If you blend Rush's study of bitter rivalry with Whiplash's analysis of driven intensity, you might get something that looks a little like Borg vs. McEnroe, director Janus Metz's portrait of the two men at the center of one of the greatest showdowns in tennis history. There aren't many movies about tennis coming out of Hollywood every year, but even in this case, the sport is merely being used as a stand-in for greater themes of competition, determination, and the enduring appeal of winning. That being said, it's hard to imagine any past or future tennis films matching up to the level of tension and grim seriousness achieved throughout Borg vs. McEnroe, which finds a complex duality in the contrast of its two leads. Both a gripping character study and a detailed recreation of this iconic tennis match, Metz's film shows an admiration and reverence towards its subject that results in some nicely rendered sequences and a few great performances. It's just unfortunate that the film ultimately feels so thin, unable to tie together its big ideas and entertaining moments into a thematically cohesive, satisfying whole.
On paper, Björn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) and John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf) could not be more different. Borg is the machine, a man with a carefully regimented schedule optimized for nothing but winning. He's won Wimbledon four times in a row, and this year, he could winning his stunning fifth consecutive title. On the other hand, McEnroe is the brash upstart, the vulgar and profane rising star who is changing the gentleman's game in numerous ways. At the 1980 Wimbledon Championships, this growing rivalry reaches its most intense point, as Borg and McEnroe prepare to face off in the final. But as they reflect on the paths that led them to this point, the two stars find much to admire in the other's approach. One wishes they could win effortlessly, the other wishes they could show even the slightest hint of emotion on the court. As these conflicting emotions intensify, the final showdown arrives, with two men set to change the course of the game they love.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a really serious movie. Striking just the right tone is difficult, maybe even impossible, so I don't fault a dramatic filmmaker who chooses to make a movie with as little comic relief as humanly possible. But when your film is this serious, you have to earn it. You have to justify to your audience that this story and these characters demand the most straight-faced and intense treatment imaginable. It's hard to pull that off in any situation, but it's especially challenging in a movie about tennis. And I don't say this to knock tennis! It's a fun sport and I enjoy watching Wimbledon in the summer, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of athletic brutality. Borg vs. McEnroe is so grim and punishing in its utterly humorless approach, and it never manages to justify that decision in any way. Borg and McEnroe clearly led regimented and challenging lives, but they were also two of the most famous and popular athletes of their time. They had to have smiled at least once in a while, right?
The film's faults do not lie in the performances of Sverrir Gudnason or Shia LaBeouf. They both take this specific version of these icons and deliver something surprising and insightful, finding the most battered and conflicted aspects of their personalities and digging in. Gudnason's Borg seems to be in the midst of an existential crisis, fending off a desire to end his streak of perfection and express some kind of mortality. In the midst of McEnroe's fire and fury, LaBeouf finds anger as a side effect of imperfections, the result of decades of falling just short of "the best." In these two characters, there's a fascinating contrast, as it's evident they both represent something that the other is missing. McEnroe strives for machine-like efficiency, while Borg desperately wishes he could let his emotional armor down for just one millisecond. This dynamic is by far the film's most compelling aspect, providing some sharp commentary on the nature of competition and perfection.
It's a credit to director Janus Metz and screenwriter Ronnie Sandahl that this unique mental relationship between Borg and McEnroe is conveyed in such a captivating manner. However, the truth of the matter is that the natural constraint of a real life story eventually hinders the movie. Here's the thing- Borg and McEnroe didn't really know each other before they stopped onto the court in the 1980 Wimbledon Final. They weren't friends, they weren't rivals, and they didn't really have any serious connection to each other. This isn't a James Hunt/Niki Lauda situation. It just ended up being a really good tennis match between two greats, and in the world of the film, it ultimately feels like an inevitability. Since so much of the film's motivation is based in the abstract, it's hard to feel any emotional push-or-pull in the extended finale, which makes up much of the third act. Metz and Sandahl do a good job of making sure we don't root for one player over the other, but they fail to solve much of the emotional drama that came before. Despite a strong cinematic recreation of the match, Borg vs. McEnroe's ending feels surprisingly out of step with the rest of the film.
