The thing about this film that makes it sexy is that there isn't much sex. It's not a return to sex scenes in movies, it's a return of eroticism. These creators re-invented sexy for an audience that is constlatny sold sex. There is an overexposure of sexuality in our media and this film creates so beautifully, an "almost"t sex. They have truly understood and utilized the lost tool of erotisism in film. Making something erotic is hard to achieve without being 'boring' but they aced it with this film.
i heard that there isn't actually any s3x scenes in this movie... and yet it's one of the hottest ones in a while? that's my style!! tension is everything. i'm glad to hear the positive reviews. though perhaps with flaws. and i heard the ending is frustrating.
Just came out of the screening, and I have to say the ending is only frustrating if you don't stick to a certain metaphor that Tashi gives about tennis at the start. Personally, I think the movie is best enjoyed without taking it too seriously (not that it isn't a serious movie but it's supposed to be fun).
I actually really loved the ending! It truly felt like, well, a one giant, multi-character “release”, if you know what I mean lol. And yes the sensuality, tension, and chemistry between all actors was phenomenal. Side note, though: the only people who seem to feel it was TOO overtly seggual (sorry, YT keeps yeeting my comments :/) are people whose tummies throw a tantrum when they see two men kiss lol. In other words: if the same exact tension was only between M/F characters, nobody would describe this movie as scandalous, too seggual, etc. For me, this was one of the many reasons I freaking LOVED this entire film. Bi representation done authentically is hard to find!!
@@DannyD-lr5ygtotally agree. The pushing of the bromance to new bounds, it was disorienting to me, but so well done. I couldn’t help but get more engrossed in the story.
@@Uhohlisa I’m a 96 year old man jit, I seen the Magna Carta, I don’t care if I go blind I don’t need to see the price tag anyways. They straight bussin’ on me fool, my money so long it wraps around the circumference of the earth, twice. Top shelf Zaza disrupted my circadian rhythm. Opp was sneak dissing on the gram, turned his city into Pompeii.
It's funny that all three Spidermen, Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland, have been in war films, while their respective love interests, Kirsten Dunst, Emma Stone and Zendaya have been in tennis themed movies.
Thank you for saying this about Zendaya! She's phenomenal, but never used properly. Until now, and I'm now reassured she can handle the job of being a serious actress!
I've seen her in Euphoria and I think she's fantastic. But I'd definitely appreciate it if she does choose more projects like this, she's phenomenal as an actor and this kind of film highlights her talent. I know that it doesn't pay like Dune Part II, I know that, and she's probably the highest earning member of her family so I know that just like most actors she has to ... Provide. But I just hope she doesn't get to do projects that are like that one exclusively. I appreciate her efforts to try to do both and that's usually hard to pull off.
I was sitting in an IMAX theater waiting for an early screening of _The Fall Guy_ to start, and someone in front of me offhandedly said to their friend "I _need_ to see _Challengers_ again." Between that and this, I'm sold. David Foster Wallace, eat your heart out.
@@dantikks in the time since I posted my original comment, I went and saw it. Incredible film. Astounding. Unreal. Easy contender for best of the year.
thank christ ive found a youtuber that acknowledged the interpretation of cmbyn being an exploration of grooming trauma cuz i stg i came up with this interpretation years ago after relating it to my own trauma and everyone around me still sees it as a sweet romance 😭
agreed! me and my best friend adore cmbyn, but are often frustrated that the most popular positive sentiment is that it's a blissful depiction of a tragic, but ultimately wholesome, dynamic. i'm frustrated by much critique of the film as well, the criticism that it's "romanticizing abuse" which i've always found funny since like, yeah, the protagonist IS romanticizing their abuse. it's also true that the last shot of the film is the protagonist looking to the audience after crying throughout the ending credits.
Why are straight girls projecting their own shit so desperate to make one of the most revered and popular gay movies of all time sound more sinister than it is
How nice to see you review this amazing movie. I wasn’t expecting much at first, but the film is truly impressive on how addictive it is, thanks to the directing and the dynamics of the characters that are wonderfully portrayed by the 3 leads. Josh O'Connor particularly, who as always, shines. This movie very electric, erotic (the way Guanamino shoots bodies and sexual tension is magnetic) and pop, and I missed those kind of movies in today’s cinema. Plus, it is one the few pieces of media where a love triangle has truly been represented as a real triangle : all sides are connected and are lusting about each other
much to consider! saw this movie a few days ago and have similarly come alive after watching it. interested in checking out the other movies in the same vein you mentioned!
Where in the film do they “constantly” wax poetic about how tennis is a relationship (since you say that’s your biggest criticism)? Tashi says it ONCE. What am I missing?
One example would be when Art straight up asks Tashi if she would leave him if he retired. Having that Conversation reinforces that she's with him due to tennis, making tennis explicit to the viewers. Would have been more subtle if the conversation doesn't occur and the audience is left understanding that she might leave him because of tennis, he swallows due to this possibility, but it's never explicitly stated. Idk, it's moments like that, where they rely too much on the sport to make their points instead of using it as a metaphor. Because havjng that convo translates to us that tennis means everything to Tashi, like no other question. Instead, why not let usnumderstand how the sport meant and what it still means to her as a person. Let's get info about her love or need of the game and how it could have taken care of her family? Or how it was her gift and how that made her feel? Is the only thing we need to know is that she's so obsessed with tennis she will leave her husband over it? Makes it seems more shallow than she deserves, to me.
He doesn’t ask if she would leave him, he says “tell me it doesn’t matter [if I win tomorrow]…” and then asks “how are you gonna look at me if I still can’t beat Patrick Zweig?” Then she replies, “Like this…” *blank stare* The writing is not as explicit as you’re remembering it. It’s subtle and nuanced, without being overly pretentious. What’s makes it great is that even beyond what’s said in the script there are layers to peel back on these characters and their interactions. That’s why there’s so many think pieces and essays with people expounding arguments on their precise meanings. I felt I was given enough info to draw three fully-realized characters and understand their motivations. I left the theatre completely satisfied. Also, LOVED that I pulled so many new revelations from a second viewing.
to be fair, media literacy is at a point right now where a lot of things can be stated visually or implied in conversation and it will still go over the heads of some audience members.
1) The grunting. 2) When choosing who to kiss first, she was glancing back and forth between them while sitting between them. Then she got them to kiss. The same thing happens during the tennis matches. She would sit in the middle of the audience between them. She would look back and forth. And in the end, the two guys embraced. 3) The sauna conversation demonstrated that talking about scoring in tennis was indistinguishable from talking about scoring at life, including marrying Tashi.
No frickin way I literally just watched strangers on a train in English class after watching challengers two weeks before how did I not see the similarities 😭😭
first 😭 p.s love your videos and analysis. I won't actually watch this until I catch the movie this weekend. Sure it's rad, love the thumbnail lol Anyways, cheers! 😅
Loved your analysis. Felt everything you mentioned and will now seek out watching the movies you mentioned. You put words to my thoughts perfectly. The ending really was cathartic in the best way and tied a perfect bow on everything he was trying to do throughout. Loved the movie. Will definitely be watching again. My favorite aspect of this is the point you made, sexy ass movie without an actual sex scene. Lovely.
