Challengers, a movie directed by Luca Guadagnino and produced by none other than Zendaya, follows the story of 3 tennis players as they make their way from mediocrity to stardom, or don’t…
The movie is chock-full of flashbacks, and though it can cause slight confusion at times, the stylists did a great job of setting two very distinct looks for younger Art and Patrick (played by Mike Faist and Josh O’Connor), as well the star of the show, Tashi (played by, of course, Zendaya), mainly using hair length, texture and style. The movie itself had a clear indie-style, despite being a blockbuster picture, and I thought, an almost reminiscent feel of “Call Me By Your Name”. After a quick search, it became clear that that wasn’t just a coincidence. If the name Luca Guadagnino rings a bell, it’s probably because he also directed and produced the hit film starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. This “indie” style seems to be a theme within all of his movies, and it’s no coincidence that both films also feature the theme of desire, given the fact that he has a self-proclaimed “Desire Trilogy”, including the Academy Award Nominee “I Am Love”, “A Bigger Splash”, and naturally, “Call Me By Your Name”.
Now, although Swiss cinemas list Challengers as rated suitable for 12-14 year olds, I personally think the content is 14-15+, and it’s probably not ideal to see it with your parents (awkwarddd). Still, I really think it’s a worthwhile watch, especially if you’re into film analysis, given that there are countless subtle messages implemented into this piece. Despite this, you definitely don’t need to be a film or tennis buff to enjoy it. The creators did an excellent job of not making it overly tennis heavy, rather focusing on interpersonal relationships and the way that such a competitive environment could affect them.
However, there are two major critiques that I’d make about this film.
Firstly, I have to say that while the cinematography certainly had its moments, like when Tashi, positioned in the centre of the crowd, stares straight ahead at the camera while the rest of the audience look back and forth, following the ball with every hit (this has a much deeper meaning within the film that I’m not going to get into for obvious reasons), but I have to say that I think they went a bit too far with it sometimes.
The first person shot near the end of the movie looked janky and out of place, almost comedic in its oddness, and I also feel that there were a lot of missed opportunities when it came to the duration of shots, which could have been used to build up more tension, or even for a couple funny moments. To me, it felt a bit like they were really trying to go for an interesting and diverse cinematic feel, but they just missed the mark, and it just ended up looking wrong.
My second critique would be that, to the average cinema goer, who’s just intending to sit down, see a fun movie with friends and family, and doesn't really get into film analysis, there are honestly some parts that are a little confusing when it comes to the message that they’re trying to convey. I would say the most unclear part would be the ending, because although we know what happens, we don’t really understand why it does or why the characters act the way they do. Now, look, even Zendaya said that this was the kind of movie that you have to re-watch a few times in order to fully understand the motivations of the characters and all the subtleties within it that contribute to the overriding actions of the characters in the plot, but not everyone has the time to sit down and watch a two-hour film three or four times, and I think that it makes this incredibly detailed, thought out and honestly remarkable movie a little less accessible to the public, which is unfortunate because of how good this movie is.
Despite all this, I still think that it’s a really worthwhile watch, no matter if you’re really into film or not, and if you need clarification on the ending, I’m sure a quick Google search will do the trick.
Comments