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. 



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.