Thanks for saying Guadagnino so many times so now I know how to say it also 😂 No fr great video--I didn't even think about all the other old school Hollywood ways of talking about/depicting sex pre-Hays code!
I have never seen your channel before. I havent seen Challengers yet. Im a big fan of Guadagnino and tennis and I hate the idea of pickleball. So, you had me in the first two minutes.
Hey man, great video as usual. Where do you place your script when presenting? I ask because an appealing feature of your work is how smooth your delivery is. It's as though you're talking off of the top of your head. Very palatable.
Gotta argue that the 90s and aughts were less puritanical in comparison to today. Very few exceptions (polyamory and non-hetero fluidity being the most notable ones). Around 2010 the pendulum began swinging the other way with more social taboos, more self/popular (and corporate) censorship around art/media and social interactions. Drugs, language, sex/promiscuity...all more taboos today then back then.
here's the transcript (1/5): There is precisely one reactionary belief I hold with pride. It's that pickleball is the harbinger of societal collapse, and we have an obligation to cling to tennis as the supreme racket sport lest we lose everything we hold dear. That's why I was excited to watch the new Luca Guadagnino film, which strives to not only breathe new life into tennis but also the erotic thriller, the mid-budget studio picture, and a series of foundational film theory concepts. These have been the go-to talking points online, as anyone who's acclimated to the white noise of scene discourse well knows. But I think the beauty of "Challengers" is not just that apparent return to form and "movies are back" sensation, but how it revitalizes those concepts with a modern sensibility. Guadagnino, of course, is a filmmaker who's anything but reactionary. His work largely revolves around younger generations' incompatibility with the archaic moral systems they're brought up in. And his most popular movie weaponizes nostalgia as a tool of malice to romantically gloss over the trauma the main characters unknowingly experience. So it only makes logical sense that he would take the stuffiest sport that still has some relevance in the US, dwindling as it may be, and use it as a vehicle for sweaty threesome cuckold sexual reward and punishment. If nothing else, his proclivity for remaking classics is proof enough that he believes the past is not a sacred institution but rather a series of active dialogues that we should dust off, update, and keep in circulation. "The Swimming Pool," "Suspiria" - unimpeachable texts that, against all odds, he successfully resurrected and examined through different eyes with his inquisitive camera, creating something entirely new out of the old. And while not a remake in and of itself, "Challengers" is in such direct conversation with "Strangers on a Train" that one can't help but imagine Guadagnino, upon considering the possibility of entering the tennis movie canon, leaping at the notion of taking on Hitchcock as his chosen artistic interlocutor. This time around, I think this is far and away his best work, especially after what I found to be a completely impotent previous film, "Bones and All." +
here's the transcript (5/5): So as the story refrains from moving any faster than we'd like it to, the ballistic camera itself embodies that force of unexpended sexual energy driving our characters. The other, possibly more important factor, is that there are no actual sex scenes. Characters edge each other; a would-be sex scene is disrupted by Tashi and Patrick fighting. Characters describe sexual experiences, and Art and Patrick even develop shorthand within the structure of a tennis serve to communicate a specific sexual act. But the film relies on the world around these characters to externalize the act of sex, and it packs that world to the brim with innuendo, spanning a vast range of registers from tongue in cheek as Art throats Patrick's churro to epic and grandiose as a windstorm wreaks havoc on Tashi and Patrick, reigniting their impassioned infidelity. So the film as a whole sort of edges the audience in this way, if you will. The central tennis match itself is basically one elongated sex scene, which is where the film becomes the latest entry in a genre I'm calling "everything is about sex except sex." Except the sex that everything else is about is also about sex, like the literary psych proverb suggests: everything is about sex, and sex is about power to an extent, especially in Tashi's case. But there's an additional full-circle quality where it's also celebrating sex itself. Art struggles with a sort of general impotence regarding every facet of his life, lethargic in his marriage, sleepwalking on the court, but he's also literally not having sex. So Tashi's psychosexual ploy ends up being partly about rectifying and erecting all these pieces of his life, using sex to fuel the power dynamic of the sport as he metaphorically gets it up. But then the sport swings back around into this extended metaphor about sex. Honestly, it's not even an extended metaphor at that point. Through its many layers of obfuscation and roleplay, the match really becomes a literal sex act. While the movie largely plays like a more conventional heteronormative battle between two men over a woman who's the mutual object of their desire, we're shown quite explicitly the homoerotic backbone between Art and Patrick's relationship. In fact, I don't think it's possible to overstate how deeply this is baked into every prop, every conversational double meaning, the body language and their every interaction. Narratively, this goes all the way down to their most formative sexual experience: learning to masturbate, in which Patrick's antagonism is effectively seared into Art's very conception of sexual gratification. Tashi quite literally emulates Indiana Joneses herself out for each of them to the other, job and Tony, wonders them, Lady Gaga, and the golden rules them. Really, it's a tale as old as time, but after this first incredibly direct instance of the old switcheroo, this is the game she continues to play with them on broader, subtler, and more conceptual levels throughout the rest of their career. As they each think they're only after Tashi, a certain other Lonely Island bar permeates throughout their encounters with her. You know what? Maybe Andy Samberg actually ghostwrote this entire movie. But in maintaining ostensible heterosexual plausible deniability, closing us out with a fraternal hug rather than laying pipe directly on the court, this sexual anguish remains at once dormant and also released. Art takes back control over his life, his career, his marriage, his image, his relationship with Patrick, and the missing cog in the sexual clockwork. So it embodies friendship and power and jealousy and greed and lust and betrayal and fatigue and family values and mortality. But it also circles back around to sex for sex's sake. Art and Patrick need each other; they need Tashi to bring them together, and she needs them to live vicariously through. It's an odd but perfect harmony that they all seem to recognize at the exact same moment. And I think, in that sense, Guadagnino's gambit proved sound. And this ending, with its undeniable sexual release within the restrictions it sets up for itself, proves worthy of Hitchcock sending his train through a tunnel. Frankly, this is the best new release I've seen in a long time, by a significant margin above anything I watched last year. It just makes you feel alive and reinvigorates your sense of worth and determination and, invariably, your sex drive. Through purely cinematic language, it makes you want to go back and watch all the movies it's in conversation with. But it also makes you excited for the future of cinema. And above all else, it pumps you with pure adrenaline and makes you want to go out there and hit something with a racket. And no, not a pickleball racket. I'm talking full-bodied, curvaceous tennis. And for that alone, my hats off to Guadagnino and his team. That's it from me on "Challengers."
It is funny that some of the most acclaimed movies of the last few years that I’ve also loved are incredibly sexual in nature. Maybe we’re finally ready to admit it ain’t as bad as violence lol.
They're not sexual in nature, they're sapiosexual in nature. You see, there's a difference 😉 There's thought, effort, and a true artistic vision put in the making of a film like this. Otherwise any mindless porno would be a "great film" .. We know it don't be working like that. If filmmakers manage to do it like this, they have my attention. If all artists do it like this, they have my attention. If they make it crass, dumb, and tactless. They can, no disrespec ... Err actually I mean to disrespect because I will feel disrespected, please f+-k off! 😊 And that's what every respectable film reviewer would tell them as well.
