Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manipulation. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2026

Hedda














Director Nia DaCosta



actress Tessa Thompson

DaCosta and Thompson on the set

DaCosta and her lead cast
















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEDDA          B                                                                                                                       USA  (107 mi)  2025  ‘Scope  d: Nia DaCosta

A little chaos is good for the gathering.                                                                                       —film tagline

A queer re-imagining of Henrik Ibsen’s 1890 play Hedda Gabler, which deals with the suffocating circumstances that women faced at the time, a woman trapped within a loveless marriage whose scheming has disastrous consequences, delving into the 19th century limitations, the search for meaning, and the destructive nature of boredom and unfulfilled desires.  One of the fathers of modern theater alongside Anton Chekhov and August Strindberg, introducing theatrical realism, Ibsen was profoundly influenced by Freudian psychology, delving into the exploration of human motivations and desires, creating complex, character-driven dramas that outside of Shakespeare make him the second-most frequently performed playwright in the world.  Confounding audiences for well over 100 years with the inscrutability of the character, wanting to be in control of her own destiny, but access is denied at every turn, posing the question, what is freedom, where there’s no real consensus whether she’s a liberated force or a monster.  In recent years, Hedda Gabler has been one of Ibsen’s most frequently produced plays, a deliciously showy role played by a variety of actresses that include Ingrid Bergman in a 1962 British television production, Maggie Smith in London in 1970 (directed by Ingmar Bergman), Claire Bloom in New York in 1971, Glenda Jackson winning an Oscar nomination in Trevor Nunn’s HEDDA (1975), Annette Bening in Los Angeles in 1999, Cate Blanchett in a widely acclaimed 2004 Sydney Theatre Company production, Isabelle Huppert in Paris in 2005, and earlier this year Katie Holmes at The Old Globe in San Diego.  Similar to the caged-bird feeling of Nora in A Doll’s House, this play also deals with a woman trapped by the conventions of marriage, as social constraints prevented women from having the right to make their own choices in life, as that was the exclusive right and privilege of the husband, leaving her having to awkwardly and sometime humiliatingly accept the consequences.  Described by the director as Ibsen’s “complicated women who make choices you don’t agree with,” the play was considered shocking and immoral when it premiered, a daring exploration of power, desire, and a woman’s refusal to be confined, as Hedda defied 19th century gender roles and societal expectations for women, so adding a queer and black element for the character may seem equally as subversive and provocative today.  In a desperate attempt to control her own destiny, Hedda becomes a master manipulator, which is her tragic flaw, much like Shakespeare’s Iago in Othello, discovering the capacity to get what she wants by manipulating others, like a puppetmaster controlling the strings, able to elicit change through illicit means, literally for her own amusement, where a daring lack of subtlety becomes her strong suit.  Rather than confine the setting to a single parlor like the stage play, the film expands the action to a massively sprawling country estate, complete with a lake and labyrinthian garden hedge to heighten the feeling of claustrophobia, where the costume and production design is stellar.  Told in five chapters, while the play has four acts, the film is set in the lush decadence of 1950’s England at the massive, recently purchased home of this newly married couple, Hedda (the unbelievably charismatic Tessa Thompson) and George Tesman (Tom Bateman), which they obviously cannot afford, as it’s well beyond their means, but George is an academic classics scholar with an all but certain university professorship awaiting him, yet he doesn’t exactly send his closeted queer wife’s heart aflutter, as he’s a white, mild-mannered, scholarly, and somewhat dull husband, revealing Hedda’s dissatisfaction with her life, including her disdain for George’s scholarly pursuits and the societal expectations placed upon her.  Thinking a safe, conventional marriage will bring her closer to privilege and respectability, it comes at the expense of her true feelings.  But the heavily mortgaged house that leaves them drowning in debt is for Hedda in an attempt to win her favor, giving her something that he thinks she wants, coming from an aristocratic background, where it’s more of a status symbol, even though they haven’t yet reached any degree of affluence, revealing the conflict between romantic ideals and bourgeois reality.  In the 1950’s, it was exclusively queer men who were routinely rounded up and arrested in England, as being gay was considered a crime until 1967, yet women were completely bypassed and ignored, as if they were invisible, where their sexual preferences simply didn’t exist.

