Nasty

Ilie Nastase was one of the idols of my youth. First of all, thanks to him, tennis found its place for a while in the dull programs of Romanian television during the communist era. Together with his partner and mentor Ion Tiriac, he played in the Davis Cup final three times and lost three times. I was devastated when the two lost the final in Bucharest in 1972. He was a phenomenal athlete, a unique champion at a time when the game of tennis was going through its greatest change in history, and his contribution to this (r)evolution was essential. For the young man I was then, however, he represented something more. He was one of the few Romanians who, without being the president or a spy, could travel all over the world at a time when a passport was an almost impossible dream for the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of communist Romania. And he was also one of the few male celebrities who appeared (demonstratively and defiantly, I think) with long hair at a time when the militia would round up young men with long hair on the streets and force them to get a haircut. I knew less about his controversial personality at the time and only part of his adventures on and off the tennis courts were known in our country. Over time, I learned more and my opinion about the man Ilie Nastase became more nuanced. When I found out that the team formed by Tudor Giurgiu, Cristian Pascariu and Tudor D. Popescu had made the documentary 'Nasty', I was eager to see it as soon as possible. I only saw it now, a year after its premiere at Cannes 2024, at the Romanian Film Festival in Israel. Many of the things I was expecting are in this film, but there are also some that are missing.

The documentary brings together three types of filmed materials. First of all, there are the sequences filmed on the tennis courts in the 60s and 70s that show this splendid athlete who managed shots that seemed impossible, who played with pleasure and at the same time chatted and flirted with the audience, who annoyed his opponents and constantly argued with the referees. Then there are the interviews conducted either at the time or later and up to today with celebrities of the tennis world and primarily with the great players from Nastase's era and those who came after him. What a pleasure to see Stan Smith (Nastase's archrival and opposite in everything), Billie Jean King, Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker, John MacEnroe, Arthur Ashe talking about Nastase the athlete and the man, most of the time with admiration, sometimes with criticism, never without fondness. Finally, the filmed sequences and interviews are accompanied and packaged in comments from recent interviews with the film's hero, often alongside Ion Tiriac. The presentation is not chronological, the childhood and beginning of his career appear about halfway through the film, and the climax - the lost final in 1972 - is well placed towards the end.

What I liked: first of all, the sequences filmed on the court, including some of the famous controversial moments. In retrospect, I agree with Nastase in 80% of the situations and I believe that he contributed significantly to raising the level of refereeing and increasing respect for the players. The film captures several essential aspects of the transformation that tennis was going through in those years, from the status of an elitist sport practiced by rich amateurs, who could afford the time, equipment and travel, to professional sport, with all the advantages and disadvantages of the sport transformed into a global televised spectacle and a business that generates colossal amounts of money. The athlete who came from communist Romania was given the opportunity to play an important role in changing the status of the players, their relationships with the referees, even the equipment on the court (he was the first or among the first to use colored jerseys). What I missed were somewhat more professional comments related to this transition, but also to the interviews from that period and to Nastase's special status as a professional performance athlete with a Romanian passport. The differences between the interviews in Romanian (for the censored television) and those in the West are visible only to very experienced eyes. The documentary does not delve into more controversial aspects of the athlete's statements and behavior on and off the tennis court, during his active period and after retirement. I suspect there were limitations here because the filmmakers wanted to secure the collaboration of the great athlete, but my feeling at the end was that too much respect meant less documentary acuity. Anyway, thanks for the nostalgia bath!

Ilie Nastase, the first ATP world number 1, is vividly brought to life in a documentary that celebrates his numerous titles and larger-than-life personality. This makes for a highly entertaining film that captures Nastase's charm, but also falls short in structural coherence and depth, leaving many potentially interesting aspects of his life unexplored. The early years are notably absent, offering only a glimpse into his fiery nature and leaving most of the root causes to the viewer's imagination.

The documentary, while touching lightly on the political and social context of the late 20th century, focuses more on reminiscing about an era of professional tennis that is gone now - one marked by a closer, more informal camaraderie and stronger personalities. Nastase might be seen as intolerable today but was a product of his times, contributing to the sport's transformation. Or maybe just witnessing it. The narrative conveys warmth and nostalgia through testimonials, past and present, from tennis legends like Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King, who reflect on Nastase's complex personality with a mix of admiration and bemusement.