Haven't seen much analysis being done on Challengers (aside from the memes), but this is easily the best one. Don't know if you take film/TV suggestions, but would love to hear your thoughts on The Boys!
I loved this movie. And I find that when I judge the movie, I’m being judged right back 😳 (in a good way). When I think, “Tashi evil,” “No, Tashi good”, I have to ask myself why does the Madonna/wh**e duality need to exist in 2024. Same with other characters. Why am I so basic in my conception of human character and behavior 😂.
here's the transcript (4/5): But it still works because it's clear these characters share a bond over one common interest, one common language, and it just so happens that that language is about tennis and sex. Considering tennis's forced etiquette in terms of Guadagnino versus Hitchcock, one can't help but think of the parallel between these puritanical rules and the Hays Code, which Hitchcock himself rebelled against with such brazen images as the "North by Northwest" closer. In many ways, it's a fool's errand to try and outdo Hitchcock in terms of sheer repressed sexual energy; nearly every motif of his boils down to some sort of sexual punchline. "Rope's" leading men are oozing sexual tension that the Hollywood system would not legally allow to come to fruition, and thus it became even sexier. The irony of "Challengers" is that the key back-to-tradition talking point people have celebrated is, in fact, a return to a tradition of more sex, more eroticism. We're living in the least puritanical times in modern history. Just last year, we found explicit sex comedy at the heart of one of the most lauded films of the year, as well as sexual deviancy driving the year's most popular piece of garbage. Because actual societal taboos are dwindling at a rapid rate, there's nothing like the Hays Code to rebel against, and therefore less room for the kind of explosive sexual repression Hitchcock was tapping into. With effectively too much leniency to do whatever they want, filmmakers need to figure out new ways to restrain themselves in order to evoke the same sense of libidinal dam bursting. Adding to a more sexually liberal status quo is the increasingly liberating filmmaking technology that's developed in the past 70 years. In a world where a cop car can leap over a drone flying 60 MPH, there are no restrictions placed on the physical capabilities of the camera. Even shooting on lush 35mm, Guadagnino takes full advantage of this mobility with his most hyperactive camera yet. There's a shot where the CGI tennis ball seems to be served through the lens and looking at the audience at my screening, you would have thought a train was arriving at the station in 1890s Paris or that Carmen Cortez was reaching through the theater screen in 2003, two milestones of equal import. We briefly take on a perspective from under the ground looking up, court lines chocked over our eyes, and at one point, we literally embody the POV of the tennis ball. If the film is so visually bombastic all the time, how could there possibly be room for restraint and repression? That's the magic trick of "Challengers." For one, the pace is actually deceptively glacial. The film's nonlinear approach is confounding at first and seemingly all over the place. We hop from present day to flashback a week before to way earlier flashback, back to present, back to earlier flashback, and it takes a good 30 minutes for the triple timeline to really click. Once it does, though, not only does it retroactively justify that acclamation period, but its cross-cutting is like Dunkirk. It's this insanely high energy, and even though it doesn't have the principled timeline rigidity of Christopher Nolan, even at its most controlled, even attempting to formally mimic the back and forth of a tennis match, it's a little all over the place. You get the sense that we're receiving information at the times most crucial to our understanding of the present and also at the times that crank up tension at the most intuitive rate. This means a 10-second interaction between Art and Patrick on the court will take minutes, slowed down almost past the point of motion. The slow-mo only becomes more extreme the deeper we get into the film, and by the last 15 minutes or so, we're practically screaming for things to pick up because the anticipation is so agonizing. +
here's the transcript (3/5): And this is where the conceit of "Challengers" really opens up. It's a simple question: what if two were, instead (and stay with me here), three? That's right, a dramaturgical triad. The odd number is incompatible with tennis, which deals in pairs every which way. Hitchcock gets around this by erasing Guy's physical tennis opponent and replacing him mentally with Bruno, preserving that binary relationship. But "Challengers" calls the bluff. It says no, there is a person on the other side of the court, and he is an essential part of the dynamic here. Note that Art and Patrick are coded with white and black wardrobe, respectively, calling to mind the color dichotomy between good and evil at the heart of classic westerns, and one of the old tricks in the book. But as "Challengers" unfolds and we learn more about the relationship, we see that coding Patrick as the villain is really a misdirect, and everyone's morals are murkier than we were initially led to believe. This is not just a series of esoteric filmmaking devices; the incompatibility of three is the backbone of the film's social context as well. Just as it boggles the nature of the one-on-one or 2v2 game, it also defies heteronormative monogamous society. It's no coincidence that the movie revolves around the only popular sport in which bad etiquette has a material impact on the game score. Unlike the unwritten rules of baseball, which has long since dropped any gentlemanly affectations, an obscenity can dock you a point in tennis. And through the film's taffy-like stretching and retracting of puritanism, Guadagnino and screenwriter Justin Kuritzky have weaponized the sport as a microcosm of the broader societal scrutiny. It's directly at odds with, in which any expression of rage or resentment against the status quo of the game is strictly punished. So repression builds and workarounds are formulated. On a practical mathematical level, the way this works out is that as only two people can be on the court at the same time or the same team in doubles, so too can only two people be in a relationship at the same time. Tashi, who understands the psychology of the sport better than Art or Patrick, spells this out for them in their first encounter, refusing to be with both of them at the same time and laying the foundation for everything that's to come. This is the same tension that's at the heart of every love triangle, in which power dynamics and favoritism are inevitable. But rather than tracking their demise, which would essentially affirm mononormativity, the movie sees them perform a sort of calculus throughout the match that allows them to retain their unity in a delicate balance. I would feel ostentatious talking about the movie in such lofty terms if the film itself weren't so quick to make these same sociological observations. In fact, I'd say my biggest gripe with the movie is just how explicitly Kuritzky communicates the idea of tennis as a relationship, as the characters constantly wax poetic about it. To an extent, these relationships are implicit to tennis and need no explaining, especially when the visual language is so committed to blatantly conveying this on a sensory level, emphasizing each sweat-beading pore on Feist and O'Connor's faces. +
We’re gonna see a hell of a lot more of the Justin Kuritzkes and Celine Song taking over Hollywood and I’m here for it, they’re such a breath of fresh air, they make good art and shockingly it also has mainstream appeal and popularity, those two things hardly go together nowadays.
