A year ago, Bennett Miller's "Foxcatcher" was one of the most hotly anticipated films of the fall season. However, rather abruptly the film was pulled from its original released and pushed back a year.

The film was expected to be a major awards contender and there were numerous cinema lovers who were looking forward to the helmer's take on the ambiguous and complex real-life case.

But the wait is almost over as the film has screened at a number of major industry showcases, including the New York Film Festival, and will make its way into theaters later this year.

The film tells the story of the enigmatic John Du Pont, who took former Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz under his wing in hopes of helping him win more medals. In the process, Du Pont seemingly developed a complicated relationship with Schultz and took on a number of roles that he was not apt to fit. When all is said and done, Du Pont winds up murdering Schultz's older brother and surrogate father figure.

Reports on the actual incidents surrounding this case are all over the map. Many claim that Du Pont was dealing with mental issues while other state that there was simply no way that a man as generous as Du Pont could have committed such a crime.

During the press conference for the New York Film Festival press screening on Friday, Oct. 10, Miller noted that the material interested him because he found it absurd and comical. He was drawn to Du Pont's obsession with realizing the role of being a wrestling coach, even though he had no idea what he was doing. But he found the material particularly moving because the tragic route it winds up taking.

He also noted that his approach to the film was to avoid making any major points. And true to form, he creates a rather complex tapestry that has no real answers. What was the true nature of Du Pont and Mark Schultz's relationship? Initially Miller hints at a strong father-son relationship, but that shifts to something more akin to equals as they share drug and drinking habits. In one key scene, they both note that growing up they had no real friends. And then it shifts into extremely ambiguous territory with one scene of the two wrestling hinting at some sexual overtones. By the film's final act, the two barely talk to one another and the rejection is completely left up to the audience to decipher.

The same goes for the climactic moment of the film when Du Pont chooses to kill Dave Schulz. Miller presents the viewer with a number of different angles to potentially justify the cause for the action (he even adds a rather complex mother-son relationship that reminds the viewer of Norman Bates), but he does not pin a single one as the main motif. There is one confrontation between Dave and Du Pont that the viewer is allowed to see, but not actually here, again emphasizing Miller's desire to show events but not comment on them directly. Even the structure, which begins with Mark as the protagonist before dumping him in the final act to focus on Du Pont and Dave signals Miller's unwillingness to commit to one single perspective of the facts.

This approach creates a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is completely comprehensible. Given the ambiguity surrounding the facts in the actual case, it seems that he has decided that he has no right to impose his own theory on why things happened. He seems to have gathered all the information possible and presented it to the viewer in a manner that allows them to come to their own conclusions. In that manner he is not preaching any particular point of view, but inviting the audience to project their own perspectives on the mystery.

However, some might call this fearful filmmaking and some might see this as Miller unwilling to take a stand and simply hide behind the shield of ambiguity. In this light, a lot of the film's overall structure could invite tremendous criticism for its lack of cohesion in certain moments. There is an entire section in which Mark's character undergoes a dark transformation. Miller shows glimpses of how this situation has developed, but moves on from it in seemingly quick fashion. Mark's hatred for Du Pont at the end of the film thus become a bit questionable and confusing for those not willing to take Miller and his inviting ambiguity.

Regardless of how one views the overall approach (and this writer accepts the challenge presented by Miller), there is no denying the level of craftsmanship inherent throughout the film. His introduction of Dave and Mark's relationship is one of the most memorable moments in the film as it showcases them in their natural habitat -- wrestling. Wrestling means everything to them. They wrestled through life as young kids without any real parental support. And they grew up to be professional gold medal winning wrestlers. And throughout this film they will wrestle with one another emotionally.

And this opening scene really highlights the trajectory of their relationship. It starts off slowly, almost like a dance between two lovers, tapping one another tenderly and playfully before transforming into a savage free-for-all that climaxes with Mark punching Dave in the nose and causing him to bleed all over his shirt. There are some cuts, but in the initial stages, Miller opts to portray this in a two-shot that allows the viewer to experience the build of tempo. It is truly mesmerizing and visceral.

