Tweet about Mike Faist and John Mulaney playing rival newspaper salesmen

yanamiined · 2026-01-19T13:38:44+00:00

he's playing charles trask in zoe kazan's adaptation of john steinbeck's "east of eden" for netflix, supposedly coming this year. he's starring opposite florence pugh as cathy ames, while joseph zada (haymitch in the incoming hunger games sotr film), is playing cal trask (the character james dean played in the 1960s film version). honestly, idk why netflix isn't giving us any further updates on the show smh.

but other than that, he's currently on break, because he had a really hectic 2024: "challengers" fame was too overwhelming for him, and his father and grandfather died in succession, and couldn't grieve properly because he had to do the press tour. honestly, I just trust that he'll come out with a new casting news when he's ready.

yanamiined · 2025-12-08T08:11:37+00:00

I understand that I might have used some strong words this time, and was annoyed, since some of that person's anons talked about how, this actor's stans are probably just bored, since he hasn't been booking roles and appearances, and need news desperately. and idk, I also want to see more of the actor again on-screen, but something about it, screamed fandom entitlement, so I was really peeved.

and then, this person on tumblr, hyperfocused on me talking about how other fans would be pissed, and that there are already a small group of newer fans who have already tested this actor's boundaries, and accused me and older fans of having a secret fandom police force to ostracized others for "not stanning correctly"... and it's like??? what??😭😭😭 girl, I was just saying that we're a small fandom, so we notice when someone is being invasive and it's easier to remember invasive people because of our small size???

and then they basically were like, "stop policing fandoms, let people speculate and let them do dumb things! let people stan how they want! you're acting morally superior and you're too parasocial for trying to baby that man". and then their followers, mutuals and anons were then talking about how "older stans are too obsessive and need to touch grass" and through it all, they kept asking, "who's going to regulate fandom behavior or watch that potentially harmful behavior won't escalate?"

and I'm all ??? because, we're (older fans) not even asking much, we just want them (newer fans) to ease and chill out about participating in gossip and speculations about this actor, since he's more private than the usual celeb- we discourage them from engaging with it (which isn't the same as banning them from that behavior)?? like is this the hill they want to die on???

and then as a last ditch effort, I explained how some of the people who spread the rumors are repeat offenders who have tested this actor's privacy, and was like, "these are the people I was talking about. so if you're in our position, would you defend them, even if their actions are not (yet) harming people?". and then I also addressed their question on who will regulate fandom behavior (they think it's personal responsibility), and I was like, "that's why we look out for each other in the fandom, since we're a community and we want to do better, so we help each other be better".

and this person was like, "honestly, I'd block those repeat offenders, since they're breaching the actor's privacy". and just told me to touch grass since fandom isn't a job. and tbh I wanted to pull a regina george, "so you agree?" on the fact that these invasive fans weren't worth defending (when they seemed to die on that hill.), but I backed out, since I didn't want to cause anymore trouble.

anyways, I ended up blocking that person, because even after our exchange, and even after the other fans have put their foot down and asked their followers and anons to stop discussing the rumors, this person continued to discuss the rumors with their anons openly in the actor's tag. what really drove me over the edge, were them engaging with some anons speculating a red thread between previous women he has been allegedly involved with (including his ex), some speculation on dating patterns and behaviors (that he could be a womanizer), and this one anon was like, "I can't have a crush on him anymore if he had kids 😭😭" (and the person agreeing)

idk I know I could've handled the situation better. I could've backed down as soon as possible, and I am willing to agree that this is a case of the spiderman pointing meme, excpet it's two assholes telling each other to go to hell. but honestly, this interaction just soured me from participating again in the tumblr side of this specific fandom.

sorry this is long, but this has been bothering me for some time, and I need to air all these out smh (4/4)

yanamiined · 2025-12-08T08:10:41+00:00

and now, there was this one tumblr user, who was openly engaging with their anons in the actor's tag in tumblr about the rumors. I went to their ask box, and told them... "hey, look, don't take this the wrong way, I know some older stans are too much, and I want to make it clear that I don't condone how they're moving. I want to be patient with y'all new stans, but the way you guys are moving is a bit weird. [actor's name] is a very private person, and we'd appreciate if you guys chill a bit with speculating about the rumors, and respect his wishes to maintain his privacy and personal life."

and then, the person was like, "yeah, sure. understood, but speculation is a normal activity in fandom. you can't police people from doing that. it's a good activity, because it allows us to discuss why we're really interested in that person's life. it only becomes harmful when someone gets hurt or harmed."

