“Challengers” - Film Review
Tennis in film has a rocky history. For whatever reason, the sport is especially difficult to capture on screen. Some have done it well (Battle of the Sexes), others have not (Wimbledon). Currently stepping up to the baseline for a chance at glory is Challengers, the latest from Luca Guadagnino. A romance-sports drama is a departure from Guadagnino’s recent works like Suspiria and Bones and All, which are more in the horror genre, but the director is also known for searing romances like Call Me By Your Name. Challengers, while not an outright horror, straddles the line between Guadagnino’s two styles by weaving a taut, scandalous web among three tennis players.
The Challengers storyline centers on the final match in a small tournament at a country club, a Challenger level tournament. The players in question are Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) and Patrick Zweig (Josh O'Connor). Watching from the stands, square in the middle of the bleachers, is Tashi Duncan (Zendaya). The three of them have a history that goes back thirteen years to when they were all juniors competing at the US Open. Their history is a bit tawdry, very complicated, and on full display as the two men face off in the finals.
courtesy of mgm
It’s no secret there’s a love triangle at the heart of Challengers. The trailer for the film gave that away long ago and touted the film almost as a sexy thriller. Art and Patrick are clearly in love with Tashi, but who Tashi loves is a main topic of arguments for the characters in the film. This set-up is interesting, there’s no denying that. There’s always something compelling about people with long, tangled histories being forced to air out all their dirty laundry. At times, Challengers does capitalize on that. It’s clear that this finals match isn’t just a simple game. We don’t even realize how much is at stake until the film slowly shows its hand. When we get to live in those moments, it’s easy to forget to breathe, because it was never just about a ball and a racquet.
The issue with Challengers is not that it has created such a messy web, but that the characters aren’t three-dimensional. (That is not a criticism of the actors.) It’s hard to think of a time in recent memory where someone so slimy, yet so charismatic, effortlessly steals the audience’s attention like O’Connor’s Patrick. The movie has quite a few instances that are factually inaccurate when it comes to tennis, but having Patrick use a rubber band as a shock absorber could almost make me forgive the mistakes. Nothing screams, to borrow a turn of phrase from the film, tennis fuckboy like using a rubber band in that way. Zendaya, in her first theatrical leading role, makes the most of what she’s given, but is ultimately burdened by a character whose wants are unknown by everyone. Faist rounds out the trio as the more soft-spoken player, a quiet performance that endears him to viewers immediately.
Challengers wants to pretend that Tashi is the mastermind behind these boys, playing with them and manipulating them so she can live out her tennis dreams that were ruined by an injury before she could turn pro. Yet she’s given less introspective screen time than her counterparts, so the decisions she’s making don’t feel earned or in character. Part of the issue likely lies in the enormously intricate relationship that exists between Tashi, Patrick, and Art. The two men met at a tennis boarding school when they were kids, and there seem to be (one-sided) romantic feelings between them. Tashi is the object of their affections and agrees to give her number to the one who wins the US Open junior draw. That dynamic, plus Tashi’s own broken dream, plus all the other storylines that could be construed as spoilers, creates an over-bloated plot that buckles beneath the weight of their shared history. The film jumps around so much that these characters come across as shallow.
courtesy of mgm
And then there’s the tennis of it all. All things considered, Challengers’ tennis scenes are pretty decent. Faist and O’Connor look decent, but Zendaya (whose tennis scenes are far fewer) comes across a little stilted. As she has mentioned in many of her interviews for the movie, it’s a difficult sport to pick up. Even more difficult when her character is supposed to be the next great thing. The matches are missing the natural rhythm of a tennis game, and Guadagnino has a lot of fun with the camera during the points. Some of his choices are a little superfluous, like when the camera becomes the ball, but shooting a point as though Patrick and Art are playing on a glass court was particularly inspired. It’s a shame the tennis feels like an afterthought. The gameplay of the characters could’ve given the audience insight into the psyches of these characters. All the people we see play tennis do it in the exact same way, but that’s not the case when it comes to actual players. There are the technically beautiful players (Roger Federer), the hyper-disciplined players (Iga Swiatek), and the showboats (Carlitos Alcaraz). Playing style says so much about a person, and it’s a shame that Challengers treats the sport as an afterthought.
Challengers is Guadagnino’s most commercial work. Even the sexy love triangle is never fully realized. Tennis is a deeply personal game. For the most part, it’s a singular player on their own on the court playing against their own mind and an opponent. It’s hard to tell how level-headed you are until you’re down a set in a game you thought you were going to win. In that regard, tennis is the perfect medium for a story like Challengers, one that’s about the messy way people are entangled with one another. Challengers double faults because it takes its focus away from the humanness of it all.
Follow me on BlueSky, Instagram, Letterboxd, & YouTube. Check out Movies with My Dad, a new podcast recorded on the car ride home from the movies.