Nia DaCosta worked with Tessa Thompson before in Little Woods (2018), a small independent gem, a story of women navigating life in poor rural America to confront the opioid crisis and pressing issues in women’s health care, while the actress has gone on to star in several commercial blockbusters, breaking ground as cinema’s first openly LGBTQ+ superhero in the Marvel universe, though she also starred in several smaller independent films, like Eugene Ash’s Sylvie's Love (2020) and Rebecca Hall’s 2021 #8 Film of the Year Passing, which are more searingly realistic, while this is a showcase role with a feverishly exaggerated theatricality to it, presenting a protagonist who defies the traditional heroic mold.  Having worked as a production assistant for Steven Soderbergh, Steve McQueen, and Martin Scorsese, DaCosta studied in London for her master’s degree in drama, which is where the idea of making Hedda biracial originated, as she believes it’s important to see “black women behaving badly” onscreen.  Essentially a British costume drama that was actually filmed at Flintham Hall, all taking place in a single evening leading into the dawn, with a vibrant jazz score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir that does wonders with the flashy style of the opening credits, with its emphasis on drums and percussion, Hildur Guðnadóttir - Stolen Tale - Prepping the Party | Hedda ... YouTube (2:19), where the first thing we notice is Thompson speaking with a British accent, Hedda (2025) 'Where Should I Start' clip |Tessa Thompson ... YouTube (39 seconds), which is a bit startling at first, but it’s also given a classical Mildred Pierce (1945) structure, one of the first important “women’s pictures,” where the entire film is told in a flashback, yet what it really explores is the idea of a woman’s long sought-after independence.  This does the same through Hedda’s stifled character, a sensual free spirit who yearns for freedom but isn’t given the opportunity, so instead she exudes in her status as a sophisticated party girl, someone who is the life of a party, capricious, elegantly dressed, beautiful, and quick on her feet, where she’s the equal of any man, but they have income opportunities that she doesn’t, which leaves her seething in bitterness and scorn, even contempt, where her changing moods reflect the dizzying thought process that can be overwhelming to viewers, using a chameleon-like ability to adapt to the moment, where she’s every emotional state imaginable.  She grew up as the young and beautiful illegitimate daughter of the important General Gabler, where she was paraded around proudly on horseback, now lovingly preserving his collection of guns in a small box that opens only through a small golden key that she always wears around her neck, having a special fondness for shooting them.  Her yearning for beauty is synonymous with freedom, a concept that is at once existential and aesthetic, as the film concerns itself with female aspiration, yet her character is positively infuriating, completely cut off from a life she values, so instead she toys with the lives of others.  None of her friends thought she’d ever get married, as she flirtatiously broadcasts her role as young and unattached, beholden to no one, free from all societal conventions, thoroughly capable of holding her own with anyone, though now it’s clear she’s using her husband’s position to display unimaginable wealth and prestige, throwing a lavish dinner party for the social elite to help secure his position that will be one for the ages.  While George thinks this is all for him, Hedda has other ideas, as we discover that she’s something of an instigator who loves playing cat and mouse games, as we see her move from ecstatic, to sad, to bored, or in the next moment her inquisitiveness suddenly takes shape, as she plots just exactly what she wants to do, underscored by an inventive musical choice, percussion on wood, Vivace – Wood YouTube (1:53), a clever device that reflects the mechanism of her plotting.  Throwing such a lavish and luxurious party is a bit of a fairy tale, especially when the couple was so devastatingly strapped for cash, as the country was still living under post-war food rations (Rationing in the United Kingdom), which remained in effect until 1954, an element of the story that is completely ignored, though it does represent a time when women were being pushed out of the workforce for returning servicemen, a period obsessed with appearances, which is part of the suffocating reality of the times. 