Despite its engaging content and archival footage, the film struggles with pacing and clarity, often feeling like a fragmented collection of anecdotes about Nastase's talent and temperament. It veers towards impermanence and is afraid to look deeper into his legacy and how aging and leaving the limelight has affected such a complicated personality.

Nevertheless, the documentary succeeds in capturing the essence of Nastase's flamboyant character, making it a compelling watch for those interested in the history of tennis. And for those longing for "the good old days".

Ilie Nastase was my first tennis hero. I can still remember being disappointed when he lost the 1972 Wimbledon final to the American Stan Smith and even more so when he so tamely lost the 1976 final to the emergent Bjorn Borg. With his wavy hair, saturnine looks and entertaining playing style he was arguably the first new superstar of the Open era. With great movement around the court and a wide range of shots he was equally successful in doubles tennis and until the appearance of young superstars like Borg and Connors was probably the biggest name in the game, as evidenced by his signing the first sportswear contract with Nike way back before that became an everyday occurrence in the sport.

But they don't call him Nasty for nothing. While much of his antics on court were entertaining and served to prick the pomposity of the tennis establishment, he undoubtedly went too far on occasion, as we see him practicing the dark art of gamesmanship, especially on the normally placid Arthur Ashe. He was also guilty more than once of making highly inappropriate remarks off-court, nicknaming Ashe in a racially derogative manner while he was playing and many years later to Serena Williams during her pregnancy.

This near two-hour documentary on his life and times doesn't go into any detail on his childhood years. We're not told anything about his parents or his upbringing with his story really only beginning when he pairs up with his long-term doubles partner, the appreciably older Ion Tiriac and makes his breakthrough in both doubles and especially singles disciplines. We see many examples of his brilliance on court but also a number of his pre-McEnroe-type spats with the game's umpires and administrators.

Certainly, there are no shortage of big-name players, past and present, who line up to mostly pay tribute to his maverick ways, including contemporaries like Smith, Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Billie-Jean King and later stars like Mats Wilander, Boris Becker and Rafa Nadal. In particular, he formed a firm friendship and winning doubles partnership with the equally out-there American superstar Jimmy Connors, who speaks warmly of their time together on the circuit.

While I didn't agree with some of the unsporting stunts he occasionally pulled and certainly a number of the unpleasant things he's said off court, I found it impossible not to be won over by this sometimes infuriating but never dull individual. The point is made throughout that Nastase was the type of player who put bums on seats and got people interested in the game who might otherwise have passed it by.

I could have done without the seemingly voguish but sometimes confusing direction style of going back and forth in time and would have appreciated a bit more insight into his personal background, not only his youth but also into his colourful personal life as we learn he was married five times. Some interesting contemporary context, however, is provided when we see the 1972 Davis Cup staged in Nastase's own, Ceausesco-era, very grey Bucharest, against the Americans, where he buckled under the pressure of the expectations of his fellow countrymen and women. We also get a little insight into his entangled love life where it seems he could no more resist a beautiful woman than they could him. Filled with many nostalgic anecdotes and reminiscences, the picture emerges of a complex individual on and off the court, but one who in comparison with the super-fit emotionless automatons of today's game, certainly enlivened the often musty and privileged old game and helped, for better or worse to usher in the modern era.

This is how tennis progressed, from English rigidity, to a show for the public and to the relationship between the players!

But progress induces publicity, and that means money!

Unfortunately, all sports today come down to money.

No more pure joy and entertainment!

There is nothing spontaneous left - only 500 pages of regulations!

Regarding Ashe, I'm sorry that the phase when they played doubles together and Nastase painted his face black was not presented, the rules being that:-)

As ramya_amon16 says : Tennis as a game vs tennis as a job - a big difference!

For those nostalgic (for all sports), there are still online matches for joy pour les neige d'antan!

It is a rather good movie, well documented and presents some unique footage and insights into the life of Ilie Nastase, one of the world'sbest tennis players. What the film lacks in depth, full documentary and historic details (as a follow thorugh on his journey from youth to old age) it fills in with meaningful expert opinions from various experts and other players, his own remarks and amazing cinematography selected from a wide range of archive footages. It could go more in detail and provide some perspectives but it is still a movie worth the time and quite a pleasant experience overall that will leave you satisfied.