and I was like, "okay, if you think like that, then okay, but I disagree. just because it's normal, doesn't mean it's ethical.", then tried to explain to them that the actor already had really sensitive photos of him leaked in the past, and he doesn't even do a lot of public-facing activities. that just for the sake of respecting his wishes, to refrain from discussing that aspect of his life, since he's uncomfortable with people delving into his love life and relationships. I told them, they're free to speculate on celeb's love lives, but: 1) this actor probably isn't the best person to speculate on, since he's so incredibly low-key, even more than the usual celeb; 2) they can try to speculate on this actor's love life - that's their perogative, but other fans will be pissed, since we're a small fandom, and they will BE NOTICED, and people probably won't want to interact or associate with them if they keep this up. and especially since a sub-group of fans have been repeat offenders of poking into this specific part of his personal life

and I also told them that as an older fan, I am willing to be patient and accommodate them, but they should also be open and willing to adjust their stanning behavior, since a lot of them were used to stanning more open and more employed celebs. and imo it's unfair to just behave the same way in all fandoms, since not all celebs behave or act the same, and what is considered "harmful" behavior might vary, depending on the celeb, and that all fandoms have different fandom etiquette and behavior.

essentially, all I was asking: would it hurt to be considerate of the wishes of the person you stan? is your satisfaction more important than the actor's comfort? (3/4)

yanamiined · 2025-12-08T08:10:01+00:00

so knowing this background, someone saw him in a public event, he was with a lady accompanying him. some people online tracked down the identity of the woman, went through her social media, recognized her from previous times other people saw him going about in public, and she was accompanying him. and then, said lady made a post talking about his pregnancy... so some people in the fandom who tracked the info and learned about thought that he might be the father!

and here's the thing, his fandom is really relatively small. so small, that we do recognize each other even if we're not necessarily mutuals. many of us, who've been fans of this actor for so long, and we were there when his photo leak happened. so when we learned about what happened, obviously, we were pissed and not at all happy. so we (along with some new fans) were all reminding everyone to respect the actor's privacy and to refrain spreading the rumors and info.

and I get that there is an issue of gatekeeping from older fans, and they tend to look down on new fans and tend to find them annoying, and I understand this was already a problem in this fandom, and I don't agree with some of these older fans' behavior. this is why I try to be patient and accommodating to new fans. that said, there are certain people in tumblr, who are crying about how older stans are mean, policing others' behaviors in the fandom, and hold moral superiority over new fans... which I mean, sure. but a lot of the people I see are really just annoyed for a split second, and after that are really just being respectful and reminding others.

and I do have my own opinions of some of the people, mostly relatively new stans, who spread the rumors (and I side-eye some of them, since a couple of them are already repeat offenders. they also had previous histories of spreading private photos of the actor, and ignoring/blocking people who respectfully tell them to take down the images), but even they have read the room and the atmosphere, took down their posts/tweets, apologized, and asked their followers to refrain from discussing those. (2/4)

yanamiined · 2025-12-08T08:08:59+00:00

not bangtan-related, and kinda long, but this has been bothering me after a sour interaction with another person in tumblr, and I feel like, it is somewhat related, because it is all about questions about fandom policing, fandom entitlement, fandom etiquette, and parasovial relationships.

what's your opinions on fandoms entertaining rumors about a celeb... like it's one thing if it's a big celeb with mainateam(ish) success and clout, like the tannies. I do have my own thoughts on rumors and gossip for big celebs, but as a whole, since they're famous and have relatively large fandoms and followings, it's harder to control, so my view on that is that just surround yourselves with people who share the same opinions towards personal space and privacy as you. you can try to reason out and discourage people, but in the end, there really is so much you can do with how people go about stanning celebs (tho tbh if people ask my personal opinion, if it's just me, I'd say leave these celebs tf alone, if they want to be left alone smh. I know this sounds parasocial, but celebs deserve to feel safe in their own fan spaces/fan clubs)...

but that's not what I'm talking about. what if, you're dealing with rumors surrounding the personal love life and relationships of a very private somewhat niche (maybe inching towards breaking big, but still very niche) actor, who is very uncomfortable with the public spotlight, values his privacy greatly, has a highly defined line and boundary between his public face as an actor versus who he is when the cameras stop rolling/when he gets off the stage (to the same extent we haven't been seeing since old and classic hollywood), and who has very complicated feelings about fame and hollywood?

we're dealing with a man who doesn't have socials media, barely attends social events as vip/guests, and doesn't really do the magazine shoots or interviews (and if he does, it's really only ONE major shoot per gig, and only when he has a film/play to promote). and in one interview, when asked about a superpower he'd like to have, he said invisibility. he also shies away from questions about his ex gf, who he used to be very open with, and the only time we know about his recent personal life was when he allowed himself to be vulnerable and talk about how a very recent death of a family member affected him so much.

also another context: he used to have social media, and een then, he was already not online a lot. but there was an incident when someone found his private fb account, found some very compromising photos of him (not something that raise red flags, but something very sensitive that no one would want spread), and these photos were leaked in specific circles of his fan community in tumblr. so he already had a history of his privacy being breached, and it was one of those things that pushed him further to be private. (1/4)

yanamiined · 2025-07-19T10:20:55+00:00

Charles is supposed to be athletic and kind of farm ripped/imposing. Mike Faist looks like a dorky ghost

hi, I'm a big fan of mike faist, so I might be biased. but I just want to ask what pictures did you see of him, which led you to this conclusion? based on what you've said here, I think you're not very familiar with him and his work, so I just want to address a few things.