Having been educated in many predominantly white institutions, DaCosta learned fairly quickly how black women are diminished in the eyes of others, understanding that she needed to be uncompromising in her vision.  The work of the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen has transcended time thanks to his realistic approach to morality.  Of all Ibsen’s works, Hedda Gabler is the most detached, the most objective, a character-study through and through, where one cannot even call it a satire, exploring themes of power, freedom, and the societal constraints on women during the 19th century, illustrating Hedda’s struggle against her oppressive circumstances, where the tension escalates as she faces the repercussions of her actions, leading to a dramatic conclusion that reflects her desperate need for recognition in a world that limits her choices.  A lush portrait of a modern woman who is perfectly capable of compartmentalizing her internal thoughts, keeping them both evasive and elusive, belonging only to her and no one else, continually moving from room to room, from one moment to the next, making quick adjustments, finding new angles, new targets, where she’s an absolute delight in being such an unimaginably detestable character, yet she relishes the role, like something out of MEAN GIRLS (2004), continually confounding, sociopathic even, designed to repel audiences, and not easily understood by viewers, wondering why she does the cruel things she does, but it’s all about the power of manipulation.  Her malignant, self-serving egoism rises up uncontrolled, exposing her quick and subtle intellect, where the lavish spectacle is brilliant in coloring and rich in detail, beautifully shot in ‘Scope by Sean Bobbit (Steve McQueen’s cinematographer), as the entire party becomes a series of incidents which can best be described as accidents waiting to happen.  She hasn’t a single intellectual interest or moral limit, instead she languidly cherishes a petty social ambition that she immediately finds obstructed, as that academic position awaiting her husband suddenly finds a rival in successful author Dr. Eileen Lövborg (Nina Hoss, a gender switch from a male character in the play, who curiously played Hedda in a 2013 stage production), an outwardly lesbian former lover of Hedda’s who has just written a book revealing the hidden truths of human sexuality, with the assistance of her current lover Thea (Imogen Poots), that is expected to be revelatory and resurrect her career trajectory, which hit rock bottom during her time with Hedda, as she was an out-of-control alcoholic.  Hoss also displays an enormous range of emotions, from restraint and passion to sheer desperation.  To the complete dismay of her husband, Hedda has invited Eileen to the party, which is sure to prove interesting, just like her arrival, eyes fixated on Hedda across a ballroom, filmed as if both are floating on air, like co-mingling spirits.  The three of them, Thea, Eileen, and Hedda, are like the Three Witches from Macbeth, only queer, each having to fight to be able to decide what kind of life they want to live.  Accordingly, Eileen likes her chances of obtaining that coveted position, as it would give her prominence and stature, as well as economic freedom.  The film centers around Hedda’s desperate attempts to exert control over her destiny and the lives of her husband and his competitive rival, where it may be more about exacting revenge on the circumstances of a life that has made her a prisoner than it is about protecting her husband’s professional prospects.  Hedda can only think of manipulating Eileen, largely for having economic opportunities that are denied to her, so she wants to balance the playing field and take out her competition, using Thea, who she detests, as her foil for manipulating Eileen into doing what she wants her to do, which is create a scandal that will thoroughly diminish her stature.  To that end she devises a rather Machievellian plot to bring about her ultimate downfall, pressuring her, a disgraced yet recovering alcoholic, to get drunk, hoping to loosen her inhibitions and thoroughly embarrass herself in front of her prospective peer group, Hedda (2025) 'I Don't Drink' clip |Tessa Thompson, Imogen ... YouTube (1:42).  DaCosta invents a library scene that is not in the original play where Eileen cavorts with a room full of men, making them drinks and lighting their cigarettes with theatrical flair as she describes her sexual tales, but what was initially academically titillating suddenly takes a dour turn, leaving her defenses exposed, with the men leering at her like a thoroughly depraved whore.