I appreciate the fact that you brought up ‘Strangers on a Train’, as ‘Challengers’ is definitely highly inspired by it and no one else has brought it up
Honestly even when it said Hitchcock in the title i wasnt even sure if he’d bring it up becuz no one else seems to, even if there is very evident homages, like the one sole figure staring straight ahead while the crowd moves their head back and forth. Strangers on A Train is easily one my favourite Hitchcock film, is it the best probably not, but its quite underrated for how great it is, and makes tennis so damn tense
@@confused_reader I thought there were many issues with it. On a surface level yes it was entertaining at times, because I always felt like I was waiting for something to happen - for the real plot or movie to begin, which never happened. I didn’t think any of the lead characters had real chemistry with eachother. The two men felt almost as if they were foils but it wasn’t quite the case because their motivations for the most part felt vague. They weren’t similar or dissimilar in ways that added to the mounting suspense that was being built or to some kind of felt poetic or enigmatic purpose. For example, We were told by other characters Artie wanted to quit but we were never explained why or actually much about his background or the kind of person he was at all. Everything about him we were told as true by the other characters but it actually wasn’t reflected in the acting, cinematography etc which should have done the leg work for that. Same issue with Tasha and patrick. The flashbacks sucked out progression to the story where we could actually feel like something is happening. The camera work was overdone. The pan back and forth between people is so clearly reflective of a tennis ball flying through the air, I got that quickly so by the 15th time it happens I’m feeling just annoyed. You don’t need to spell it out for your audience. I felt like it actually wasn’t erotic enough - there should have been pay off for the suspense, the fact that theirs not feels accidental, not purposeful as some sort of meditation on eroticism? I don’t get why patrick clearly likes Artie, and Artie doesn’t feel the same, that wasn’t really explored? Actually many scenes I thought were pretty boring, and the best 3 scenes I would say were the 3 way scene, the Tasha and patrick hooking up scene towards the end and the ending was good, however a bit anti climactic. They hug at the end - feels like a poor attempt to wrap the story up to a thesis? Again, the camera work I thought was really not well composed compositionally and spatially speaking it didn’t make sense with what was happening in the story, or the story should have leaned more into the setting the camera work provides..: thanks for asking lol
? Its the opposite of a team sport, which is why i’d kinda love to see it more in film, it is precisely about individualism, about personal rivalries/duels played out across a sport, about 1v1, i’m sick of all the constant team-sports films, of only a select few sports, we’ve seen for years and years.
As an fan of De Palma, Adrian Lyne, Paul Verhoeven, and others, I find it bizarre that a film like Challenger is considered an "erotic thriller"; it's practically sexless, and I'm not referring to it being explicit, but rather how sanitized and safe it is in addressing desire.
I can follow your points, yet this movie did not click for me at all. The concept of 'the whole movie taking place during one match' with its accompanying time jumps was just awfully contrived and inefficient storytelling to me. I did love the score, but it was edited with so many fits and starts that it never really took off viscerally. The homoeroticism felt tacked on and not more than some cinematic seasoning, never a thing to be seriously dealt with. The one time Patrick likes a guy on Tinder it's played as a joke because he really needs a place to stay. Maybe this movie is just something I did not want it to be, but I left the theater pretty underwhelmed.
Dude, I think you are extremely intelligent, but you have to find some color in your voice. The human brain stops registering speech after 5 seconds of you stay on the same vocal amd tonal level. I always have to rewind your videos because im always completely blanking on what you are saying.
The way you talk about the film i feel undermines the fact that the script was written first and then guadagnino saw the script and liked it, and the writer thought that he really understood what he was trying to communicate in the script. I'm not trying to downplay the director's involvement, but i feel like you make it sound like he came up with the story in this film
Very intelligent … the comparison to Hitchcock’s “Strangers on a Tain” is very insightful, and now that you mention it … a significant homage. but I have the first large scale performance-art reference using tennis as a metaphor for sexual ménage … that would be Nijinsky’s ballet Jeux “Games”) in performed in Paris 1913
The plot , characters and performances were on point It just came down to the experimental editing choice for me. There are cool tennis shots but the shots tend to linger too long. Like when Toshi was by the car or camera glance that pan to a characters reaction but take you out once leaning too long. The music played over the talking in the sauna scene that was distracting from the dialog and misplaced. The pace was off at time and the flash backs became confusing if not paying attention to details. But the script was amazing. The banter and subtext in the film is something to be studied. Thought most of the directors projects are more left to the viewer’s interpretation I wonder what the take away or message was. There are so many moments and povs it’s hard to see a narrow line or theme. In the end I think it’s about 3 kids that wanted to play pro tennis and got sucked into chasing those feelings and dreams. Tashi ended up injured and went through a mid crisis, and affair, her husband art rised but eventually lost his title and the other guy tried to chase his dream of tennis at the expense of his well being. I think after watching this im gonna enjoy the little things in front of me a bit more.
Question 1: writing, recording, editing, and branding are all done by me, and my girlfriend usually reads my scripts and gives me notes. That’s as much of a production team as I have. Question 2: no what is wrong with you lol
This logic falls apart when you realize the people who are also praising Saltburn could also not make Saltburn, as most of the film critics you follow are not direct filmmakers.
I loved Saltburn, it was funny and gross. I can understand some don't like it, but no one can take away the joy I felt when I first watched it. Fight me!
Guadagnino continues to be an underwhelming director. Just 20 minutes into the movie, I found myself wondering again and again how Almodóvar would have directed it.
The thing about this film that makes it sexy is that there isn't much sex. It's not a return to sex scenes in movies, it's a return of eroticism. These creators re-invented sexy for an audience that is constlatny sold sex. There is an overexposure of sexuality in our media and this film creates so beautifully, an "almost"t sex. They have truly understood and utilized the lost tool of erotisism in film. Making something erotic is hard to achieve without being 'boring' but they aced it with this film.
this
i heard that there isn't actually any s3x scenes in this movie... and yet it's one of the hottest ones in a while? that's my style!! tension is everything. i'm glad to hear the positive reviews. though perhaps with flaws. and i heard the ending is frustrating.
Just came out of the screening, and I have to say the ending is only frustrating if you don't stick to a certain metaphor that Tashi gives about tennis at the start. Personally, I think the movie is best enjoyed without taking it too seriously (not that it isn't a serious movie but it's supposed to be fun).
The ending was electric
The ending is really brilliant. Not sure why people don't enjoy it. And yes no sex scenes but it's imbued with sex and sensuality.
I actually really loved the ending! It truly felt like, well, a one giant, multi-character “release”, if you know what I mean lol.
And yes the sensuality, tension, and chemistry between all actors was phenomenal.
Side note, though: the only people who seem to feel it was TOO overtly seggual (sorry, YT keeps yeeting my comments :/) are people whose tummies throw a tantrum when they see two men kiss lol. In other words: if the same exact tension was only between M/F characters, nobody would describe this movie as scandalous, too seggual, etc. For me, this was one of the many reasons I freaking LOVED this entire film. Bi representation done authentically is hard to find!!
@@DannyD-lr5ygtotally agree. The pushing of the bromance to new bounds, it was disorienting to me, but so well done. I couldn’t help but get more engrossed in the story.
Soundtrack is also incredible. The fast paced synth over slow-mo of the characters walking added a lot to the edging
score* but 100% yes
Edging 😭
Added a lot to the what?
@@texassherman7093 edging
@@texassherman7093 they said EDGING 🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣
THE HITCH WHAT?
HE HITCHED HIS WHAT?!?
grow up
@@Uhohlisa I’m a 96 year old man jit, I seen the Magna Carta, I don’t care if I go blind I don’t need to see the price tag anyways. They straight bussin’ on me fool, my money so long it wraps around the circumference of the earth, twice. Top shelf Zaza disrupted my circadian rhythm. Opp was sneak dissing on the gram, turned his city into Pompeii.
- Zendaya fans watching this film.
😂
I left the theater with shaking legs, this movie rewired my brain and I'm being so serious
Can you explain more?
