Publisher: CinemaSerf June 11, 2026
This is one of those films that really annoys me. It depicts a fictional scenario where "Julie" (Tessa Van den Broeck) is an aspiring tennis star. There are even rumours that the Belgian Federation is looking at her for some international representative matches. Then, quite suddenly, her coach goes off the grid. "Jeremy" (Laurent Caron) has been suspended. No-one knows quite why, only that another promising player has committed suicide and that the club has drafted in an independent consultant to chat with the girls about their experiences with him. There are no accusations being made, per se, but as his absence becomes prolonged the focus shifts more onto a "Julie" who has maintained a steady silence on her relationship with a man whom she has openly acknowledged has played a crucial role in getting her to where she is today. In his absence, the amiable newbie "Backie" (Pierre Gervais) is appointed to coach her, but it's fairly clear from the start that she doesn't rate him much and would prefer to await the return of the man she has become used to. Is there any substance to these allegations? Are there actually any allegations at all? Is this man to be destroyed by an unsubstantiated rumour mill? That's where I lost interest here. If there are serious allegations about a professional abusing their position at the club with girls - or boys, then where are the authorities? The parents? The police? Social services? Why would the club - a entity way more concerned about it's reputation and membership fees, be even dreaming of handling such matters privately? What rights of response has "Jeremy" had to rebut any accusers - if there are any? Is "Julie" keeping quiet because she has something to say or because she has nothing? On that front, we do get a few conflicting "clues" towards the end, but again their ambiguity only seems to serve to lead us to a conclusion that appears to suggest someone else may have said something to somebody. From a production perspective, this is all adequate enough and the one scene where we do observe her and "Jeremy" is appropriately opposite a church. Is that about achieving a confession; an allusion to the many allegations about the historic behaviour of the clergy - or just an accident? I thought the repetitious tennis practicing did wear a little - she never seemed to play against an opponent, and to be honest I was surprisingly uninterested in the undercooked character of "Julie" as this story rather stuttered along leaving us to decide if enough mud was sticking to the walls, or not, with precious little to go on. Sure, it showcases that trusted people in responsibility are often able to prey on those vulnerable, needy or just plain ambitious, but for this to have resonated more we needed a lot more meat on it's bones.