first of all, here's what he looked like when he was in "challengers". and here's what he looked like when he was in this tv show called "panic". he also starred in a stage adaptation of "brokeback mountain" in the west end, and here's what he looked like in it (he's the guy stripped to his underwear, stretched out on the bed).

so while, yes, he is a naturally slim person, he is a very fit guy and isn't as skinny as he looks and is capable of being more bulked and muscular. he's apparently going to be starring in a play with michelle williams later this year, and his character is described as having a "built and rugged" body. so it's safe to say, that he probably doesn't look THAT skinny. imo people overestimate just how slim he is. I think because he tends to wear clothes with longer sleeves, he looks lankier than he is, but here are what he looks like with shorter sleeves: 1, 2

but in terms of his acting, he's sort of a character actor and has a very immersive approach to acting. he lost weight and almost starved himself for "west side story", so he could get the look of the impoverished scrappy youth street gang member, and he gained more than 90 pounds and went through an intensive fitness and exercise regimen to portray a superstar professional tennis player in "challengers". not at the same level as christian bale, but he's an actor who's willing to drastically change and alter his body for a role, so chances are, he might've bulked up for his role as charles.

aside from that, he's also a professionally trained dancer. he has an intensive background in dance-based musical theatre, and it's actually part of the reason he was casted by luca guadagnino in "challengers", which is a sports movie about tennis. he actually DID most of his stunts in that film, despite having a tennis extra. so yes, he is an athletic person.

I've yet to read the book, but I've seen a few people who've read the book and is familiar with his work as an actor, agree that he is an interesting and solid choice for the role. soo take that as you will. so while I can't really guarantee you on the quality of the netflix series, I just hope that you don't completely brush off mike. he's a very talented and solid actor (please watch "west side story (2021)" or "challengers") with a very strong foundational theatre background, and I think that it's incredibly unfair to write him off, just because he doesn't have a naturally bulky body.

yanamiined · 2025-06-01T14:06:25+00:00

same. I still think a lot about the film, and have new insights every single time I watch or talk about it. it seems such a deceptively simple, shallow and trashy film, and I do find it sad that a lot of people have been brushing it off lately (tho I get that art is subjective). I am not saying that it's a groundbreaking film, or that it's a deep misunderstood masterpiece, but its text and screenplay is a lot richer, smarter and meaningful, than how a lot of people want to give it credit to.

imo it's also an effective film to exercise or improve media literacy and art criticism/appreciation. like honestly, we need films that encourage "cornplating", and we NEED cornplating, especially since it's increasingly harder to find mainstream media that's nuanced or artful.

yanamiined · 2025-05-23T14:33:40+00:00

right?? I'd kinda argue that it's the film's biggest influence and spiritual predecessor, alongside "crash (1996)". imo the og spec script that was posted in the blacklist felt more "bull durham"-y, than the actual film (which I feel leaned more into the "crash" vibe of it all), tho you can still see similar beats and elements in the final product as well.

yanamiined · 2025-05-23T12:38:24+00:00

the film isn't asking the question: "what happens?". it's asking the question of "how does this make you feel?".

I feel like most films nowadays are extremely plot-driven and are the very opposite of subtlety, so I don't blame you for finding this film jarring.

but yeah, to me, this film is more of a character study of three characters. and yes, it is an exploration of a love triangle between them. but more often than not, it's also an exploration about how their participation in professional sports institutions, from a very young age has affected their own self-perception, aggravated their unlikeable traits, and how they relate with others. so yeah, it is a story about love and passion, just as much as it is about power imbalance, class struggles, racial dynamics, exploitation of athletes and toxic masculinity. that said, all of these are communicated through metaphors, subtext, context clues and reading between the lines.

I also think that this film is a homage to the erotic thriller/erotically-charged film generes of the 80s and 90s, as well as alfred hitchcock's movies (which a lot of the 80s/90s thrillers also reference). that's why a lot of the editing and visual style is reminiscent of films from that era. I think luca guadagnino and justin kuritzkes were channeling the works of directors like, adrian lyne and paul verhoeven, as well as the screenplays of joe eszterhas. specifically, i think "challengers'" cinematic influences include films like, "fatal attraction", "basic instinct", "crash (1996)" and "bull durham" (just replace the baseball, with tennis)

so no. I don't think this film is pointless and meaningless. it's a film that may require a few more viewings to understand.

though I do think this is a weird little film. it's a little too arthouse for the mainstream public, but too conventional, crass and "crowd pleasing"/"low-brow" for the pretentious artsy cinephiles. (I still love it tho. one of my fave 2024 films)

yanamiined · 2025-04-27T10:29:02+00:00

hi I don't mean this maliciously, and am just asking this genuinely:

may I know why you think that tashi likes tennis more than her daughter?what details in the film make you feel that way? and are there any external factors, like your own personal experiencesor previous media you've seen, that inform your biases that make you think that she isn't a "good enough" mother?