@burpie3258 probably that person is going emulate these characters in their personal life
We need a support group
Hey we saw you from across the tennis court and really dig your vibe, do you want to engage in a biblical level throuple over multiple decades?
It's funny that all three Spidermen, Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland, have been in war films, while their respective love interests, Kirsten Dunst, Emma Stone and Zendaya have been in tennis themed movies.
I saw that meme too ;)
This exact comment is on like every video about this movie
@@marlowemichaelson1366This is the first I’m hearing about Emma in tennis movie 🤷♂️
@@NiteOwl2000me too, what is the name of the movie?
@@matttheking1655 Battle of The Sexes
Thank you for saying this about Zendaya! She's phenomenal, but never used properly. Until now, and I'm now reassured she can handle the job of being a serious actress!
I've seen her in Euphoria and I think she's fantastic.
But I'd definitely appreciate it if she does choose more projects like this, she's phenomenal as an actor and this kind of film highlights her talent.
I know that it doesn't pay like Dune Part II, I know that, and she's probably the highest earning member of her family so I know that just like most actors she has to ... Provide. But I just hope she doesn't get to do projects that are like that one exclusively. I appreciate her efforts to try to do both and that's usually hard to pull off.
I was sitting in an IMAX theater waiting for an early screening of _The Fall Guy_ to start, and someone in front of me offhandedly said to their friend "I _need_ to see _Challengers_ again."
Between that and this, I'm sold. David Foster Wallace, eat your heart out.
i saw it twice in three days and going again this week. it's that good
@@dantikks in the time since I posted my original comment, I went and saw it.
Incredible film. Astounding. Unreal. Easy contender for best of the year.
@@LonkinPork I totally agree
@@dantikks inspired to go see it again it was so good. thankful there is a cinema near me STILL showing it.
that thumbnail is so funny to me
You can't just call Bones and All impotent with no explanation
thank christ ive found a youtuber that acknowledged the interpretation of cmbyn being an exploration of grooming trauma cuz i stg i came up with this interpretation years ago after relating it to my own trauma and everyone around me still sees it as a sweet romance 😭
agreed! me and my best friend adore cmbyn, but are often frustrated that the most popular positive sentiment is that it's a blissful depiction of a tragic, but ultimately wholesome, dynamic. i'm frustrated by much critique of the film as well, the criticism that it's "romanticizing abuse" which i've always found funny since like, yeah, the protagonist IS romanticizing their abuse. it's also true that the last shot of the film is the protagonist looking to the audience after crying throughout the ending credits.
Why are straight girls projecting their own shit so desperate to make one of the most revered and popular gay movies of all time sound more sinister than it is
What’s CMBYN?
@@emiliamorgan5052 Call Me By Your Name, another film by the director of Challengers ;)
@@emiliamorgan5052Call Me By Your Name - great film!
everything is about sex, except sex, that is about tennis
OR everything is about tennis except tennis, which is about sex
Love the strong stance against pickleball
How nice to see you review this amazing movie. I wasn’t expecting much at first, but the film is truly impressive on how addictive it is, thanks to the directing and the dynamics of the characters that are wonderfully portrayed by the 3 leads. Josh O'Connor particularly, who as always, shines.
This movie very electric, erotic (the way Guanamino shoots bodies and sexual tension is magnetic) and pop, and I missed those kind of movies in today’s cinema. Plus, it is one the few pieces of media where a love triangle has truly been represented as a real triangle : all sides are connected and are lusting about each other
Did you just call Bones and All impotent?
I wish I didn't expect more sex from this movie
ditto lmao extremely edged on
The score also. Incredible.
A Carmen Cortez reference in 2024 is exactly what I needed.
Yeah I love that he's around my age 😂
Attributing the word "impotent" to Bones and All is wild
As soon as you expressed your (correct) opinion on pickleball, I knew this was gonna be a great video
much to consider! saw this movie a few days ago and have similarly come alive after watching it. interested in checking out the other movies in the same vein you mentioned!
Greatest movie in a while. Purely delicious. Running to the cinema to watch it again.
I’m curious what you thought about Dune Part 2, I feel like Zendaya stars in the best films of this year by far
You guys ever watch Prince of Tennis?
Where in the film do they “constantly” wax poetic about how tennis is a relationship (since you say that’s your biggest criticism)? Tashi says it ONCE. What am I missing?
One example would be when Art straight up asks Tashi if she would leave him if he retired. Having that Conversation reinforces that she's with him due to tennis, making tennis explicit to the viewers. Would have been more subtle if the conversation doesn't occur and the audience is left understanding that she might leave him because of tennis, he swallows due to this possibility, but it's never explicitly stated.
Idk, it's moments like that, where they rely too much on the sport to make their points instead of using it as a metaphor. Because havjng that convo translates to us that tennis means everything to Tashi, like no other question. Instead, why not let usnumderstand how the sport meant and what it still means to her as a person. Let's get info about her love or need of the game and how it could have taken care of her family? Or how it was her gift and how that made her feel? Is the only thing we need to know is that she's so obsessed with tennis she will leave her husband over it? Makes it seems more shallow than she deserves, to me.
He doesn’t ask if she would leave him, he says “tell me it doesn’t matter [if I win tomorrow]…” and then asks “how are you gonna look at me if I still can’t beat Patrick Zweig?” Then she replies, “Like this…” *blank stare*
The writing is not as explicit as you’re remembering it. It’s subtle and nuanced, without being overly pretentious. What’s makes it great is that even beyond what’s said in the script there are layers to peel back on these characters and their interactions. That’s why there’s so many think pieces and essays with people expounding arguments on their precise meanings.
I felt I was given enough info to draw three fully-realized characters and understand their motivations. I left the theatre completely satisfied.
Also, LOVED that I pulled so many new revelations from a second viewing.
She does go on to tell him later that she will leave him if he loses
to be fair, media literacy is at a point right now where a lot of things can be stated visually or implied in conversation and it will still go over the heads of some audience members.
1) The grunting.
2) When choosing who to kiss first, she was glancing back and forth between them while sitting between them. Then she got them to kiss. The same thing happens during the tennis matches. She would sit in the middle of the audience between them. She would look back and forth. And in the end, the two guys embraced.
3) The sauna conversation demonstrated that talking about scoring in tennis was indistinguishable from talking about scoring at life, including marrying Tashi.
No frickin way I literally just watched strangers on a train in English class after watching challengers two weeks before how did I not see the similarities 😭😭
first 😭
p.s love your videos and analysis. I won't actually watch this until I catch the movie this weekend. Sure it's rad, love the thumbnail lol
Anyways, cheers! 😅
Loved your analysis. Felt everything you mentioned and will now seek out watching the movies you mentioned. You put words to my thoughts perfectly. The ending really was cathartic in the best way and tied a perfect bow on everything he was trying to do throughout. Loved the movie. Will definitely be watching again. My favorite aspect of this is the point you made, sexy ass movie without an actual sex scene. Lovely.
I came for tennis and eroticism and I stayed for pickleball slander
Thanks for saying Guadagnino so many times so now I know how to say it also 😂
No fr great video--I didn't even think about all the other old school Hollywood ways of talking about/depicting sex pre-Hays code!
sometimes I watch a movie just to watch your video on it, they are just that good; I think I’ll do that before subscribing to your patreon
What a well written script. I subscribed
I have never seen your channel before. I havent seen Challengers yet. Im a big fan of Guadagnino and tennis and I hate the idea of pickleball. So, you had me in the first two minutes.