All of these characters are grasping for power because they want to be in a better place, but suffocating social restrictions prevent that from happening.  Enraged at the box society puts her in, and at herself for being unable to pull her way out, Hedda thrives on impulse control, which gets her into a lot of trouble, always acting on a whim, yet never satisfied with where she finds herself.  The uncomfortable factor recalls Thomas Vinterberg’s THE CELEBRATION (1998), another film depicting an emotional all-consuming party over the course of a weekend.  Throughout the party, Hedda seems to cause mini-scandals by preying on the weakness of others, embellished in a crazy world of hedonism and gossip that borders on the ridiculous at times, Hedda (2025) I'm In Competition With That Woman Clip ... YouTube (56 seconds), while also, at least for brief moments, turning despairingly sexual.  Much like the over-the-top spectacle of the seemingly neverending Hollywood party in Damien Chazelle’s Babylon (2022), or the infamous 45-minute ballroom dance sequence in Luchino Visconti’s THE LEOPARD (1963), part of the visual appeal is creating this gorgeously brash spectacle, accentuated by an impressively grandiose all-glass chandelier in an all-glass interior space, so that when it falls, it makes the most dramatic impact, just part of the house of cards that Hedda constructs that will eventually fall, where the chandelier is the perfect embodiment of that.  What was originally intended to be a gloomily realistic, thought-provoking drama has been converted into a self-conscious piece of Sirkian melodrama.  As Hedda becomes more and more out of control, still hung up on her ex-lover, who may be the one true love of her life, bothered that she’s not more attentive to her coy flirtations, flittering here and there, making dangerous choices, moment to moment, never really thinking about the consequences, she strikes up the band to play, using anachronistic selections, creating this melodramatic emotional hysteria that is like a bubble that needs to burst.  When an important guest discovers his wife secretly having sex with another man in the supposed privacy of the outdoor gardens, all he can think about is exacting revenge, pulling out a gun, causing a commotion, but rather than shoot the man, he shoots upward, causing the chandelier to come crashing to the ground, creating pandemonium and pure panic.  The Chekhovian gun is an interesting device, because as soon as it’s introduced, viewers know nothing good can come out of it, so audiences simply wait for a developing catastrophe to happen, where full-blown tragedies happen fast and furiously at the end, delving into overwrought melodrama, with little context or explanation, relying upon visual elegance and symbolism, which ends up diluting the corrosive power and shock value of the play.  The men in the film are not developed, but feel like shadows of themselves, where their invisibility mirrors how women were viewed when the play was written.  Hedda is one of Ibsen’s most enigmatic and controversial female protagonists, as she embodies a profound conflict between societal expectations and personal desires, exploring her motivations, psychological depth, and the constraints imposed on her by a patriarchal society that limits her freedom and self-expression.  Through her actions and interactions with other characters, Hedda reveals a desperate attempt to assert power and autonomy in a world where she feels trapped by convention and devoid of purpose, challenging traditional gender roles by critiquing the norms of the surrounding world, while also shedding light on broader themes of freedom, manipulation, and existential despair, revealing symptoms of a postmodern anxiety.  Ultimately a complex character who defies easy categorization, exuding despair, a yearning for beauty, and a depth of soul that gives the character complexity and grandeur, Hedda’s tragic fate is a result of her internal conflict and her inability to reconcile her desire for control with the endless limitations imposed on her by society.  Unlike most other nineteenth-century writers, for whom the female characters could never be more than a foil for the male hero’s existential crisis, Ibsen dared to make a woman the bearer of his play’s most fundamental philosophical preoccupations, to turn this specific woman’s crisis into a scorching critique of the stifling repressive conditions of their times.  Like Hamlet, who is deeply challenging to understand, Hedda embodies humanity, tapping into the universality of women and what really constitutes freedom, which is a profoundly feminist move.

