A Love Triangle Served with a Twist
Luca Guadagnino directed Challengers as if he were the favorite to win Wimbledon in the final. A love story involving three tennis players who fall in love is shown in a timeless story script. The filmmaker’s vision includes the motion used by gaming tournaments. Fittingly, each captured frame acts as a kind of deliberate reflection with the montage looped back. Like a great tennis rally, it helps move the story along at breakneck speed. It’s a bold move to put together a series that shows the game as seen by a rocketing tennis ball; it also elevates the film to hilarious levels of absurdity. Such seemingly ridiculous movements serve as “objective correlatives”—that is, concrete expressions of the film’s complete dedication to entertainment. While it may seem funny, the sequence only contributes to the comedic genius and pure enjoyment of the film in the end.
Zendaya plays Tashi, a young woman whose rapid development as a tennis player resembles that of the legendary Williams sisters. However, a debilitating injury suddenly curtailed her playing career; it forced her to switch to a new path in the sport. Tashi transitions into the role of a manager, her only client being her partner, Art. Art is a naturally talented and fun individual. He has established himself as a dominant force in men’s tennis. The success is largely due to Tashi’s guidance and loyalty throughout his career. As the narrative opens up, we see Art grappling with an existential crisis; His passion for the game seems to be fading. With her strategic genius, Tashi devises a plan to revive his competitive spirit. She proposes that Art enter a low-level championship tournament in hopes of rekindling the competitive spirit and spirit that initially attracted her to him.
Hidden behind the straightforward narrative is a hidden goal, one whose driving forces and complex maneuvers remain unclear. Among the expected participants in the competition is Patrick, a disheveled opportunist who previously had an inseparable bond with Art. But their friendship is shattered by the arrival of Tashi. The divide, it is emphasized, is not simply metaphorical: the standout sequence in Challengers goes beyond the realm of tennis; it delves into the past through lengthy flashbacks. The scene takes place in a motel room shared by the two men during a tournament. With a seductive aura, Tashi entered the room and climbed onto the bed they shared. With passion, she engaged in a simultaneous embrace with both men. In particular, Art and Patrick display a level of physical intimacy that easily leads to misidentification of them as a romantic couple. As their encounters intensify, Tashi detaches herself from romantic entanglements and becomes an observer. The withdrawal was triggered by her complacency in setting the scene, enjoying the realization that she had ignited a new flame between her two former friends.
The psychology in Challengers remains murky, especially in Tashi’s case. The film offers a glimpse into her psyche. Ultimately, she does not provide a comprehensive picture of her emotional core. Such ambiguity makes it difficult for us to draw definite conclusions about her motivation. Patrick’s internal world is also shrouded in mystery. Despite the undeniable spark between him and Tashi during the “Art-finds-his-roots” tournament, the true nature of his desires remains unclear. The film depicts their relationship as primal and instinctual; it lacks intellectual depth in providing clues about his motivations. On the other hand, Art is shown as a character who is primarily driven by his goodness. He embodies intelligence and politeness. Subtly, the narrative shows his awareness of the tension between Tashi and Patrick. However, his response was one of calculated gratitude. Seemingly having “won” the competition for Tashi’s affection, he adopts a strategy of passive acceptance; he believes in his wife’s devotion despite the underlying emotional complexity.
The balance of the story in Challengers is both the source of its dynamism and its potential downfall. Even though the film seems overwhelmed by the intrigue of its plot and the time shifts wrought by Justin Kuritzkes’ screenplay and Marco Costa’s editing, it manages to maintain balance. The instability is not without precedent. The subgenre thrives on deconstructing relationship trajectories through non-linear explorations of time. Films such as 500 Days of Summer and Jules and Jim testify to the effectiveness of the approach. The “challengers” not only confidently carry the torch of tradition. However, they also imbue it with their talents. A series of carefully choreographed, framed, and edited tennis films obey as a counterpoint to the emotional narrative; it offers an aesthetic visual experience that sports fans love similar to how other sports films do.
