How does Zendaya tennis film ‘Challengers’ rank with other Hollywood love matches
To achieve greatness, the movie needs to provide genuine excitement and realistic drama on the court.
“Challengers,” a sexy tennis love triangle from acclaimed director Luca Guadagnino and budding superstar Zendaya, has generated enough buzz and rave reviews that it may reach No. 1 in the rankings.
But even if the story, directing and acting are all aces, to achieve greatness the movie still needs to provide genuine excitement and realistic drama on the court.
To provide an air of credibility, the film hired former pro and veteran analyst Brad Gilbert to consult on the film and to train Zendaya for three months; Guadagnino says she got so good he barely had to use her tennis stunt double in the film.
It should be an improvement over “Wimbledon,” with Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany, and not just because of “Wimbledon’s” flimsy dialogue. When Bettany reaches the Wimbledon finals, director Richard Loncraine relies on quick cuts, distracting camera movement, and close-ups of footwork and foreshortened shots from the players’ backs – they feel like shortcuts and drain away any sense that real tennis was played.
By contrast, “Battle of the Sexes,” which is less about tennis and more about Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) and the fight for women’s equality, gives its tennis showdown between King and Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) its proper due. Directors Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton often shot from above and behind like a typical tennis match on television. This provides a familiar vantage point and allowed them to use tennis doubles, future pro Kaitlyn Christian and former pro Vince Spadea to have real rallies. (Rigg’s former coach and King herself consulted on the grips the players used and other details.) They also trusted the viewer and let points develop, including the moment of triumph where King shrewdly lobs to Riggs’ backhand and then finishes him off with a slice down the line.
Good tennis cannot save a bad movie like “16-Love,” an insipid 2012 teen romance featuring Lindsey Shaw and Chandler Massey. Massey was cast partly because of his tennis skills and Shaw’s rival was played by Susie Abromeit, who had been a top-ranked junior but a weak script and poor directing renders all that irrelevant.
On the other hand, good tennis can enhance a stronger movie, like the acclaimed 2020 French drama “Final Set.” Director Quentin Reynaud had played competitively as a youth and the star, Alex Lutz, trained enough to look believable during practice. For Lutz’s opponent in the big match, Reynaud cast French pro Jurgen Briand, who gives the points a thrilling realism, which makes Reynaud’s arty shots – swinging shadows and fancy footwork in the red clay as well as balletic slo-mo close-ups – feel earned, adding to the drama instead of distracting from it.
There are plenty of movies and TV series that give tennis a cameo, typically for main characters who are amateurs. They frequently play the scenes for laughs – it’s often clichéd as in “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” which wastes Andy Roddick as a coach in a scene that falls flat. But when done well, or with charming stars, it can still be effective: a brief scene in “Annie Hall” with Diane Keaton’s title character playing with a carefree glee perfectly introduces her “la-di-da” character; on “Seinfeld,” Jerry’s one good forehand launches a ball machine attack that nails Kramer in the head; and “Bachelor Party” is silly and forgettable but watching Tom Hanks childishly launch home runs while playing his future in-laws is still a delight.
Then there’s the tennis as combat, whether played broadly in “Bridesmaids” to the soundtrack of AC/DC’s “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” or with more nuance as dramatic marital warfare between Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney in Noah Baumbach’s “The Squid and The Whale.” (The cheesiest version of this is “Hart to Hart,” the 1980s crime show that once featured Martina Navratilova as herself playing in a mixed doubles match; the overuse of closeups wasted Navratalova’s talent before the contrived plot devolved into an on-court shooting.)
The exception is “Red Oaks,” a coming-of-age series that featured tennis prominently, with Craig Roberts as a tennis pro at the club and Paul Reiser, as a wealthy but aging weekend warrior. Set in the 1980s, it was able to capture the game as played at that level in that time. (Reiser’s opponent in the big season finale club match is none other than Brad Gilbert.)
Most movies with tennis as a notable part of the plot focus on elite athletes. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 classic, “Strangers on a Train,” depicts a tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) caught up in the murder scheme of a psychopath, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). Taut and tense, but with little tennis, Hitchcock starts off the climactic match with long shots that capture the sport’s dramatic potential. But as the tension builds, Hitchcock, intercutting between Guy’s match and Bruno’s escapades, dilutes the tennis with close-ups, odd angles that don’t suit the sport and intrusive music.
More impressive, tennis-wise, was “Pat and Mike,” the 1952 romcom with Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. While the movie pales compared to their other films like “Adam’s Rib,” it was written to display Hepburn’s tennis and golf skills. Hepburn had no stunt double and in one big match played Gussie Moran, a recent Wimbledon finalist. The rallies are realistic and well shot and there’s also an entertaining section when Hepburn’s character’s controlling fiance shows up and she becomes so distracted that her game falls apart as she hallucinates her fiance in the umpire chair and her racket shrinking while Moran’s grows.
Wimbledon, unsurprisingly, frequently commands center stage… or Centre Court. Beyond “Wimbledon,” there’s “Borg-McEnroe,” about the epic 1980 Wimbledon final. John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf miraculously pulls out a 20-minute fourth set tiebreaker, 18-16, before Bjorn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) coolly prevails 8-6 in the final set.
While the film devotes 20 minutes to the match, it fails to do the tiebreaker justice. It does show dynamite points like McEnroe nailing a leaping backhand volley off a Borg lob, or Borg whipping a passing shot down the line. While the scenes can appear like actors doing impressions of the players in between their tennis doubles hitting the real shots, the rallies have an air of authenticity. But as tension mounts, director Janus Metz Pedersen loses interest in the tennis itself, shifting to close-ups to show emotional and physical strain along with montages that feel cliche.
In “7 Days in Hell,” the tennis, such as it is, exists outside of criticism. This riotous Andy Samberg mockumentary parodies the longest match in tennis history, a three-day Wimbledon battle between John Isner and Nicholas Mahut that finished with the score of 70-68 in the final set. Samberg’s Aaron Williams ups his game by snorting cocaine he had hidden in his water bottle and the court’s lines. In this never-ending match, Williams and Kit Harrington’s Charles Poole have a lengthy rally at the net while both are prone after diving for shots. It’s as far from realistic as possible but it works perfectly on its own terms.
Ultimately, the greatest tennis film of all time is “King Richard,” directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green. In telling the story of Venus and Serena Williams and their father, Green featured more drilling and match play than any other film. He also frequently shot the tennis shots with a low camera angle from behind the players, allowing the viewer to see the action in a way that, say, “Wimbledon” did not, while still creating a sense of immediacy and urgency.
And in the final match at the end between 14-year-old Venus and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, he repeatedly mixed in mid-range shots with long shots while giving the points time to build dramatically as they would in a real tennis match. While the teen loses that match, it is fitting that when it comes to tennis movies, the undeniable champ features the unsurpassable Williams sisters.