THE infamous rivalry between two of the tennis world’s biggest names, Björn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) and John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf), seems inherently destined to be explored on the big-screen, such is the nature of the classic battle between two complete opposites.
The film focuses on the lead-up to the pair’s legendary face-off at Wimbledon in 1980 that could give Borg his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title but could also see him usurped as world number one by McEnroe.
It’s interesting to see the contrast between the two writ large on-screen, conflicting Borg’s almost robot-like strict preparation (including standing barefoot on dozens of rackets to test the tightness of the strings) with McEnroe’s famously hot-headed temperament that led to his angry outbursts at the umpire.
But despite its equal title, the film feels like it short changes McEnroe’s story in favour of exploring Borg’s more thoroughly. Much of the flashbacks and off-the-court drama lean heavier on the background and motivations of the Swede, from his childhood in Stockholm to how he teamed up with his trainer Lennart Bergelin (Stellan Skarsgård). Quite apart from him being a dead ringer for the man himself, Gudnason plays him with the cool-as-a-cucumber objectivity that perfectly captures the towering real-life sportsman.
It’s LaBeouf’s fittingly larger-than-life performance that does much of the heavy lifting on McEnroe’s side; the actor really dives into the portrayal with both feet, raging with the “you can’t be serious!” exclamations that still ring in the ears of tennis fans while also finding grace notes that lifts the performance beyond the kind of caricature it so easily could have become.
For the most part the film follows along a fairly standard sports biopic path that somewhat strangles the exploration of divergent personalities buried inside. But it also sends us off on a high with a thrilling depiction of the Wimbledon final the two men have worked so hard to reach.
Director Janus Metz finds new ways to make the sport cinematic with every tension-filled point given. He conveys the sense that, for many tennis fans, a single match can feel like that’s all that matters. It’s just a shame that, as a supposed equal-footing biopic, it always feels so one-sided.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here