OK, so I watched Wimbledon tonight after playing ultimate (and in lieu of actually completing my work). Given that it's from the same people who created the Hugh Grant bashful romantic comedy factory (Four Weddings, Notting Hill, Love Actually, etc.), I thought there was a reasonable chance that this would work - not to mention that I can't remember the last decent tennis sequence in a movie. Anyway, it's adequate, but indicative of the downward trend for Working Title. Paul Bettany is de rigeur as the bashful Brit and Kirsten Dunst is ok as the freshfaced female star. That said, the tennis sequences were awkward and uncomfortable to watch. My understanding is that they faked them (playing "air tennis" as it were), and then dubbed the ball's movements in afterwards. Problem - both actors' form looked like poor rec level players, and then the rallies were incomprehensible in terms of footwork, positioning, number of shots, shot choices, etc. Oh well, nice try then.
That said, if you're interested in the intersection of art and tennis, I will go with my old standby: David Foster Wallace's essay, Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm for Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness.
Tangent: the only mainstream sports writer with a focus on tennis is John Wertheim -check out his weekly tennis mailbag at www.cnnsi.com on Monday afternoons. His take on the movie?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment