted him with my life story and image. I also feel I have supported his interpretation of my story, although there were several points we’ve disagreed on regarding the portrayal of my character. All in all, I feel like I’ve helped in the films process by coaching Channing, consulting for 8 years, and adding my voice to what I did and didn’t want as an associate producer.

“The particular scene in question during the interview was one of many that I objected to having in the film. It was fictional and inaccurate in its portrayal of my character and relationship with Dupont. I originally demanded he remove it, but at Bennett’s behest I ended up supporting it because I trusted he would clarify it’s ambiguity and overtones in future interviews and I’ve been learning to understand the artistic and creative process which is his expertise.

“What I could not tolerate was a false interpretation of that scene during Bennett’s interview concerning a sexual relationship between myself and the man who murdered my brother and caused so much anguish in my life. I hope everyone can understand how this would hurt. During the interview, there was an opportunity for Bennett to clarify this, to speak on my behalf and to defend my position. Given that I was not there to answer the question directly and that Bennett did not, I truly felt that I had no other choice. It was a hasty, emotionally charged reaction.

“I did not intend any of the current media storm or public perception around the movie or the issue. I apologize for my methodology, especially to those who I have worked with to make the project a success. I hope this will help in resolving any undue conflict these actions have created.”