Luca Guadagnino's latest tennis themed sojourn in to matters of desire deploys sex as both narrative driving force and visual pleasure. What's not to like? Well...
I watched this the other day for the fourth time! The first time I saw it I didn’t read Tashi as really being into either of them, they’re like avatars for the sport, she’s so into the competitive aspect and that’s the turn on for her. I read her as being almost like a dom. Watching it again recently she doesn’t want Art to retire because that’s the end of living vicariously through his career. When he reunites with Patrick and finds that spark again that keeps something lit for her too. I think it’s all very metaphorical and really about tennis not explicitly about sex. The sex is a means to an end, to stay in the game.
Thanks for this Swabreen. That's a really interesting point and I think I probably is the way the film should be taken. I undoubtedly need to see the film again as I only watched it once and probably took it too literally. What I perhaps didn't say in my piece, or emphasise enough is how how much the film does invest in visual please and you're right that the tennis as metaphor is key to that.
Personally, I loved the film. I found it extremely exciting in all ways. The combination of sport, sex, play and manipulation were really entertaining and I'd like to believe it was an intentional decision on Guadanino's part to conserve this very visible superficiality. I find that the superficiality you deftly mention in your essay is actually a form of satire, representing the world we currently live in: highly eroticizes, competitive, where women control endless rivalries from the shadows. I felt that the "kitschy" close-ups and exaggerated shots were all a way of adding humor and plapitations to the film. I think it's a great example, though, to talk about eroticism and sex in film, for sure; but to me, the sex was meant to be comical.
I don't disagree with any of your reading. I just read what you are suggest the "hyper-satirisation" as part of the cultural undercutting that we see in so much cinema. It wasn't sexy to me, it was silly, and that's fine. Probably completely intentional as you suggest. My main problem was that I just didn't understand what the relationship dynamics were supposed to be, and I don't think "the film" knew either. It was just much more throwaway than I guess I was hoping for.
I watched this the other day for the fourth time! The first time I saw it I didn’t read Tashi as really being into either of them, they’re like avatars for the sport, she’s so into the competitive aspect and that’s the turn on for her. I read her as being almost like a dom. Watching it again recently she doesn’t want Art to retire because that’s the end of living vicariously through his career. When he reunites with Patrick and finds that spark again that keeps something lit for her too. I think it’s all very metaphorical and really about tennis not explicitly about sex. The sex is a means to an end, to stay in the game.
Thanks for this Swabreen. That's a really interesting point and I think I probably is the way the film should be taken. I undoubtedly need to see the film again as I only watched it once and probably took it too literally. What I perhaps didn't say in my piece, or emphasise enough is how how much the film does invest in visual please and you're right that the tennis as metaphor is key to that.
Personally, I loved the film. I found it extremely exciting in all ways. The combination of sport, sex, play and manipulation were really entertaining and I'd like to believe it was an intentional decision on Guadanino's part to conserve this very visible superficiality. I find that the superficiality you deftly mention in your essay is actually a form of satire, representing the world we currently live in: highly eroticizes, competitive, where women control endless rivalries from the shadows. I felt that the "kitschy" close-ups and exaggerated shots were all a way of adding humor and plapitations to the film. I think it's a great example, though, to talk about eroticism and sex in film, for sure; but to me, the sex was meant to be comical.
I don't disagree with any of your reading. I just read what you are suggest the "hyper-satirisation" as part of the cultural undercutting that we see in so much cinema. It wasn't sexy to me, it was silly, and that's fine. Probably completely intentional as you suggest. My main problem was that I just didn't understand what the relationship dynamics were supposed to be, and I don't think "the film" knew either. It was just much more throwaway than I guess I was hoping for.