Mark Schultz, played by Channing Tatum in the so-so thriller Foxcatcher, has suddenly realized that the film makes him look gay, or gay for Olympic gold. In response, he's gone off his rocker in a series of Twitter insults and a long rant claiming he takes back anything positive he's ever said about the film
One thing the movie got right was Schultz status as a dim bulb—even on first viewing, the film can only be read as the story of a gay creeper and the briefly complicit, ultimately grossed out, straight boy he nearly succeeds in buying, body and and soul. That's what makes the movie work—it's clearly the narrative crafted by the director.
No idea if it's based on reality, since so many other real things were changed or left out, but that's what the movie is.
Now, Schultz is worried his legacy is tarnished because a movie implied he might've let a rich old guy rub himself off on him while they wrestled in the middle of the night
Pretty pathetic all the way around.
I do hope it helps keep the movie from getting Oscar nominations, though. Like a lot of movies that are highly questionable politically, it's definitely interesting—I was screwed to my seat (sorry, Mark) the entire way through, and found some of it quite good. But overall, it's an okay movie and the prosthetics on Carell are pretty bad and distracting. Tatum is good in spots but seems to forget to be Schultz occasionally. And I don't like when movies that purport to be about real events take outrageous liberties with what really happened just for the sake of the film. If it's inconvenient that du Pont had mental issues or that he didn't murder the man he murdered until many years after his confrontation with Schultz, then change all the names and call it something else.