Skip to main content

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet
(2020)

(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

That’s a criticism to some degree – you don’t want everything served on a plate, but you do need to be able to establish some clear and concise basic rules of the universe, especially in terms of an attempt at new visual grammar – but it may be one I reverse (or invert, if you will) upon revisit. I could follow the gist of Tenet, which is basically a Bond movie (Nolan’s favourite series, if the likes of Batman Begins and Inception hadn’t already spelled that out) with added temporal wizardry.

But whereas Inception managed to offer immersive imagery, lucid plotting and involving characters, Tenet trails on all fronts. The characters are mostly so low key as to be entirely functional – its clearest comparison, beyond the tricksy structure, to Primer, a film for which life is too short to invest the time in to revisit, however worthwhile. The inverted/normal action sequences are striking and compelling, yet it’s often difficult maintain focus on their objectives. And the plotting… Well, Nolan’s twist on time-travel means you’re so distracted by the bells and whistle that there isn’t a lot of time to assess whether there’s anything really satisfying going on under the hood.

And like The Dark Knight Rises – remember the reactions to muffled Bane in the trailers? – Tenet’s sound is frequently an obstacle to intelligibility. Frequently intentionally so it seems, as there are great dumps of exposition and motivation dropped during noisy action, to “create a visceral emotional experience… beyond merely an intellectual one”. Really? Cold-fish Chris wants an emotional experience? Then his is a perverse logic, because the effect is an additionally distancing one in a movie of resolutely cool level-headedness.

The only overt emotional responses are allowed the husband-wife duo of Andrei Sator (Sir Ken) and Kat (Elizabeth Debicki), the latter a battered wife held hostage – but not “fridged” in contrast to a standard complaint with Nolan fare – and the former a grim-faced psychopath ready and eager to dish pain and distress. Ken’s good in the role, but it’s hardly a nuanced one. Debicki’s as flawless as ever in a damsel-in-distress part “rewarded” with revenge at her hand. So yeah, it’s nice that Kat gets her kid for keeps, and that Andrei undergoes a very constitution-cramping demise. But how much do you really care?

Similarly so with John David Washington and Robert Pattison as “the Protagonist” and Neil. They’re more than serviceable, and we leave them safe and a little sad in the knowledge that they’ll become best buds in inverse directions (Nolan’s been watching Dark). But you don’t really need to see more of their adventures. Pattison reminded me of a sort of cross between Jeremy Irons and Michael York here. He and the later appearing Aaron Taylor-Johnson – who continues his chameleonic ambitions as Ives, equipped with a big bushy beard – fit the Joseph Gordon-Levitt/Tom Hardy parts from Inception. Which makes Washington DiCaprio. But as capable as his character is, he’s new to this particular game, so not as surefooted and calculated as Leo.

In tandem with that, as transfixing as the inverted sequences are, they don’t “wow” in the way Inception’s dreamscape did. A lot more work is required to discern the reverse logic and the pieces of the jigsaw; even if you “get” the effect-then-cause process, it’s another thing to perceive and digest that in action. Which means, as a plus for Nolan, it’s more difficult to break down the potential holes in his construct, at least initially.

Nolan’s always been a cool filmmaker, but this might be his most clinical picture yet. As big as it is, Tenet is very clipped, very minimalist in terms of gesture and poise. The greatest impact comes from Ludwig Göransson’s prowling, pulsing score, driving us forward even when we’re otherwise at a loss.

That said, while I’ve voiced my concerns over coherence, it’s only really the grand climax that left me entirely bewildered by the spectacle. Yes, I know these “temporal pincer movements” were explained several times, but let’s be honest: Nolan has never been the greatest marshaller of the action sequence (making it the more bemusing that he continually sets himself greater and greater challenges). While he improves, he simply lacks the innate genius of George Miller. Reading the final sequence’s synopsis, it’s easy to respond “Ah yes, of course”. Watching it, however, I found it even less coherent than his usual form (and again, it’s the score, if anything, that makes you feel it has all come together). The expensive effects that are supposed to stun – look at the two-way exploding building! – rather left me shrugging. There are several occasions where we revisit a sequence again from an inverted perspective, but there’s curiously little entailing satisfaction from things falling into place.

As a piece of plotting, Nolan has set up a “foe from the future” storyline with idiosyncratic twists. We have no glimpse of the future world or any of those from it, merely their instrument of destruction. There are pros and cons to this approach, but the main consequence is that the picture is even more Bondian through keeping the future as hearsay (or foresay).

The is much talk of temporal theory, of Grandfather paradoxes and time loops (“Either way we run the tape, you made it happen”). The operating theory is that these loops are internally coherent, even though there is discussion of potentially changing them. The Protagonist asks Dimple Kapadia’s arms dealer Priya not to tell his past self about the “plutonium” so he doesn’t attempt to get hold of it, but she refuses – “If that universe can exist, we don’t live in it” – meaning Chris can avoid facing the point down.

Those in the future are attempting a Grandfather Paradox in their plan to change history (I was unclear on the specifics of their scheme, in as much as their world is screwed so they intend to reverse climate change by reversing the Earth’s entropy; presumably, that means returning the planet to an earlier, pre-man-corrupted state, rather than outright destroying it). We see one loop paradox in effect in relation to the Oslo freeport “time stile”, whereby the Protagonist and Neil only know about the time stile because their future selves utilise it, such that when they do utilise it is as their future selves (this one of the few points where I was ahead of the curve, realising who it had to be when Neil pulled off his unseen assailant’s mask first time out).

The plot device of nine parts of the algorithm being hidden in the past works well enough, but it isn’t really all that satisfying (if you want it out of reach, there are surely better and less elaborate ways of achieving this – I had vague déjà vu of The Rise of Skywalker’s treasure hunt, particularly with digressions such as obtaining the fake Goya to get there). Likewise, the inverted bullets thing sounds cool, but really: they’re brought back from the future and sold on the black market because they do more damage than regular bullets? I mean, how much more damage than regular bullets do you need to do in order to make them sought after? Surely it would be more effective simply to employ someone with accurate aim.

With the Nolans and their oeuvre, one inevitably wonders on their fare’s predictive programming element, not least Jonathan and his AI, transhumanist obsession on TV (Person of Interest, Westworld). For Christopher’s part, he has managed to make one of the major (possibly it will be the major released one) movies of 2020, and it’s one that is intrinsically sold on mask wearing. Indeed, it’s intrinsic to the Protagonist’s survival. Added to which, Nolan is explicitly reinforcing Interstellar’s doomed future by selling the climate-change narrative (Greta will give it two diminutive thumbs up). Notable too, that those from the future are attempting a reset (which ties in with some of the more outré AI theories of our paradigm). A reset of one shape or form – financial, social, medical – is also a presiding real-world narrative right now, its play out seemingly imminent.

On a more superficial note, it appears the director has taken note of “Nolan so white” charges previously levelled, even as the picture translates as possibly even more culturally – read: British – clipped and rigid in demeanour than Dunkirk. Nolan talisman Michael Caine is duly wheeled out, and I have to admit, it’s the first time he’s seemed his age in terms of performance. I see he has another couple of pictures incoming, so hopefully he was just having a couple of off days on set.

Even given my qualifications, Tenet is the Nolan film I’ve enjoyed most since Inception. I don’t know if it will improve or diminish in estimation upon repeat visit. I expect the former, not just in terms of the leavening of its plot and visual dynamic, but character and performance too. There’s no doubt he’s made things expressly difficult for his audience this time, though, which given his standard budgets is a risky business; even if this had unfolded as a normal summer, I think Tenet would have had a hard time coming close to breaking even. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.