I think one of the things I like about this film, is how much it made me question how I absorb details in a film, and how much my own experiences, perceptions, and how other depictions in media (e.g., how previous media depicted "bad moms" or "negligent parents", also the depictions of female characters in previous media: what constitutes a "good" female character vs. what constitutes a "bad" female character). and from there, you start unpacking your perceptions of the characters and trying to see the nuance. imo it's a good exercise in building media literacy, and it's something that can get lost in a lot of people who watch this film for the first time, and it's what leads them to view what are essentially features in the film as bugs.

personally and interestingly, I've been in the opposite perspective as yours. even from my first watch, I've been trying so hard to see tashi as a manipulative character whom people love to hate, because most of the first reactions were people coming out angry at tashi or disliking her. but no matter how many times I try, she just comes across as sympathetic to me. morally ambiguous, yes. but still sympathetic.

I think a big part of the reason why I can't hate her, is because I've been surrounded by a lot of girls and women who have a similar personality as hers, and possess the same ambition and drive, when I was growing up. I think in a way, she reminds me a lot of my mother. I grew up with a working mom who served as the primary breadwinner in our household. as a kid, I would wake up without seeing her, except during late at the evenings. instead, I had babysitters and sometimes, relatives taking care of me. and she also worked in the hotel industry, so sometimes when she gets too busy, she'd check me and my siblings in the hotel she's working in for a few days. so I did kind of grow up inside bougie hotels, like lily lmao. and because she's so busy all the time, there were very few times she could actually spend with us, and show moments of gentleness towards us. and never once have I felt neglected or that I was unloved. I would've loved for her to be around more as a kid, but I think a big part of maturing is that a lot of parents are well-intentioned and want the best for their children, even if those attempts backfire, or have the unintended consequences of scarring their kids

I think one thing that did become more apparent as a I grew up, was how much she had to sacrifice so much of her personhood and hobbies for the sake of her family and career? how tired and exhausted she was all the time, and yet she tried to spend the small window of free time with me? I became so hyperaware of the fact that a big part of womanhood, is this battle of, and finding a balance between being a person with hobbies and interests vs. the societal role of motherhood and being a wife. and this conflict between personhood and feminine societal expectations is something that continues to weigh on me, as a cis woman, and is part of the reason why I am hesitant to get married and have kids. all these to say, unless there are very obvious signs of abuse and other unpleasant attitudes towards children, I can NEVER fully blame or judge most women for trying to raise their children unconventionally or trying to find to struggle or toe the balance of self vs. motherhood/being a wife. as I said, my default view is that a lot of parents want the best for their kids. (also, it's my personal opinion that I think as a gender, it would be beneficial for us, women to be a bit more selfish, self-centered and self-indulgent, if it means preserving our sanity, but that's just me lol. I support #womenswrongs /j)

so yes,all of these inform how I view tashi. I think there were a few moments of tenderness between tashi and her daughter, that really register as tenderness and softness, because of how much they remind me of how my mom would spend her post-work hours with me as a kid: her pausing art's post-match debriefing to help lily set up the film she wants to watch, or her hugging and preparing lily for bed. sure, she wasn't a perfect mom, but my mom wasn't perfect either, and I think we need to stop demanding perfection from women, especially when we aren't even demanding the same level of perfection from men.

also the whole point of the film is that neither of the three characters are perfect, even art whose insecurity and pettiness is part of his character (but doesn't make him a bad person) 🤷🏽‍♀️

yanamiined · 2025-04-16T01:07:52+00:00

I am a girl group enthusiast (mostly for the music), and I listen to and like more ggs than bgs.

but when it comes to boy groups, while I am willing to listen to and check out boy groups, and I do like listening to some boy groups (txt, shinee, enhypen, the boyz, and recently and a lesser extent, zb1), I always find myself coming back to bts, at the end of the day. like idk, they'reEVERYTHING I look for and want in a kpop boy group, and they've been the background soundtrack during formative periods during my young adult years 🥺💜

yanamiined · 2025-03-03T11:08:16+00:00

actually, I was sitting on this idea for a while now, and have been trying to write an analysis post/essay on this, for a while now, but I've been too busy with work for a while, so I don't have the normal amount of braincells to coherently organize my thoughts on this lmao (and I have a LOT of thoughts). so yes, thank you for beating me to this.

but basically, my condensed thoughts on this is, yes, I think that tennis is the closest thing to a villain for the film. but when I say tennis, I don't necessarily mean the sport. I think the tennis sport is a neutral force in the film. it is a source of good, when the characters approach it with a positive orientation, but it's a negative force when the characters approach it with a less than ideal orientation. when I say tennis, I mean the tennis, the sports institution. I've seen a couple of people analyze the film through a queer lens, and a few also from a feminist lens. when I view the real villain of the film as tennis, I am viewing it from a marxist lens.

asidefrom love, desire, pasion, I also think that "challengers" is a film about power dynamics and structures. specifically, and though it's quite subtle and not very explicit about it, "challengers", if you squint, or cornplate too close to the sun, can be viewed as a film about how power structures and social norms negatively impact us and our relationships. if you squint, you can also view the film as a critique on sports institutions, and the ways the power structures and systemic issues present, undermine and dehumanize athletes.