Ah, Oscar Wilde!
Hey man, great video as usual. Where do you place your script when presenting? I ask because an appealing feature of your work is how smooth your delivery is. It's as though you're talking off of the top of your head. Very palatable.
Gotta argue that the 90s and aughts were less puritanical in comparison to today. Very few exceptions (polyamory and non-hetero fluidity being the most notable ones). Around 2010 the pendulum began swinging the other way with more social taboos, more self/popular (and corporate) censorship around art/media and social interactions. Drugs, language, sex/promiscuity...all more taboos today then back then.
Challengers is just a shonen battle anime final arc.
This review was fucking excellent.
here's the transcript (1/5):
There is precisely one reactionary belief I hold with pride. It's that pickleball is the harbinger of societal collapse, and we have an obligation to cling to tennis as the supreme racket sport lest we lose everything we hold dear. That's why I was excited to watch the new Luca Guadagnino film, which strives to not only breathe new life into tennis but also the erotic thriller, the mid-budget studio picture, and a series of foundational film theory concepts. These have been the go-to talking points online, as anyone who's acclimated to the white noise of scene discourse well knows. But I think the beauty of "Challengers" is not just that apparent return to form and "movies are back" sensation, but how it revitalizes those concepts with a modern sensibility.
Guadagnino, of course, is a filmmaker who's anything but reactionary. His work largely revolves around younger generations' incompatibility with the archaic moral systems they're brought up in. And his most popular movie weaponizes nostalgia as a tool of malice to romantically gloss over the trauma the main characters unknowingly experience. So it only makes logical sense that he would take the stuffiest sport that still has some relevance in the US, dwindling as it may be, and use it as a vehicle for sweaty threesome cuckold sexual reward and punishment. If nothing else, his proclivity for remaking classics is proof enough that he believes the past is not a sacred institution but rather a series of active dialogues that we should dust off, update, and keep in circulation. "The Swimming Pool," "Suspiria" - unimpeachable texts that, against all odds, he successfully resurrected and examined through different eyes with his inquisitive camera, creating something entirely new out of the old.
And while not a remake in and of itself, "Challengers" is in such direct conversation with "Strangers on a Train" that one can't help but imagine Guadagnino, upon considering the possibility of entering the tennis movie canon, leaping at the notion of taking on Hitchcock as his chosen artistic interlocutor. This time around, I think this is far and away his best work, especially after what I found to be a completely impotent previous film, "Bones and All." +
incredible thumbnail lmao
Taylor likes sports!
100% pretentious and 100% correct
I think I love you
Guadagnino is a snob and this movie is shallow af
i dont understand how ppl can watch euphoria and still question zendaya as an actress
good fuckin thumbnail
here's the transcript (5/5):
So as the story refrains from moving any faster than we'd like it to, the ballistic camera itself embodies that force of unexpended sexual energy driving our characters. The other, possibly more important factor, is that there are no actual sex scenes. Characters edge each other; a would-be sex scene is disrupted by Tashi and Patrick fighting. Characters describe sexual experiences, and Art and Patrick even develop shorthand within the structure of a tennis serve to communicate a specific sexual act. But the film relies on the world around these characters to externalize the act of sex, and it packs that world to the brim with innuendo, spanning a vast range of registers from tongue in cheek as Art throats Patrick's churro to epic and grandiose as a windstorm wreaks havoc on Tashi and Patrick, reigniting their impassioned infidelity.
So the film as a whole sort of edges the audience in this way, if you will. The central tennis match itself is basically one elongated sex scene, which is where the film becomes the latest entry in a genre I'm calling "everything is about sex except sex." Except the sex that everything else is about is also about sex, like the literary psych proverb suggests: everything is about sex, and sex is about power to an extent, especially in Tashi's case. But there's an additional full-circle quality where it's also celebrating sex itself.
Art struggles with a sort of general impotence regarding every facet of his life, lethargic in his marriage, sleepwalking on the court, but he's also literally not having sex. So Tashi's psychosexual ploy ends up being partly about rectifying and erecting all these pieces of his life, using sex to fuel the power dynamic of the sport as he metaphorically gets it up. But then the sport swings back around into this extended metaphor about sex. Honestly, it's not even an extended metaphor at that point. Through its many layers of obfuscation and roleplay, the match really becomes a literal sex act.
While the movie largely plays like a more conventional heteronormative battle between two men over a woman who's the mutual object of their desire, we're shown quite explicitly the homoerotic backbone between Art and Patrick's relationship. In fact, I don't think it's possible to overstate how deeply this is baked into every prop, every conversational double meaning, the body language and their every interaction. Narratively, this goes all the way down to their most formative sexual experience: learning to masturbate, in which Patrick's antagonism is effectively seared into Art's very conception of sexual gratification.
Tashi quite literally emulates Indiana Joneses herself out for each of them to the other, job and Tony, wonders them, Lady Gaga, and the golden rules them. Really, it's a tale as old as time, but after this first incredibly direct instance of the old switcheroo, this is the game she continues to play with them on broader, subtler, and more conceptual levels throughout the rest of their career. As they each think they're only after Tashi, a certain other Lonely Island bar permeates throughout their encounters with her. You know what? Maybe Andy Samberg actually ghostwrote this entire movie.
But in maintaining ostensible heterosexual plausible deniability, closing us out with a fraternal hug rather than laying pipe directly on the court, this sexual anguish remains at once dormant and also released. Art takes back control over his life, his career, his marriage, his image, his relationship with Patrick, and the missing cog in the sexual clockwork. So it embodies friendship and power and jealousy and greed and lust and betrayal and fatigue and family values and mortality. But it also circles back around to sex for sex's sake.
Art and Patrick need each other; they need Tashi to bring them together, and she needs them to live vicariously through. It's an odd but perfect harmony that they all seem to recognize at the exact same moment. And I think, in that sense, Guadagnino's gambit proved sound. And this ending, with its undeniable sexual release within the restrictions it sets up for itself, proves worthy of Hitchcock sending his train through a tunnel. Frankly, this is the best new release I've seen in a long time, by a significant margin above anything I watched last year. It just makes you feel alive and reinvigorates your sense of worth and determination and, invariably, your sex drive. Through purely cinematic language, it makes you want to go back and watch all the movies it's in conversation with. But it also makes you excited for the future of cinema. And above all else, it pumps you with pure adrenaline and makes you want to go out there and hit something with a racket. And no, not a pickleball racket. I'm talking full-bodied, curvaceous tennis. And for that alone, my hats off to Guadagnino and his team. That's it from me on "Challengers."
It is funny that some of the most acclaimed movies of the last few years that I’ve also loved are incredibly sexual in nature. Maybe we’re finally ready to admit it ain’t as bad as violence lol.
They're not sexual in nature, they're sapiosexual in nature.
You see, there's a difference 😉
There's thought, effort, and a true artistic vision put in the making of a film like this. Otherwise any mindless porno would be a "great film" ..
