The score in “Challengers,” Luca Guadagnino’s film that was released in early 2024, gets introduced about two and a half minutes into the movie. The two central male characters, Art, played by Mike Faist, and Patrick, played by Josh O’Connor, are playing in their final “challenger” match. And seated directly between them next to the court is Tashi, Art’s wife and Patricks former — and, frankly, current — lover.
I remember watching the film with my friends in the AMC theatre next to the Park Street station, and the way the audience murmured with incredulous laughter when we collectively heard the synthy, techno thrum of the music, interspersed with the grunts of the players and the slam of the tennis ball.
It’s so obscenely obnoxious, and so surprising to the listener, but it works perfectly within the scene. It propels the energy hidden within the players — their desire to win both the game and the girl.
The score, composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, marks another success in a storied partnership between the two artists, preceding their collaboration in a second Guadagnino film released later in 2024 called “Queer.” Prior to their collaboration in films, they were also members of the band Nine Inch Nails, an alternative rock group that was at its peak in the 90’s.
The “Challengers” score takes a while to get comfortable with — but that’s part of its draw.
Tennis isn’t relaxing, and attraction isn’t either, especially not when you’re fighting to be the focal point of someone else. Reznor and Ross’ score reflects that taut, straining feeling, like the strings of a tennis racket flexing to their limit.
Last Thursday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the nominations for the 97th Oscars Ceremony.
I expected “Challengers” to be left out of most other categories, but at the very least, to get a nomination for “Best Original Score.” I was wrong, of course, and disappointed — but in retrospect, not surprised.
“Challengers” symbolizes several things Oscars voters seem to be afraid of, year after year: desire, youth and surprise, among other attributes. This trend was proven by other noticeable snubs from this year’s nominations lineup. “Queer,” “Babygirl” and “I Saw the TV Glow,” were each overlooked in favor of films like “Wicked” and “A Complete Unknown,” two arguably safer picks.
Sure, there are exceptions — Mikey Madison is nominated for her role as a sex worker in “Anora,” and “The Substance,” a body horror film that surely would have been ignored several years ago, nabbed several nominations.
However, these are exceptions to the rule.
Conservatism is ingrained in the fabric of the Oscars. That’s why it’s so surprising when they go out on a limb.
If you’re looking for a logistical reason for the snub, it might be because Reznor and Ross already won Academy Awards for their work in David Fincher’s “The Social Network” and the Pixar movie “Soul.”
Anyone who’s followed the Oscars long enough knows that they’re sometimes given out not based on merit, but instead on politics. Think Jamie Lee Curtis in “Everything Everywhere All At Once” — undeserving, but if you understand awards season, understandable.
Several of the scores nominated for this year’s ceremony are deserving, but few deliver the same originality that the “Challengers” score does. I mean, “Wicked” — the musical-turned-film that has been on Broadway for over two decades — was nominated.
No shade to “Wicked,” but if they win this award, it will be the musical equivalent to “Shakespeare in Love” beating “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture in 1999.
Over the past few years, the Academy has shown its age — fewer young people watch the awards every year, and it seems that every awards season, there’s a new article about whether or not the Oscars are actually going to survive. When they ignore films that so obviously attracted a younger audience and critical acclaim, it demonstrates a total unwillingness to progress.
Attempts at progress seem more like self-serving symbolic recognition rather than an actual understanding of contemporary cultural conversation. Maybe that’s why “Challengers” was snubbed — it found larger recognition amongst those younger crowds, people whose opinion the Academy may not want to be aligned with.
There’s nothing that can be done now to give the “Challengers” score the nomination it so obviously deserves. But there’s a kind of pseudo-comfort in knowing that almost everyone agrees with the fact that they were snubbed.