There's a lot to like here, and Metz is clearly a filmmaker to watch. Borg vs. McEnroe is intelligent, intriguing, and even intermittently thrilling, but its impressive individual aspects fail to cohere into anything truly substantial. If the film settled any of its internal conflict in the otherwise entertaining finale, then we might have a different situation on our hands. But in its current state, the "they became friends and everything was great" ending rings hopelessly false in the context of the rest of the film. Throw in the relentless self-seriousness, and Borg vs. McEnroe ends up being something of a mixed bag. Maybe we'll get a great tennis film when the time for Federer vs. Nadal rolls around.
THE FINAL GRADE: C+ (6.4/10)
Images: NEON/IMDb
On paper, Björn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) and John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf) could not be more different. Borg is the machine, a man with a carefully regimented schedule optimized for nothing but winning. He's won Wimbledon four times in a row, and this year, he could winning his stunning fifth consecutive title. On the other hand, McEnroe is the brash upstart, the vulgar and profane rising star who is changing the gentleman's game in numerous ways. At the 1980 Wimbledon Championships, this growing rivalry reaches its most intense point, as Borg and McEnroe prepare to face off in the final. But as they reflect on the paths that led them to this point, the two stars find much to admire in the other's approach. One wishes they could win effortlessly, the other wishes they could show even the slightest hint of emotion on the court. As these conflicting emotions intensify, the final showdown arrives, with two men set to change the course of the game they love.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a really serious movie. Striking just the right tone is difficult, maybe even impossible, so I don't fault a dramatic filmmaker who chooses to make a movie with as little comic relief as humanly possible. But when your film is this serious, you have to earn it. You have to justify to your audience that this story and these characters demand the most straight-faced and intense treatment imaginable. It's hard to pull that off in any situation, but it's especially challenging in a movie about tennis. And I don't say this to knock tennis! It's a fun sport and I enjoy watching Wimbledon in the summer, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of athletic brutality. Borg vs. McEnroe is so grim and punishing in its utterly humorless approach, and it never manages to justify that decision in any way. Borg and McEnroe clearly led regimented and challenging lives, but they were also two of the most famous and popular athletes of their time. They had to have smiled at least once in a while, right?
The film's faults do not lie in the performances of Sverrir Gudnason or Shia LaBeouf. They both take this specific version of these icons and deliver something surprising and insightful, finding the most battered and conflicted aspects of their personalities and digging in. Gudnason's Borg seems to be in the midst of an existential crisis, fending off a desire to end his streak of perfection and express some kind of mortality. In the midst of McEnroe's fire and fury, LaBeouf finds anger as a side effect of imperfections, the result of decades of falling just short of "the best." In these two characters, there's a fascinating contrast, as it's evident they both represent something that the other is missing. McEnroe strives for machine-like efficiency, while Borg desperately wishes he could let his emotional armor down for just one millisecond. This dynamic is by far the film's most compelling aspect, providing some sharp commentary on the nature of competition and perfection.
It's a credit to director Janus Metz and screenwriter Ronnie Sandahl that this unique mental relationship between Borg and McEnroe is conveyed in such a captivating manner. However, the truth of the matter is that the natural constraint of a real life story eventually hinders the movie. Here's the thing- Borg and McEnroe didn't really know each other before they stopped onto the court in the 1980 Wimbledon Final. They weren't friends, they weren't rivals, and they didn't really have any serious connection to each other. This isn't a James Hunt/Niki Lauda situation. It just ended up being a really good tennis match between two greats, and in the world of the film, it ultimately feels like an inevitability. Since so much of the film's motivation is based in the abstract, it's hard to feel any emotional push-or-pull in the extended finale, which makes up much of the third act. Metz and Sandahl do a good job of making sure we don't root for one player over the other, but they fail to solve much of the emotional drama that came before. Despite a strong cinematic recreation of the match, Borg vs. McEnroe's ending feels surprisingly out of step with the rest of the film.
There's a lot to like here, and Metz is clearly a filmmaker to watch. Borg vs. McEnroe is intelligent, intriguing, and even intermittently thrilling, but its impressive individual aspects fail to cohere into anything truly substantial. If the film settled any of its internal conflict in the otherwise entertaining finale, then we might have a different situation on our hands. But in its current state, the "they became friends and everything was great" ending rings hopelessly false in the context of the rest of the film. Throw in the relentless self-seriousness, and Borg vs. McEnroe ends up being something of a mixed bag. Maybe we'll get a great tennis film when the time for Federer vs. Nadal rolls around.
THE FINAL GRADE: C+ (6.4/10)
Images: NEON/IMDb
Comments
Post a Comment