Unsurprisingly, none of the other wrestling sequences live up to the intensity of this opening sequence. In comparison, they are done away with far quicker and lack that level of intimacy. But this emphasizes just how important the relationship between Dave and Mark is throughout.

The film's tone oscillates, particularly in its portrayal of Du Pont (another example of ambiguity in handling the material). There are a ton of light moments littered throughout the proceedings (the casting of Steve Carell is key), but the portrayal eventually shows him as a frightening but also tragic figure. He is hateful and yet the viewer cannot help but sympathize with him. In one scene, Du Pont watches a phony documentary he made of himself trying to prove to the world (or maybe just his mother) that he is a great wrestling coach. Miller cuts to a wide shot showcasing him in his massive trophy room. In early presentations of this space, the viewer cannot help but be in awe at the amount of stuff in it. It goes off the idea that Du Pont is truly accomplished. But in this final iteration, the viewer's perception changes. The grandiosity is not longer existent. Instead the room feels like it is cluttered with garbage. It looks messy, disorganized and senseless.

The performances are unbelievably dynamic, even if they are a major reason for the film's overall ambiguous meanings. Channing Tatum's turn as Mark is extremely physical. He has a strange gait that emphasizes his status as an awkward loner and he is full of tremendous melancholy. Seeing this character smile once is a rarity. But there is always a sense that he is a ticking time bomb ready to explode. And when he does, it is a rather frightening experience for the viewer (the moment is captured in a single take that adds to the visceral nature of the moment).

Mark Ruffalo's performance as Dave provides a nice counterbalance. If Mark seems all gloom-and-doom, Dave is affectionate and sunny. But Ruffalo gives the character tremendous complexity. In one scene, Dave is asked to stand in front of a camera and express his admiration for Du Pont. He is told to tell the camera that Du Pont is his mentor. This breathtaking scene is shot in a closeup on Dave and Ruffalo's face perfectly expresses the conflict. He is seething at the sides and ready to stand up for the truth, but he also knows that his entire family's well-being is at stake. It is a fascinating scene that shows how riveting a simple inner conflict can be.

The performance to get the most notice was Carell's turn as Du Pont. The choice to place the actor, typically known for comedic, allows Miller to explore the character as more than a dark individual headed toward a murder. The viewer's perception of Carell makes it difficult to completely accept this portrayal as a gritty one and this helps in the delivery of some of the more awkward moments. In the hands of a different actor, they would have come off as uneasy, but in Carell's the humor comes through, albeit unsettlingly. But the actor does a tremendous job of showcasing the character's insecurity and his every attempt to prove his worth despite being little more than a fraud. In one scene he does his utmost to show off his teachings in front of his mother, who is watching. In the scene with his mother, he comes off as a young child (again the Norman Bates connection here is extremely telling). There are flashes of violence and others of deep introspective. In one scene in which Dave makes demands for his brother's well-being, Carell's vacant stare makes it seem as if he is lost in another dimension. It keeps the viewer constantly guessing at what this guy is going to do next. And it makes the climax completely unexpected as a result.

If there is one minor misstep with the film it is Carell's makeup. Carell's face is so recognized that the transformation seems to only go half-way. At times it is impossible not to feel compelled with looking for Carell's recognized visage underneath the prosthetics and it could provide a source of distraction. In a late scene as Du Pont moves through a tunnel, the makeup looks fake, as if he were wearing a mask. Making Carell put on the makeup was clearly done with the intention of making viewers see him in a completely different light, as if Miller wanted viewers to forget that it was Carell altogether. But it seems that the ultimate effect was more of a compromise than a complete transformation (an example of better execution would be Nicole Kidman's unrecognizable look as Virginia Woolf in "The Hours"). But this is a minor gripe and should not take away from all that this film as to offer. 

There is too much to talk about with "Foxcatcher" as it is high order filmmaking. Miller's analysis of father-son relationships (or lack of father in all the characters' case) and his approach with ambiguous narrative makes for a compelling viewing experience. This is the kind of film that inspires conversation and also emphasizes the importance of analyzing facts presented before simply jumping to conclusions.