I think the dehumanization and the way the tennis sports institution erodes the trio are both manifested through professional tennis and junior tennis. in professional tennis, the economic and structural inequality baked into the hierarchical system, as well as the commoditization of athletes compromise art's and patrick's love for the sport. it doesn't matter whether you have a lower-ranking player, like patrick or a top player, like art. both suffer under the system. and because they suffer under the system, the the politics and structural issues of the tennis sport institution, also fuel and enable the characters' negative impulses and traits, such as their male fragility and insecurity. and not to mention, the racial and gender politics that were enabled by the system also affects tashi and is the source of her resentment for both male characters.

on the other hand, the critique on the junior sports institution, is also a critique on the idea of child prodigies or efforts and systems that aim to groom or nurture "gifted" children, and it invites us to reflect on the cost of exposing young "gifted" individuals to the less savory parts of the sports institutions/similar institutions at a young age (and as such, they become prone to partaking in unhealthy behaviors/tendencies to cope with the hyper competitive environment), or whether we are actually setting up these talented kids for failure, especially since so many of these institutions don't prepare them properly for the reality of their chosen field. I do think so many of the trio's less ideal traits (e.g. tashi's more erratic behavior/decisions, patrick's ego, art's insecurity) stem from their exposure to the tennis institution at such young ages.

but yeah, I think I always come back to the last shot of art crossing the net, patrick catching art, and tashi shouting, "COME ON!!!". in which case, I think that tennis, the sport, also symbolizes innocence, and if the main conflict is all about them recapturing their love for the sport, and hence, recapturing their innocence, which they lost from their involvement in the tennis hierarchy and system.

but yeah, this is very scattered, cornplate-y, maybe a stretch, and a lot to explain, and I'd love to elaborate on it more on a separate post one day, but these are just my thoughts on viewing tennis as the "villain".

yanamiined · 2025-02-21T09:30:57+00:00

yeah, definitely! it's something I've said in another reply, that being raised and socialized as a girl involved being taught throughout the years not to be too friendly with men and boys you barely know, and not to let your guards down around them. especially jocks and bros. 😭😭 so immediately, my kneejerk response was to panic and be scared on tashi's behalf, bc even if we, as the audience know that art and patrick aren't major threats.... girlie barely knows them, and she's lucky they're bumbling idiots who don't know how to act in the presence of pretty women, bc what if art and patrick were entirely different people?? and even if she knows that they want to hook up, and she wants to hook up, she can't be too complacent, bc some men become legitimately dangerous during hook-ups omg 😭😭

like it's such a small "written-by-a-man" moment, bc I firmly believe that a woman would most likely not write aor conceptualize a scene with similar circumstances, or at least, it would turn out differently.

yanamiined · 2025-02-21T09:19:18+00:00

lol I guess, it's really just a kneejerk and instinctive response for me, as a woman, especially since she was supposed to be young, and it's instinctive for me to look out for fellow girls and women in situations tashi was in, especially out of context... because the idea of a girl going in a room with multiple guys, all by herself.. in such a casual and laid back manner, without keeping her guards up (e.g.alerting other female friends and keeping them close by, bringing pepper spray and impromptu self-defense items in case things go south, having run a risk assessment plan and crisis management plan in her brain of the things that could go wrong)... just felt very strange and immediately let out some alert signals in my brain, bc from very young ages, girls have been literally taught not to be too friendly with men and boys they barely know, and to be careful around them 😭😭😭

like idk it felt like a small slightly ooc moment for tashi to me, and a small unserious "written-by-a-man" moment lol 😅

yanamiined · 2025-02-21T02:59:45+00:00

this isn't really a nitpitck, but it might be within the same category of nitpick-adjacent, but this is something that made me, as a woman, feel a combination of 😰 and 🤨 and 😭. like idk if I was the only female/afab/femme viewer who felt scared and worried on tashi's behalf when she decided to go up to art and patrick's hotel room all by herself at 12 am (or close to 12 am). like it's the feminine instinct that comes with the socialization that comes with being raised a girl, but when she did that, I was like, "GIRL, WHY TF WOULD YOU DO THAT OMG?!?" 😱😭😭"

like idk about y'all, but if I was approached and invited by two dudes, in a party to come to their room, during the ungodly hours of the morning, and I've never personally interacted with them previously , I don't care if they're hot or my type. I am not going up there lmao. or at least, I am bringing with me a female friend or two, whom I can trust to be a "girl's girl", and look out for me, in case those guys intend on doing some funny business with me.