Nia DaCosta's Closet Picks  Criterion Closet on YouTube (4:56)

Saturday, June 1, 2024

Challengers


 


















Director Luca Guadagnino


Mike Faist, Zendaya, and Josh O'Connor

The director with Zendaya
































CHALLENGERS        C-                                                                                                              USA  Italy  (131 mi)  2024  d: Luca Guadagnino

JULES AND JIM (1962) this isn’t.  Not sure what the appeal of this movie is, hyped by the money train of gala fashion statements from the press tour, as it’s about as unsubtle as any film seen in years, hitting every cliché imaginable, even becoming a parody of itself, finding no new ground to explore, and can often feel laughable in the overly contrived melodrama, using the often intrusive, adrenaline-pumping, techno house music by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross that sounds right out of the playbook of Giorgio Moroder, feeling more at home at a Monster Truck Jam echoing through an enormous stadium, pushing unsustainable levels of tension that never actually seem to exist.  Nonetheless, this film is a box office hit, easily the director’s most commercial effort yet, despite its propensity for abstraction, currently the #3 film in America behind Ryan Gosling’s THE FALL GUY and the latest STAR WARS adventure, receiving all kinds of critical superlatives, where it plays out like an action movie, mixing elements of an old-fashioned Sergio Leone western, with a good guy versus a bad guy, leading to an ultimate showdown, yet there’s little to no action.  The interest of the film seems to have been driven by a promotional teaser trailer of Zendaya sitting on the bed of a hotel room surrounded by two cute guys as they’re about to engage in a sexual ménage à trois, Challengers | Official Trailer YouTube (2:15), set to the salacious use of Rihanna - S&M YouTube (4:04), no doubt answering the question whether sex still sells in 2024, with Zendaya uttering the line, “I’m taking such good care of my little white boys.”  Setting the drama inside a sports movie leaves us scratching our heads, as it’s not really about tennis at all, conjuring up the dark undertones of Woody Allen’s MATCH POINT (2005), or the ratcheted up tension from Hitchcock, A Face in the Crowd - Strangers on a Train (7/10) Movie CLIP ... YouTube (3:11), but it lacks that kind of psychosexual intrigue and instead feels more like an anti-sports movie, made by someone who doesn’t understand the sport, as it derides the game itself, concentrating instead on the head games that people supposedly play, all the while over-indulging in slow motion shots and trick photography, where the stylistic choices, like the perspective from a tennis ball or from beneath the ground looking up at the server, can be quite kitschy, often looking more like a video game.  Perhaps the biggest flaw is just how unlikable the protagonists are, which is by design, as they are toxic personalities, arrogant and extremely privileged, with an underlying disdain for others, as they’re incapable of empathy, leaving viewers intentionally alienated and distanced, undeserving of our sympathy, feeling all about manipulation, where ethics take a back seat to personal ambition, where we’re fed sports dribble like, “This is about winning the points that matter.”  Written by playwright and novelist Justin Kuritzkes, partner of filmmaker Celine Song who directed Past Lives (2023), another film with a love triangle, collaborating on their next film together as well, QUEER, an adaptation of Beat writer William S. Burrough’s 1985 novel, but the script just never takes us anywhere, lacking narrative finesse, told out of order with continual interruptions, unfolding over 13 years from 2006 to 2019, with the viewer being carried back and forth through time as if it were a tennis ball passing from one side of the court to the other, leaving us in a hollow no-man’s land of what-if’s and could-be’s.  Despite the passage of time, the characters never change at all, but are exactly as we see them in the beginning, showing no signs of development or growth.  Nothing in this film actually delivers, coming up dreadfully short as a sports movie, a sex comedy, a psychodrama, a puzzle film, or a relationship drama, while also failing as a character study, where there’s surprisingly little passion, staying mostly on the surface, so it’s a huge surprise that this is such a critically acclaimed hit, where people are supposedly moved by this, yet it feels more like a manipulative farce, a kind of battle of the sexes, where there are no winners in this movie, which feels dreadfully disappointing, yet that may actually be the point.  First of all, Zendaya was simply brilliant in Sam Levinson’s 2021 #7 Film of the Year Malcom & Marie, much sexier, much smarter, and much more compelling in that role, where her character actually mattered long after the film was over.  Not so here, where the characters are simply forgettable, yet it hits the two boys and a girl love triangle scenario, promising a unique drama that supposedly pushes the boundaries of sex and romance, adding a unique titillation, except it doesn’t, ending up in the same infamous territory as Léos Carax’s POLA X (1999), which featured big stars in steamy roles, yet landed with an empty thud.     

