From its premiere at Cannes, Mark Schultz, has been a vocal supporter of the film Foxcatcher, in which he’s played by Channing Tatum. However over Christmas he massively changed his tune, going on a (since deleted) Twitter rant against both the movie and its director Benett Miller, saying things such as, ‘YOU CROSSED THE LINE MILLER. WE’RE DONE. YOU’RE CAREER IS OVER. YOU THINK I CAN’T DO IT. WATCH ME… YOU THINK I’M GOING TO SIT BACK AND WATCH YOU DESTROY MY NAME AND REPUTATION I SWEAT BLOOD FOR. YOU AINT’ SEEN NOTHING YET DUDE… I CAN TOLERATE A LOT OF THINGS BUT I DON’T TOLERATE DISRESPECT. WE’RE DONE BENNETT… Everything I’ve ever said positive about the movie I take back. I hate it. i hate it. i hate it. I hate it. i hate it. i hate it. I hate it.’

The film is based on the true tale of Olympic wrestler Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo), who was murdered by his paranoid schizophrenic friend Jon duPont (Carell) in 1996. Du Pont was an heir to the Du Pont chemical company, who teamed up with Dave’s brother Mark (Channing Tatum) to help build up a wrestling training facility known as ‘Team Foxcatcher’ on his sprawling Pennsylvania estate.

So what mainly made Dave change his mind about the movie? Well, it seems it was a scene which some have interpreted as adding a sexual undertone to his relationship with duPont. During his rant, Schultz expanded on his issues in a Facebook post (also since deleted), saying “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 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.”

So it appears his problem is not that the film says he had a sexual relationship with another man, but that certain people have interpreted a sexual subtext and the possibility anyone could think that about him is more than he can take. It’s difficult not to feel there’s a whiff of homophobia about the way he’s lashed out, as it certainly goes further than just wanting to set the record straight.

Since his fury a few days ago, he’s removed his initial rant from both Twitter and Facebook, replacing it with a slightly more measured Facebook post, which says, “My story and my life are real. I am a real human being. While I may have tweeted out of anger, I in no way regret standing up for myself, nor do I regret calling out the only other man [Miller] who has had decision making power concerning my image and legacy these past years. I apologize for the harshness of my language, but I am firm in where I stand. I will gladly go to any lengths to protect and safeguard the integrity and truth of my story, my life, my character and my legacy. If that’s not worth fighting over while I’m still alive, I don’t know what is.”

However it would appear that the main thing he feels is worth fighting for is ensuring that no person on the planet thinks he could have had sexual subtext with another man, even if the scene in question is fully open to interpretation.

There are also some wondering whether Schultz has manufactured this controversy to publicise his own book about the Foxcatcher story (which was released in November), as his anger has been interspersed with plugs for the tome, as well as saying things such as the December 20th Tweet, “love Twitter and Facebook. I can have just as much publicity power as anyone. I may be small but I’m growing.”

He may also face a few issues from the studio behind, as he has admitted on Twitter that he is contractually obliged to support the film until the Oscars, and if he is, he seems to have blown that spectacularly.