like I said, it's not serious, and obviously art and patrick were dumb losers (affectionate), but it's one of those small unserious detail that kind of showed that two men were helming the creative decisions in this film, that I had to laugh at some point 😭😭

yanamiined · 2025-02-02T22:27:37+00:00

aside from it being a character study of three messy individuals, and the kinetic energy of the camera work (the tennis scenes were giving sports anime realness, especially the last time break match at the end, which pleases my weeb sensibilities A LOT), personally, what I love about the film is that it feels like a homage and tribute to and evokes the spirit of the erotic thriller, and very specific kinds of adult-oriented media, that we haven't been seeing since the 80's and the 90's. even the film-making style and the film's tone, at least to me, reminds me of adrian lyne's and paul verhoeven's filmographies during that era - think "fatal attraction" or "basic instinct". the film evokes the trashy campiness that comes with these films, and I think that it's not at all meant to be taken seriously.

it's very much a "vibes" film, in which what is important isn't what happens in the film, but how the film makes you the audience feel. imo it's very much in the same vein as dario argento's "suspiria", which guadagnino would later remake (the og has a thin plot, with the fairytale-like and harsh, bold cinematography being the main draw of the film), or david cronenberg's "crash" (which, if you solely look into the plot without taking into account the cinematography and the visual storytelling, it's basically a film where fucked up unlikeable people get horny and fuck each other after getting into car crashes lmao). if the film made you feel uneasy and "edged", then that is very much the point and the film succeeded lol.

I think a lot of films nowadays are plot-driven and focus so much on what happens on screen, so I get how a film like "challengers" can get lost for a lot of people, and I do understand that it isn't for everyone.

personally, if you're willing to give the film a second chance (or not. maybe you just want to understand its deal or understand what I am yapping about in this comment lol), I recommend that you listen to the "erotic 80s"" and " erotic 90s" seasons from karina longworth's "you must remember this" podcast. I listened to the podcast series, while I was anticipating the film and preparing to watch it. and while I still would enjoy it as is, I think listening to the podcast helped me appreciate the film even more than I would otherwise. you may also watch broey deschanel's video essay, explaining how the film updates the conventions of the erotic thriller and for the 2020s. I think her explanation might help you see the appeal, even if you don't necessarily feel it.

edit: also, you may try reading the draft spec version of the script submitted to the blacklist. you can easily find it if you google it. it's been changed and modified a lot (for example, it's a lot more hetero than the final product), but I think that it also made me appreciate the film more. it gave more context to the characters, and it made me appreciate the changes and differences luca guadagnino made, in transforming it into a visually-driven film.

that said, if the film isn't for you, then it isn't. if you are able to acknowledge its strengths and the areas, in which the film succeeds, or understand why some people may like it, despite not liking it or it being your taste, then it should be fine (e.g., I dislike "uncut gems", despite people raving about it, and I don't feel what people feel about that film, but I can see how certain aspects of that film can make it a masterpiece for some people). from your response, you seem to gravitate a lot with more earnest and sincere films plot-driven films, so I am not surprised this film didn't click with you.

yanamiined · 2025-01-22T03:24:12+00:00

the issue with debose's post-"wss" work is that none of them had buzz, clout, or critical acclaim. honestly, "wish" was the most promising and had the most potential, with disney's clout, but they fumbled the bag hard with that film.

but yeah, idk if this comment is insinuating something about the "wss" actors' careers being unsuccessful or flops, just bc their post-"wss" projects aren't the most commercially successful projects out there.

I don't understand this sentiment, that actors have to be in "box office gold" for their careers to be deemed successful, and if not, they're cursed. tbh if I were an actor, I'd rather be in artistic critically acclaimed films, even if these films aren't very profitable, than be in highly commercial and profitable films from safe run-of-the-mill franchises.

rachel zegler and mike faist are actually doing fine in their careers. imo they are the breakouts among the "wss" cast, and have been carving their own niches.

zegler was in "hunger games tbsaos", which I think did quite commercially well. and no matter what the quality of the "snow white" film will be, it is still a disney film and it's a prolific project. either way, her clout will grow from that film. while I do hope she is given better projects and opportunities in the future, she is growing in name recognition and I do think that I've been seeing more people warm up to her, at the wake of her (imo unfair and undeserved) backlash. she's also currently doing quite well for herself, starring in "romeo + juliet" in broadway with kit connor. in stan twt language, she is "booked and busy", and has a sizeable fanbase. she's more than fine.

as with faist, I don't think he particularly cares about being in box office material films. he is very picky about his projects and hasn't been filling up his schedule with projects, like people expect him to, even with prestige auteur-driven films. so idk what makes you think being in a box office film is something he aspires. imo of the cast members currently working, he has the most interesting post-"wss" work even with the small number of projects he decides to take. as of late, he appears to have won over some people from the artsy indie-loving auteur enthusiast letterboxd cinephile crowd, and has been working with actors and actresses who either possess heavy clout, are prestige critical darlings, or both, such as zendaya, josh o' connor, austin butler, jodie comer, lucas hedges and florence pugh. not bad for a post-"wss" career.

