Talking to Director Bennett Miller About His New Film, 'Foxcatcher' - VICE Meets

[@Aldarux]

I am glad that vice is doing more of these film interviews. They are great! Especially the Martin Scorsese one !

[@bigg489]

I don't think this was a *terrible* interview, however I wish Moretti could have ditched the gratuitous language and let Miller just talk. This is a fascinating story--especially if you have read about it or seen the 30 for 30 done on it--and I think Miller did a magnificent job telling it, within the limitations of Hollywood.

[@poolboyinla]

It's pretty rare that they make a movie about wrestling.

[@isaiahheaden]

Y'all shouldn't edit these. Let them stay raw and uncut.

[@godlyblessedliibaangodisgo4394]

I love this, Bennet Miller and the Interviewer too.

[@charlesaulsebrook2102]

Why can't the interviewer piece together a couple of sentences without swearing?

[@billnmish]

You're kidding me, right? I heard him say the F-word two, maybe three, times the entire interview. Why can't commenters piece together valid arguments without grossly over-exaggerating?

[@PascoZach]

because he's a 40-year-old hipster

[@minah.]

MORE FILM INTERVIEWS PLZ

[@Paooul13]

Interviewer: knock it off with the F bombs.

[@idawg7332]

Miller needs to make another film soon even though he does biopics they are always unusual topics and aren't as cliche as other recent biographical movies foxcatcher in particular

[@Things606]

Jesus the interview starts with an f bomb right off the bat. Very professional

[@randomlycory]

I hope they do more of these movie interviews. Good stuff.

[@44jackbw]

When is the trailer coming out for this interview?

[@JohnParkDesign]

This interviewer is not great. Really looking fwd to this film, though.

[@ScottLahteine]

Shares some interesting qualities with Sunset Boulevard. Also in being humorous and quirky with a dark undertone...

[@MarioUcomics]

I like these vice video interviews with filmmakers

[@mattralston3670]

This film isn't playing in many theaters. Apparently it was released on november 14th but its a limited release and isn't playing in many theaters. Here is where I have a problem, why would you show previews for a film in ohio theaters, when it isn't even going to be released in the theaters that show the preview. Makes no sense. it wont be released in ohio until JANUARY. JANUARY?!?!?! seriously?! and even when it is released in theaters in ohio it will only be playing in two theaters, Cincinnati and cleveland heights. thats absolute bullshit

[@brotherjosiah]

+matt ralston because streaming

[@andrewbudiman1310]

he just learned about the f word 2 hours prior

[@drumboarder1]

he swore once, fuck off

[@benr9169]

I grok him, and his consciousness,man, loud and clear.

[@russellmarshall9379]

i hope this interviewer lost his job.

[@smpenalaw]

The interviewer is so incompetent and inappropriate that I almost feel embarrassed for him. What must have bee going through Bennett Miller's mind during that 26 minutes and 41 seconds of nonsensical corny and silly questions?

[@codybarnett4574]

God get a straight question out

[@freshrr2]

Fiiiiiiiired!

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

Anyone else ever notice how often filmmakers tend to be poor speakers?

[@Clamorte1]

visual storytelling

[@bobunitone]

Most creatives are introverted characters.

[@reecerobertson457]

It'd be nice if the interviewer doesn't tell the director of the film, what the film is actually about. 'Y'know maybe it's about fucking...' yeah nah mate.

[@StandWatie1862]

The inaccuracies in this movie seem like a subtle jab at the real life characters like Mark Schultz. It gets the years wrong for no reason at all. Gary Goodridge is a black man and Mark fought him in 1996. Not 89. The gay undertones seems to be the fantasy of a nerd which is what this hack director is. No reason to get these facts wrong and its insulting

[@xizalovesprague]

god he looks so tired... get some sleep

[@bastardtubeuser]

wtf

[@DonJuan247]

first comment!

[@moonpig118]

pooooooooooooooooooo

[@TrolllArch]

First

[@garypowell1540]

Great directing, and some fine acting. However I wonder how boring this movie would have been if the viewer had no idea from the start that the rich loony tune was going to end up shooting dead one of the wrestlers? The only person of any interest in the movie was Dupont. This because people that murder other people are almost always the most interesting characters, and because extremely rich ones with much to lose, even more so. We are left to ponder as to exactly why Dupont did this, other then paranoia, and deep depression, conjoined with possible envy. We can make various assumptions as to why Dupont went murderously insane, but surely explaining more about this arseholes past, allowing more insight as to why he was obviously mad in the first place, would have been more enlightening. Perhaps this kind of rich boy, autistic style, psychopathic megalomania, is a subject worth further investigation. Perhaps this propensity runs throughout the entire Dupont family, or just some of them, or maybe none of them? Maybe Dupont losing both of his testicals had something to do with him not exactly appearing to be like one of the boys, so to speak, or indeed particularly cheerful about anything. Maybe what really made him shoot David Schultz was that he could not stand seeing any other man with a happy wife and children, and that his actions had nothing whatsoever to do with wrestling or wrestlers. The movie did not really help the viewer very much in answering these kinds of questions, while if the viewer had no idea what was going to eventually happen they would have probably fallen asleep in the auditorium, or switched over to another chanel, well before the end of the movie.