From Capote (2005) to Moneyball (2011), the films of Bennett Miller are built on conflict. They generally include two parties (or more) with antithetical aspirations forced to coexist and compete, until one side concedes or washes away. It’s no surprise then that Miller’s latest movie, Foxcatcher, has spawned controversy. Over the past two weeks, Mark Schultz, the Olympian wrestler at the heart of Foxcatcher, has made some pointed attacks against the movie. After supporting the film since its premiere at Cannes last May, Schultz U-turned to retract his praise for Miller’s depiction of his life, claiming the movie “could not have portrayed me more inaccurately”. In earlier tweets and Facebook statuses that have since been deleted, the disgruntled Schultz exclaimed, “Everything I've ever said positive about the movie I take back... I hate it.”

Schultz’s opinion on the film seems to oscillate from day to day, depending on how much traction his indignation is receiving. On December 21 he said, “How can you not love Bennett Miller?” and “I think the actors should all win Oscars.” His biggest gripe with the film is the way it insinuates a potential sexual relationship between him and his mentor, John Eleuthère du Pont. On December 30, Schultz posted on his Facebook wall, “Leaving the audience with a feeling that somehow there could have been a sexual relationship between du Pont and I is a sickening and insulting lie.” Regardless of his opinion on the movie, Schultz’s denouncements of Miller’s work of fiction have only reaffirmed Foxcatcher’s depiction of him: a mercurial and perplexed human being who yearns to be understood, and heard. 

In the beginning of Capote and now Foxcatcher, both du Pont and Capote seem to have good intentions. But as the story goes on, their intentions become less pure.

Bennett Miller: Life teaches you who you are. You have notions about yourself and as you set about pursuing your ambitions, life has a way of teaching you who you really are. And this notion of character as destiny is intriguing to me. In Capote’s case, he followed up In Cold Blood with an attempt to write a novel called Answered Prayers, based on the idea that more tears are shed on answered prayers than unanswered prayers. In the case of du Pont, similarly he did not set out to do something evil or villainous. He cast himself in the role he was desperate to be perceived as, but the truth about him emerged, as it does in life.

“There is that great temptation to divide the world into good and evil, to simplify, to put a label on it, and to judge without fully understanding” – Bennett Miller

It takes two hours for du Pont’s true nature to emerge though.

Bennett Miller: Even just hearing you repeat what I said, it feels like an awfully trite view, a terribly unfair simplification of him and human nature. 

What do you think drove him to that sudden burst of violence?

Bennett Miller: The film resists making conclusions like that. There is that great temptation to divide the world into good and evil, to simplify, to put a label on it, and to judge without fully understanding. And the film deliberately does not take a moral position. Because once you make a conclusion, you stop thinking. The film tries not to take sides like that, or not even to tell the story but to observe the story and to examine this dynamic between these guys and the pheromone that occurred in an unflinching way.

By resisting the temptation to conclude anything, hopefully you see a little bit more deeply into what contributes to this dynamic that results in tragedy. That’s not to say what du Pont did was not villainous. It’s not to say that there wasn’t some victimisation. Every character involved made decisions that in some way contributed to the outcome. In that way it’s kind of a co-author tragedy. And we don’t like to look at things like that.  

It’s much easier for things to have a single author. 

Bennett Miller: Yeah, so that’s sort of the perspective the film takes. The film and I really want to resist giving you the satisfaction of saying, ‘Well, he did it because of this, or he did it because of that.’ Whatever answer (you reach), no matter how much truth there is in it, the moment you settle on it it’s going to deny all sorts of other things as well, and it allows a resolution that I don’t think belongs. 

The movie definitely tends to stay away from painting things in black or white, but you do create an uneasy atmosphere that indicates something is going on with du Pont.

Bennett Miller: Well, more than an atmosphere. There are so many moments where these characters stand at a crossroads where one will put a toe over the line and trespass, and another will concede and permit a compromise. And incrementally you feel the tension and awkwardness of these decisions accumulating.

To see that drastic change in Channing Tatum’s character was jarring. 

Bennett Miller: It’s really just more of a corruption. He was impressionable. He’s not an alpha. His brother is. Mark needed a father figure. He’s lost without one, and that figure will always have great power in his life. It was his brother, du Pont, and after Foxcatcher and after his brother was killed he went out and found other people and things to attach himself to. 

There seemed to be some homoerotic tension between du Pont and Mark. Was that intended?

Bennett Miller: Yeah, I think that again, du Pont cast himself in a role that he couldn’t live up to. It was inconsistent with who he was. He was not this leader. He was not this coach-hero who was going to go off and win the Olympics and return to Washington DC for a victory lap and have congressmen and senators slap him on the back and say, ‘Good job John, how did you do it?’

“I think the truth of who he was was a pretty painful contradiction to the reality. I really don't think anything ever erupted into explicit behavior, sexually” – Bennett Miller

He's desperately looking for validation. 

Bennett Miller: I think the truth of who he was was a pretty painful contradiction to the reality. I really don’t think anything ever erupted into explicit behavior, sexually. I think that in all likelihood neither he nor the wrestlers around him admitted that he had other drives. But that element ends up being one more component to him that was repressed and not admitted into the myth that he was attempting to construct about himself. It’s a charade. I mean, the guy was living a lie, and because he has this wealth others conspired with him to sustain it. 

Money does that. The fact that Ruffalo’s character comes in the first place...

Bennett Miller: The opportunity yielded by du Pont’s money. I mean, everything I’ve learned about Dave Schultz makes me like and respect him. But there were others who were made similar offers who rejected them, and because of it, lived lives that were not as privileged. But they opted out of a toxic environment. They looked at du Pont and didn’t want to be part of that. 

It was the nose. 

Bennett Miller: I think Dave thought he could manage the situation. I think he saw the opportunity and saw du Pont’s intention, which was not evil. 

I think he also wanted to help his brother, too. 

Bennett Miller: He definitely looked after this brother. There’s a moment that’s depicted in the film when Mark is leaving and Dave says, ‘So long as I’m here, you are paying him.’

The way you speak and the way you answer questions feel strangely similar to how your films unfurl. They both take a bit of time to get where they are going, and there’s a calculated build up, then a final powerful punch. 

Bennett Miller: I really couldn’t comment. I don’t think of myself as particularly articulate. I think of the medium of filmmaking as a means of communication is pretty natural at this point. That language is how I see. A gross example is we just had midterm elections, and if you pay attention to any given political campaign there’s the words, and there’s the truth, which can be derived if you’re perceptive in ways that disregard the words. There’s what's being said and what’s actually being done, and what’s actually behind the words. I think film is a peculiar medium that has the ability to communicate like no other. It has the ability to shine a light in areas that no other medium can reach, including conversation or novels or magazine articles or music. 

Foxcatcher is out in cinemas on Friday