challengers - good if u like Luca’s style

Loved it. Favourite release of the year so far.

Was the point of CMBYN that the relationship was unhealthy? I remember the movie being criticized for that as if it were unaware. A lot of the actual filnige forgotten, save stuff like the shorts sniffing.

I viewed Challengers twice and deemed it "good" both times.

In Challengers, an athletic female tennis sensation becomes the desired object of two male tennis players. But once at playing career. Eventually, she chooses one of the men as her husband and decides to While this plot line seems like it could invite a sentimental or self-serious approach, the movie’s tone instead proves much wryer, almost tongue-in-cheek yet without losing the beat of genuine intrigue.

The film is engrossing, and the casting and acting of the three leads (Zendaya, Mike Faist, Josh O'Connor) work well. Luca Guadagnino's visual style reflects some irony in certain compositions. For instance, when the two male friends—and eventual rivals—see Tashi (Zendaya) play tennis for the first time, when they are all still teenagers, circa 2006, eventually their heads stop swiveling back and forth and remain tilted in her direction entirely, and Guadagnino's camera just holds on the shot from some distance, drying and ironically reflecting their attraction. Likewise, in a later shot from 2019 when they are all adults and Tashi is in the stands—but disillusioned by the situation, as her fading champion husband, Art (Faist), struggles against Patrick (O'Connor)—Guadagnino's camera just holds on her (again, from some distance) as she stares straight ahead, her head not moving as everyone else in the stands looks back and forth. In other words, Guadagnino, in certain instances, uses still shots, longer takes, and medium-range distances to skillfully indicate humor and knowing irony. He also showcases the tennis action effectively through camera movement, dynamic editing, and varying points of view, depending on the situation and stage of the film. 

Challengers' most intriguing aspect is the homorerotic, if not homosexual, angle, teased occasionally when Tashi talks about not wanting to be a "home wrecker" and then made most explicit in the makeout scene on the bed, when they are all teenagers. As she makes out with both males, who are flanking her on the bed, Tashi eventually This scene works more as metaphor than as realism and thus emphasizes the angle that Guadagnino teases. 

The film's plotting becomes shakier—more desperate—in its later stages, as writer Justin Kuritzkes seems to be searching for a satisfying resolution, one that is both logical and metaphorically effective. But while shaky, the resolution and conclusion work, especially by reiterating the idea—expressed by Tashi much earlier in the movie—that "tennis is a relationship." And ultimately, that is what Challengers is about, too: relationships. The film blends comedy with drama, the narrative moves with unrushed momentum, and the movie is serious while remaining unpretentious—an improvement, perhaps, on the director's previous work. Overall, then, the film amounts not to an "ace," but at least to solid groundstroke "winner." 

The analogy is ironic, because Whiplash is really more of a sports (or military) movie rather incongruously, and artificially, transferred to the world of music and jazz. That transference creates a fresh context, but it does not make much sense intellectually. 

I like Whiplash, which I just saw again in the theater after having originally done so in the early winter of 2015. It is "good": tense and engrossing, with strong performances, compelling cinematography (especially in terms of the lighting), excellent editing, and a nice feel for varied pacing (sometimes quicker, sometimes slower). But unlike Challengers, the motifs do not really fit the subject matter in Whiplash. (Jazz, for instance, is centrally about improvisation, not succumbing to dictation, and Charlie Parker's obsessive practicing was about creative joy and finding his own unique voice, not simply playing as fast as possible and making something perfect.) I also find Challengers much more fulfilling emotionally, whereas Whiplash strikes me as rather empty in that regard. It is also less consistent, tonally. 

The advantage of Whiplash is a simpler, sharper story, whereas Challengers' narrative is more unwieldly, even desperate at times. 

But, ultimately, it works.