Does Challengers give up on the ambition that drives its narrative and visuals? Is it overreaching to the point of failing to deliver on its big promises? Maybe, Roger Ebert would say that the film is not original or does not have a deep meaning. In the final act, the film seems consumed by the narrative and technical complexity that has been created. The constant (and arguably excessive) use of time shifts interferes with the viewer’s immersion in the unfolding drama. The transitions occur precisely at those moments when the story on screen makes us crave engagement with the events unfolding. Furthermore, the film’s conclusion is reminiscent of the mysterious style of the American New Wave movement of the 1970s: it feels inappropriate. Regardless of not being too grand, the ending has no connection to the initial narrative. Therefore, it leaves the audience with a feeling of dissatisfaction rather than thoughtful ambiguity.
In-person, Challengers elicits primal satisfaction on an instinctive level, sometimes bordering on the raw and unrefined. Although the film has a carefully designed framework, it avoids other statements associated with the art-house genre. It avoids the pretentious plucking of viewers into the labyrinthine depths of the human soul and leaves them there to grapple with the ambiguities of experience. The film evokes the spirit of classic 1940s entertainment featuring iconic duos such as Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. In the pictures, the suggestive power of the dialogue does not derive from its literal content. Rather, it comes from the subtle nuances conveyed through the actors’ delivery. The film achieves a similar effect in that the sensuality comes less from explicit content and more from suggestive interactions between characters.
A Celebration of Classic Hollywood
We could argue that the film leans more towards a populist Hollywood aesthetic than the arthouse sensibilities of Cannes. However, it is not a mockery but a trigger for joy. Contemporary commercial cinema displays fear when depicting sexuality, especially adult sexuality. It extends to depictions of adulthood itself. Big-budget productions are hampered by internal dialogue throughout the filming process. In general, the dialogue revolves around concerns regarding the content’s potential to isolate viewers, especially families with young children or adult children living with their parents. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the term “adult film” is mixed up with the realm of erotica and pornography. However, the true meaning of an “adult film” should include works that explore themes and experiences beyond the understanding of children.
The three main performers embody the essence of cinematic royalty. Guadagnino and his cinematographer, Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, who has collaborated with Guadagnino on two previous projects and several films by auteur Apichatpong Weerasethakul, frame the actors with reverence befitting legendary figures of polite society and icons of the silver screen. The approach elevates the performances and presents the actors as lucky finds, overflowing with quality. Watch as the three young actors master the art of seduction and charisma. In a 21st-century filmmaking landscape relatively devoid of sensuality, their ability to depict emotions of such fine distinction is a rare and valuable talent.
Zendaya embodies an endearing duality, channeling the confident charisma of an alpha queen with subtle intrigue reminiscent of Jennifer Garner’s iconic portrayal of the early 2000s. Her presence allows her to portray characters who are confident and shrouded in a sense of mystery, keeping the audience engaged and anticipating her next move. Zendaya’s physical behavior enhances her character’s authority. She exudes an aura of self-possession and confidence, conveying a sense of belonging and deserving her place in the narrative. The depiction is very in line with Tashi’s character. Despite experiencing setbacks in her career, Tashi still maintains her formidable presence. The transition from athlete to media mogul highlights her adaptability and strength which is further emphasized by Zendaya’s performance.
The film uses an external perspective on its central character. Despite the manipulative power of shooting and editing to dissect the narrative and reshape meaning, the viewer is denied access to the protagonists’ internal worlds. It’s a deliberate distancing tactic and makes the film less of a traditional character study. Rather, it is a microcosm of social dynamics. Just like the crowd at the US Open, the crowd became engrossed in the external spectacle. It relies on the ups and downs of characters to beg the question: who is superior at any given moment? The focus lays the foundation for the film’s brilliance as a sports metaphor. Competition on the field is presented as a constructed microcosm. Throughout the film, moments of tension increase as the two central characters clash. The audience gasps in anticipation as they are privy to the knowledge that a warrior has a secret weapon.
Prioritizing Entertainment Over Depth
The film avoids moments of introspective contemplation or thematic resonance throughout its narrative. The omission indicates a disinterest in engaging the audience’s intellectual engagement and instead prioritizes a singular focus on achieving entertainment goals. It can be likened to the approach of a professional athlete who is fixated on the goal of winning, its performance superior within the confines of the competition but lacking dimensions beyond the immediate contest. In essence, the film prioritizes the execution of its entertainment formula rather than the exploration of layers.
Bibliography