A better tennis/action movie was the television drama I Spy (1965-68), featuring the salt and pepper male combo of Robert Culp and Bill Cosby as undercover intelligence agents posing as a professional tennis player (Culp) and his trainer.  That actually respected the game far more than this does, which exaggerates the physical extremes of the sport, with all its grunts, racket smashes, and thunderous sound effects whenever they hit the ball, never really showing any real athletic prowess, where the operatic excess only works to the film’s detriment.  According to Kuritzkes in Business Insider, this is at least partially inspired by the Serena Williams meltdown at the 2018 U.S Open when she was defeated by 20-year old Naomi Osaka after Williams was charged with three code violations for receiving coaching, racket abuse, and verbal abuse, changing the entire momentum of the match, suggesting that was an “intensely cinematic situation.”  Made by gay Italian film director Luca Guadagnino, creator of the hugely popular summer romance and idyllic gay love story Call Me By Your Name (2017), but also the overly pretentious and equally forgettable I AM LOVE (2009), the director feels mired in a genre rut following his polarizing 2018 American remake of Dario Argento’s horror thriller Suspiria (1977), where he appears to have lost his way, yet he’s raking in the bucks from American producers, in this case MGM/Warner Brothers, where Zendaya is a co-producer alongside former Sony studio head Amy Pascal.  Hollywood is so afraid of losing their audience, they are currently over-spending massively for Marvel comic action figure and super hero movies, dumbing down the product like never before, where in this case the tennis court is like a gladiator spectacle with the combatants entering the arena of the Colosseum for battle, using computer generated VFX effects to enhance an illusion of a sporting event, veering into music video territory, where the dramatic over exaggeration comes across like some Shakespearean Greek tragedy.  While every scene appears over the top, what this film lacks is a heart and soul, seemingly designed for the IMAX experience where loudness matters and big is better.  Centered around a three-set challenge match that extends throughout the length of the film between Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) and Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor from Alice Rohrwacher’s La Chimera), best friends since junior tennis but arch-rivals on the court and in love, much of the film is told in flashbacks as the film drifts back and forth in time, immersing us in their series of dramatic entanglements with tennis child prodigy phenom Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), a rising star out of Stanford, a school that receives plenty of product endorsements, as you can’t help noticing the big bold red letters of their sports apparel.  Initially they both fall head over heels by her mix of stunning beauty and overwhelming talent on the court, yet they’re portrayed like dimwitted characters from DUMB AND DUMBER (1994), as they can’t stop staring at her, though leering may be more appropriate.  She seems to get some sort of kick out of their fanboy attention, drawing them both into her sexual lair for a threesome, which seems like a game of cunning manipulation that starts with a fascination with her but they end up groping each other when she removes herself from the picture, with suggestions that this is not strictly heterosexual.  While they claim to be no more than friends, the film drifts into homoerotic territory, but it’s only implied, with plenty of subtext to interpret, never really delivering on that end, delving more into the repressed psyche of the main characters, becoming a film about what drives an athlete, like a buddy movie with inferences of something more.  Claiming she doesn’t want to be a homewrecker, she moves on with her life, and is destined to become a top player until a career-ending injury knocks her out of the game, making use of her sports acumen and psychological insight to become a sought after coach, as she believes every match is about “a relationship” with the opponent.  While the two guys are in a perpetual Sisyphean struggle for her attention, shrugging off the hills and valleys of emotional devastation when they lose, the film drifts into the lurid world behind-the-scenes, suggesting that’s where the drama is, not on the tennis court.  That said, it still spends an inordinate amount of time attempting to build drama on the court, where tennis appears to be a metaphor for pent-up desire, but in a competitive form, featuring crushing volleys with the fury of a WWE wrestling smackdown, then slowed to a crawl between points, with sweat dripping and laser-like stares, only to fizzle out when it matters.      