We know it don't be working like that. If filmmakers manage to do it like this, they have my attention. If all artists do it like this, they have my attention.
If they make it crass, dumb, and tactless. They can, no disrespec ... Err actually I mean to disrespect because I will feel disrespected, please f+-k off! 😊
And that's what every respectable film reviewer would tell them as well.
Haven't seen much analysis being done on Challengers (aside from the memes), but this is easily the best one. Don't know if you take film/TV suggestions, but would love to hear your thoughts on The Boys!
I loved this movie. And I find that when I judge the movie, I’m being judged right back 😳 (in a good way). When I think, “Tashi evil,” “No, Tashi good”, I have to ask myself why does the Madonna/wh**e duality need to exist in 2024. Same with other characters. Why am I so basic in my conception of human character and behavior 😂.
not every video needs the word lest
Could you do a video about La Chimera?
crash 1996 mention yayyy
here's the transcript (4/5):
But it still works because it's clear these characters share a bond over one common interest, one common language, and it just so happens that that language is about tennis and sex. Considering tennis's forced etiquette in terms of Guadagnino versus Hitchcock, one can't help but think of the parallel between these puritanical rules and the Hays Code, which Hitchcock himself rebelled against with such brazen images as the "North by Northwest" closer. In many ways, it's a fool's errand to try and outdo Hitchcock in terms of sheer repressed sexual energy; nearly every motif of his boils down to some sort of sexual punchline. "Rope's" leading men are oozing sexual tension that the Hollywood system would not legally allow to come to fruition, and thus it became even sexier.
The irony of "Challengers" is that the key back-to-tradition talking point people have celebrated is, in fact, a return to a tradition of more sex, more eroticism. We're living in the least puritanical times in modern history. Just last year, we found explicit sex comedy at the heart of one of the most lauded films of the year, as well as sexual deviancy driving the year's most popular piece of garbage. Because actual societal taboos are dwindling at a rapid rate, there's nothing like the Hays Code to rebel against, and therefore less room for the kind of explosive sexual repression Hitchcock was tapping into. With effectively too much leniency to do whatever they want, filmmakers need to figure out new ways to restrain themselves in order to evoke the same sense of libidinal dam bursting.
Adding to a more sexually liberal status quo is the increasingly liberating filmmaking technology that's developed in the past 70 years. In a world where a cop car can leap over a drone flying 60 MPH, there are no restrictions placed on the physical capabilities of the camera. Even shooting on lush 35mm, Guadagnino takes full advantage of this mobility with his most hyperactive camera yet. There's a shot where the CGI tennis ball seems to be served through the lens and looking at the audience at my screening, you would have thought a train was arriving at the station in 1890s Paris or that Carmen Cortez was reaching through the theater screen in 2003, two milestones of equal import.
We briefly take on a perspective from under the ground looking up, court lines chocked over our eyes, and at one point, we literally embody the POV of the tennis ball. If the film is so visually bombastic all the time, how could there possibly be room for restraint and repression? That's the magic trick of "Challengers." For one, the pace is actually deceptively glacial. The film's nonlinear approach is confounding at first and seemingly all over the place. We hop from present day to flashback a week before to way earlier flashback, back to present, back to earlier flashback, and it takes a good 30 minutes for the triple timeline to really click. Once it does, though, not only does it retroactively justify that acclamation period, but its cross-cutting is like Dunkirk. It's this insanely high energy, and even though it doesn't have the principled timeline rigidity of Christopher Nolan, even at its most controlled, even attempting to formally mimic the back and forth of a tennis match, it's a little all over the place. You get the sense that we're receiving information at the times most crucial to our understanding of the present and also at the times that crank up tension at the most intuitive rate. This means a 10-second interaction between Art and Patrick on the court will take minutes, slowed down almost past the point of motion. The slow-mo only becomes more extreme the deeper we get into the film, and by the last 15 minutes or so, we're practically screaming for things to pick up because the anticipation is so agonizing. +
here's the transcript (3/5):
And this is where the conceit of "Challengers" really opens up. It's a simple question: what if two were, instead (and stay with me here), three? That's right, a dramaturgical triad. The odd number is incompatible with tennis, which deals in pairs every which way. Hitchcock gets around this by erasing Guy's physical tennis opponent and replacing him mentally with Bruno, preserving that binary relationship. But "Challengers" calls the bluff. It says no, there is a person on the other side of the court, and he is an essential part of the dynamic here. Note that Art and Patrick are coded with white and black wardrobe, respectively, calling to mind the color dichotomy between good and evil at the heart of classic westerns, and one of the old tricks in the book. But as "Challengers" unfolds and we learn more about the relationship, we see that coding Patrick as the villain is really a misdirect, and everyone's morals are murkier than we were initially led to believe.
This is not just a series of esoteric filmmaking devices; the incompatibility of three is the backbone of the film's social context as well. Just as it boggles the nature of the one-on-one or 2v2 game, it also defies heteronormative monogamous society. It's no coincidence that the movie revolves around the only popular sport in which bad etiquette has a material impact on the game score. Unlike the unwritten rules of baseball, which has long since dropped any gentlemanly affectations, an obscenity can dock you a point in tennis. And through the film's taffy-like stretching and retracting of puritanism, Guadagnino and screenwriter Justin Kuritzky have weaponized the sport as a microcosm of the broader societal scrutiny.
It's directly at odds with, in which any expression of rage or resentment against the status quo of the game is strictly punished. So repression builds and workarounds are formulated. On a practical mathematical level, the way this works out is that as only two people can be on the court at the same time or the same team in doubles, so too can only two people be in a relationship at the same time. Tashi, who understands the psychology of the sport better than Art or Patrick, spells this out for them in their first encounter, refusing to be with both of them at the same time and laying the foundation for everything that's to come.
This is the same tension that's at the heart of every love triangle, in which power dynamics and favoritism are inevitable. But rather than tracking their demise, which would essentially affirm mononormativity, the movie sees them perform a sort of calculus throughout the match that allows them to retain their unity in a delicate balance.
I would feel ostentatious talking about the movie in such lofty terms if the film itself weren't so quick to make these same sociological observations. In fact, I'd say my biggest gripe with the movie is just how explicitly Kuritzky communicates the idea of tennis as a relationship, as the characters constantly wax poetic about it. To an extent, these relationships are implicit to tennis and need no explaining, especially when the visual language is so committed to blatantly conveying this on a sensory level, emphasizing each sweat-beading pore on Feist and O'Connor's faces. +
We’re gonna see a hell of a lot more of the Justin Kuritzkes and Celine Song taking over Hollywood and I’m here for it, they’re such a breath of fresh air, they make good art and shockingly it also has mainstream appeal and popularity, those two things hardly go together nowadays.
"I haven't been sold on Zendaya as an actor" Did you watch Euphoria?!! She's amazing in it
I remember when this dude sang Brown Eyed Girl with Julia Roberts in Sleeping with the Enemy.