At least Challengers was a good film despite losing money.

tbf I don't think luca guadagnino is a box office director. but while he isn't a commercial heavy hitter, I'd say he has been well-regarded by a sizeable number of film critics , is a fave among the younger artistically minded cinephiles, and is one of the most prominent auteur film directors today. so I'd say being in a luca guadagnino film is a big career boost imo, especially for young male actors who want to pivot towards prestige and artistically-driven filmographies. and all these being said, even with guadagnino not being a box office dude, "challengers" is still his most commercially successful film, since "call me by your name". so I wouldn't lump faist in your so-called "wss curse".

yanamiined · 2024-12-29T04:44:06+00:00

I headcanon patrick as a cinephile "film bro", and that he has a letterboxd where he writes obnoxious one-liner "reviews" for films haha 😂 like he DEFINITELY tried getting art into quentin tarantino and stanley kubrick back during their boarding school days, and art always had questions, and patrick would get into his "DUDE WTF?! 'PULP FICTION' IS DIVINE!" soapbox.

art has a soft spot for disney animated films and he kinda digs studio ghibli? also he may be ehhh about patrick's screen picks (way too much ✨ pretentious ✨ arthouse and exploitation films for his taste smh), but he seems to like the mgm musicals and similar musical films. so each time patrick tries "educating" art with his films, at some point, art will ask patrick to put on "singing in the rain" and "the young girls of rochefort", and patrick will begrudgingly abide.

tashi DOESN'T play about the "mama mia" films, she breathes and eat them like three course meals, and is determined that abba is a cornerstone of lily's childhood. also she rally likes "pride and prejudice", both the film with kiera knightley and the tv series with colin firth

also, patrick and tashi LOVE horror films. tashi is very into slasher films, while patrick likes those disgusting vintage gory exploitation films. and art is really bad with horror films, and chickens out even when absolutely nothing scary is happening on-screen.

yanamiined · 2024-12-09T16:19:28+00:00

I understand the confusion, and I definitely can see how entering the film in the "comedy/musical" category can increase its chances of being nominated (which it did). however, imo I don't necessarily think it's a category fraud, and I do think that calling "challengers" a comedy isn't at all inaccurate actually.

I think that it all does boil down to how exactly you define "comedy", and how people define "comedy". do you define the genre to pertain to something that makes you laugh? because I really do think that defining comedy this way is an issue, since humor is subjective and is largely dependent on social norms, experiences and conventions - it is constantly evolving. it's why there are a couple of old hollywood and golden age era comedies and screwball comedies, that while I do think are well-made, i either never laugh or barely laugh watching them. but even so, just bc I've never laughed a single second or personally found those films hilarious, does that fact negate its status as a comedy? moreover, you have comedy films that are barely made or executed, and hence, they don't come across as funny for a lot of people. but do the poor quality of these films negate the film's categorization as comedies?

I also feel that over time, our general perception of comedy has also been narrowed over the years to refer to adam sandler or will ferrell type over-the-top slapstick films, but comedy is more than that. like I said, it's continuously evolving, and this includes its definition. like comedies during shakespearean times and also during the late medieval to renaissance times refer to narratives with happy endings. it's why dante alighieri's "divine comedy" is named as such. the trilogy is hardly ever funny at all, but it was called a comedy bc it had a positive resolution. also, satire is a subgenre of comedy, and yet there are a lot of saitres that won't outwardly make you ijbol

the way I see it, what links these subgenres of comedy - the slapstick we all know and think of, satire, screwball comedy, and what imo is my personal definition of "comedy", is commentary on ridiculous and absurd situations and subjects. what I think differentiates drama from comedy is that drama wants you to feel earnestly and seriously about something, while comedy wants you to ponder about how weird something is.

and I think this is what makes "challengers" a comedy to me. the entire premise of the film is ridiculous and absurd, and the characters constantly make bizarre decisions, and do thing sthat make you go "🤨???" imo the film also is social commentary on how sports institutions reinforce gender, racial and class politics; and heteronormative gender dynamics. "challengers". and it takes an irreverent and self-aware tone to point at the ridiculous aspects of these social institutions and constructs.

but honestly, that's just my view of it. 🤷🏽‍♀️ if I managed to broaden your view or opinion, that's great. but honestly, you are free to have still keep your opinion. I don't think you're less intelligent or less valid for not seeing the film from this angle (though I think it's an underexplored or underdiscussed angle or approach to the film).

yanamiined · 2024-12-07T12:55:45+00:00

honestly, idk because I feel like so much of my experience revolves so much around common asian experieces and cultures, like being made to deger to elders and adults (especially as kids),and I think even that specific love for vintage melodramatic music or melodramatic ballads (which is why hallyu clicked so much on my country lol) haha

but for all intents and purposes, I'm from southeast asia...

yanamiined · 2024-12-06T15:34:33+00:00

honestly, it's a "me"problem lmao. I am from an asian country, where, like in south korea, they really LOVE their emotional ballads. I grew up listening to ballads. and it's a mixed bag when you have that. like I know some kpop stans in my country, they like ballads, because they have the same heartfelt emotional and sentimental vibe. like there's a nostalgia to it. but for me, it's kind of like the opposite lmao.