Improbably, the film is shot by Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s longtime cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, who uses obsessive close-ups and the most bizarre and unusual camera angles, perhaps capturing the emotional discombobulation where there is little equilibrium, as nerves are constantly on edge and knocked askew.  This altered perspective reveals the kind of topsy turvy world of professional sport, where one moment you’re among the best in the world, yet in the next it’s all behind you, where you’re struggling to find your identity, which has always been connected to any sport.  The overall central premise of the film is how the mastermind Tashi plays Patrick and Art off of each other, both on and off the court, much more talented than either of them, but forced to sublimate her desires through them, relishing her role as the puppetmaster pulling the strings behind the scenes, yet it unravels in the worst cliché’s, as inflamed desires are reignited in a classic Hollywood windstorm, with trash swirling through the city streets, where winning at tennis means winning the girl, while losing only accentuates all her worst fears about you.  Despite all the talk about how sexy the movie is, suggesting eroticism has returned to the movies post Covid, there’s really no actual sex to speak of, and no nudity except the male anatomy in a locker room setting.  Instead there are swaggering remarks, like trash talk, which always reference power dynamics, with a heightened presence of corporate sponsors, where giant billboards are seen everywhere behind the players, generating very little drama between the onscreen protagonists, which is remarkable for a mainstream movie with more than a two-hour running time.  So what is the compelling factor?  Apparently it’s all about hype and advertising, setting a tone for what this is supposed to be, planting the seed in the minds of viewers, repeatedly telling them what to expect, like the current political practice of repeating a lie so many times until you start to believe it.  It’s hard to believe that actually works in this day and age, yet social media is the driving force behind the media frenzy, and there’s nothing, literally no power on earth holding tweets accountable for the truth.  The heavy-handed nature of the movie gets so monotonous and stupidly repetitive that it’s actually a good film to walk out on, as it simply defies expectations, never even attempting to provide any hint of emotional honesty or cinematic tension, as it’s just a curious effort, to say the least, and something of a nightmare to watch, lost in its own jagged narrative structure and technical wizardry, feeling like all the air has been sucked out of the room.  Cutting back and forth in different time periods, yet supposedly taking place during a decisive tennis match, the narrative continually fills in the back story through flashbacks, à la Mildred Pierce (1945), revealing enough about the three central characters to suggest none of them are worth making a movie about, and yet that’s exactly what Guadagnino has done.  It’s a sad comment on what movies have come to, now so easily accessible through streaming platforms, where you don’t even have to leave your home anymore, suggesting television may actually be winning this battle, though the flipside is streaming services are now typically editing, altering, or censoring movies.  I can count on one hand the number of films I actually wanted to go to a theater to see from this top 100 grossing films of a year ago, 2023 Worldwide Box Office, where most of them are utterly forgettable.  Who is clamoring for all that other crap?  Cinephiles should be appalled.  In earlier generations, like Truffaut and Godard and others, spending time at the local cinematheque watching movies from every era was part of our cinematic education, a vehicle to expanding our artistic appreciation, widening our international horizons, while catching lurid movies on late night television only added to the mystique.  But now that movie theaters themselves show TV commercials before the show, with endless trailers of mind-numbing value, none of which you actually want to see, the era of film festivals and their capacity to provoke thoughtful evaluation may be over, replaced by films like this, which we’re told is a “triumph of filmmaking.”  Unlike other films that we’d eagerly sit through again, like rereading one of our favorite books, it’s hard to imagine sitting through this hot mess of a movie again, even if it plays commercial free on television, as there’s just nothing there.