I appreciate the fact that you brought up ‘Strangers on a Train’, as ‘Challengers’ is definitely highly inspired by it and no one else has brought it up
Honestly even when it said Hitchcock in the title i wasnt even sure if he’d bring it up becuz no one else seems to, even if there is very evident homages, like the one sole figure staring straight ahead while the crowd moves their head back and forth. Strangers on A Train is easily one my favourite Hitchcock film, is it the best probably not, but its quite underrated for how great it is, and makes tennis so damn tense
Good job with the thumbnail 😂
But yeah this movie was absolutely incredible
Best thumbnail in the business
this movie was dumb and pointless. there I said it
please expound, I'm genuinely curious
@@confused_reader I thought there were many issues with it. On a surface level yes it was entertaining at times, because I always felt like I was waiting for something to happen - for the real plot or movie to begin, which never happened.
I didn’t think any of the lead characters had real chemistry with eachother. The two men felt almost as if they were foils but it wasn’t quite the case because their motivations for the most part felt vague. They weren’t similar or dissimilar in ways that added to the mounting suspense that was being built or to some kind of felt poetic or enigmatic purpose. For example, We were told by other characters Artie wanted to quit but we were never explained why or actually much about his background or the kind of person he was at all. Everything about him we were told as true by the other characters but it actually wasn’t reflected in the acting, cinematography etc which should have done the leg work for that. Same issue with Tasha and patrick. The flashbacks sucked out progression to the story where we could actually feel like something is happening. The camera work was overdone. The pan back and forth between people is so clearly reflective of a tennis ball flying through the air, I got that quickly so by the 15th time it happens I’m feeling just annoyed. You don’t need to spell it out for your audience.
I felt like it actually wasn’t erotic enough - there should have been pay off for the suspense, the fact that theirs not feels accidental, not purposeful as some sort of meditation on eroticism? I don’t get why patrick clearly likes Artie, and Artie doesn’t feel the same, that wasn’t really explored? Actually many scenes I thought were pretty boring, and the best 3 scenes I would say were the 3 way scene, the Tasha and patrick hooking up scene towards the end and the ending was good, however a bit anti climactic. They hug at the end - feels like a poor attempt to wrap the story up to a thesis? Again, the camera work I thought was really not well composed compositionally and spatially speaking it didn’t make sense with what was happening in the story, or the story should have leaned more into the setting the camera work provides..: thanks for asking lol
For me his I'm love and CMBYN are his best works. Have not seen Challenger. Thrilled to watch!!!!!
obscenities get you immediately kicked in football lol
what an incredible insightful review!
i laughed at a couple punchlines love it, thank you!
Tennis is great precisely because of its aversion to individualism.
You mean celebration of individualism?
? Its the opposite of a team sport, which is why i’d kinda love to see it more in film, it is precisely about individualism, about personal rivalries/duels played out across a sport, about 1v1, i’m sick of all the constant team-sports films, of only a select few sports, we’ve seen for years and years.
nah pickleball is dope lol
Really knowledgeable and thoroughly hype review under the guise of a chill presentation.
Subscribed! Movies are actually back
You cooked
Degreee in yapology
I wanna know what you think of love lies bleeding
As an fan of De Palma, Adrian Lyne, Paul Verhoeven, and others, I find it bizarre that a film like Challenger is considered an "erotic thriller"; it's practically sexless, and I'm not referring to it being explicit, but rather how sanitized and safe it is in addressing desire.
thank u for an amazing synopsis/analysis
I can follow your points, yet this movie did not click for me at all. The concept of 'the whole movie taking place during one match' with its accompanying time jumps was just awfully contrived and inefficient storytelling to me. I did love the score, but it was edited with so many fits and starts that it never really took off viscerally. The homoeroticism felt tacked on and not more than some cinematic seasoning, never a thing to be seriously dealt with. The one time Patrick likes a guy on Tinder it's played as a joke because he really needs a place to stay.
Maybe this movie is just something I did not want it to be, but I left the theater pretty underwhelmed.
this film made my bisexual hormones explode
Greatest movie of all time
You nail it absolutely every time
Hehehe thumbnail
I mean Zen did a great job but she just acted like a more serious and slightly edgier “MJ from spider man homecoming honestly
Don’t wanna be that person but VALIDATION!
Dude, I think you are extremely intelligent, but you have to find some color in your voice.
The human brain stops registering speech after 5 seconds of you stay on the same vocal amd tonal level. I always have to rewind your videos because im always completely blanking on what you are saying.
great vid!!
The way you talk about the film i feel undermines the fact that the script was written first and then guadagnino saw the script and liked it, and the writer thought that he really understood what he was trying to communicate in the script. I'm not trying to downplay the director's involvement, but i feel like you make it sound like he came up with the story in this film
Writers get fucked in Hollywood. Tale as old as cinema.
Loved this!
whats the movie at 0:46 ????
series called we are who we are, also directed by guadagnino
@@Sophilos9 thank you!!!
Brilliant analysis. Thanks.
No s3x scenes with that kind of thumbnail?
My disappointment is is immeasurable and my day is ruined 😂
Very intelligent … the comparison to Hitchcock’s “Strangers on a Tain” is very insightful, and now that you mention it … a significant homage.
but I have the first large scale performance-art reference using tennis as a metaphor for sexual ménage … that would be Nijinsky’s ballet Jeux “Games”) in performed in Paris 1913
Zendaya didn’t act her ass off in euphoria for yall to continuously undermined her talent
The plot , characters and performances were on point It just came down to the experimental editing choice for me. There are cool tennis shots but the shots tend to linger too long. Like when Toshi was by the car or camera glance that pan to a characters reaction but take you out once leaning too long. The music played over the talking in the sauna scene that was distracting from the dialog and misplaced. The pace was off at time and the flash backs became confusing if not paying attention to details. But the script was amazing. The banter and subtext in the film is something to be studied. Thought most of the directors projects are more left to the viewer’s interpretation I wonder what the take away or message was. There are so many moments and povs it’s hard to see a narrow line or theme. In the end I think it’s about 3 kids that wanted to play pro tennis and got sucked into chasing those feelings and dreams. Tashi ended up injured and went through a mid crisis, and affair, her husband art rised but eventually lost his title and the other guy tried to chase his dream of tennis at the expense of his well being. I think after watching this im gonna enjoy the little things in front of me a bit more.
one of the best thumbnails ive seen in a minute
This guys a fucking genius
do you have a production team? is any of this ai?
Question 1: writing, recording, editing, and branding are all done by me, and my girlfriend usually reads my scripts and gives me notes. That’s as much of a production team as I have.
Question 2: no what is wrong with you lol
Imagine a dude who couldn't make Saltburn if he tried his entire life calling it garbage, as if the concept of sour grapes is nonexistent.
People are allowed to not like things, Jerry.
This logic falls apart when you realize the people who are also praising Saltburn could also not make Saltburn, as most of the film critics you follow are not direct filmmakers.
I mean, "garbage" can also be a compliment.
I loved Saltburn, it was funny and gross. I can understand some don't like it, but no one can take away the joy I felt when I first watched it. Fight me!
@@JamesTAbernathyAgree!
Something that apparents being complex and referencial doesn't mean it's good.
Guadagnino continues to be an underwhelming director. Just 20 minutes into the movie, I found myself wondering again and again how Almodóvar would have directed it.
It would probably look more artificial if he had.
This is one of the worst, most shallow reviews I've ever watched lmao