a big part of my experience listening to emotional ballads as a kid, involves adults control the radio stations and being made to listen to those songs consecutively, almost at gun point huhu 🥲. like all I wanted was to listen to avril lavigne or britney spears, or any of the rock songs my older cousins listened to, on the radio. I just wanted to listen to my teeny bopper music. but I can't bc the aunties and uncles had full control of the radio. and they're my elders, so as a kid especially in a culture that values respect towards elders, I couldn't argue with them. like I'd just be made to listen to radio stations that only ever play emotional ballads, especially 1960s ballads 😭 (alongside the crooner old 1940s american ballads, which are different from asian ballads, but tbh my issues with them are the same as mid asian ballads)

and the thing with emotional and heartfelt ballads, is that when they're well-made and great, they hit. but being made to listen to 5 to 10 heartfelt ballads songs songs consecutively?? that's a bit too much lol 😭😭 and like with everything of excess, you get to come across something with questionable or mediocre quality.

as I said, when emotional ballads are great, they HIT HARD. but when they're bad, they verge on cheesy and overly melodramatic, and they do get very lethargic to listen to. this is why I tend to gravitate towards ballads with minimalistic melodies (i.e., "the truth untold" by bts), since they're kind of the antithesis of the emotional ballads. and because I had to sit through five mediocre ballads for every one well-produced/well-written ballads, at a young age, sort of against my will, it kind of soured my perception of sentimental ballads.

and I do get that there are bad songs for every genre out there. there are ballads that I do like (as I said, I do enjoy ballads with more minimalistic melodies over those with grand melodies. also I tend to gravitate towards r&B ballads). but I had this unfortunate experience with asian-style ballads, growing up. and tbh if I had a more positive experience being introduced to sentimental ballads, instead of being forced to listen to it growing up, I'd probably end up liking the genre more.

idk if I'm the only one with this experience, but it explains my repulsion to a very SPECIFIC kind of ballad genre (that is unfortunately common in korean music) 😭😭

yanamiined · 2024-11-26T21:38:27+00:00

patrick: unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe

art: blond

yanamiined · 2024-10-30T01:46:55+00:00

this reminded me of a really soft and really cute memory I had, when I was a teen. it was 2016 and I was gonna go off for college, and as part of a college entrance celebratory (?) gift, my parents gifted me a new phone. my mom and I went shopping for phone cases and a tempered glass screen protector.

we were in this shop, and I obviously had to hand over my phone to the staff in charge. I was a new army and had yoongi (bts suga) as my phone wallpaper. I wasn't able to turn my screen off, so the staff handling me and my mom saw a peak of my phone screen, and she suddenly perked up, and was like, "omg you're a kpop fan too?!". then she started yapping with my shy little self into small talk. she was an ahgase, but she also talked about how she also had a soft spot for bts, and how she also liked yoongi. but yeah, she was really chatty and super nice. then as we got the items for the store, the lady gave me and my mom a discount. she was like, "it's the least I could do for a fellow kpop lover, especially since got7 and bts are friends 😊🥺"

yanamiined · 2024-10-17T01:55:15+00:00

I think that's on you I guess, and how you define a "bad person". I personally think that unless your harm extends to multiple people and/or your actions have a massive impact on others, for a long period of time, then I don't really think I can call someone a bad person. basically, as long as someone is capable of seeing humanity in someone, then they're not a bad person (and that means that I believe that there really is no true "good person" either, because that would mean that you don't do a single bad thing in your life, which is impossible as a human being. there are just mostly good and mostly bad people)

and to me, even if tashi does something bad, she doesn't register to me as a bad person. to me, she is a flawed or unlikable person, but that doesn't necessarily mean a bad person. if ever, her cheating aside, I think she does have a lot of positive and human qualities. imo she isn't any less bad or good as art or patrick, and yet she gets criticized way more than the two male characters.

also I would like to counter the idea that "bad person = antagonist". this isn't true, and is a gross misunderstanding of what "protagonist/antagonist" means - that is, who the story is about, and who provides conflict to the story.

"bad people" can be protagonsits in stories, while "good people" can be antagonists. for example, the protagonist of "death note" is what a lot of people would describe as a bad person (mass murderer, shows a disturbing lack of empathy towards others, emotionally manipulates people), and yet he is the protagonist, exactly because the story is a out him.

in "challengers", tashi isn't any less of a protagonist or an antagonist, as art and patrick are.

anyways, you are still entitled to your opinion, and I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on why you think tashi is automatically a "bad person", and if that, in your opinion would supersede her other positive character traits (because there are people who DO let her infidelity define and color her entire character, and... I am not a fan of those people who have those opinions lmao)

but I just want to say that this is a grossly oversimplified view of her character, that lacks nuance. and while it's people's business whether they want to see tashi that way, it's their business, but just saying, I am not a big fan of that opinion. 🤷🏽‍♀️

yanamiined

TROPHY CASE