Tenet in review, Part Two

If you’ve read Part One of my review, you’ll know that I’ve given myself a lot to do in this article (in the likely event that you haven’t read Part One, be aware that I’ve only really spoken about ‘Tenet(‘s)’ cinematography and music so far.) In this post, I intend to shine the spotlight on the plot of Nolan’s film, his direction, the actors/characters, and the movie’s practical effects (amongst other things, perhaps) My eyes may be bigger than my belly in this respect, especially if I let this introduction ramble on any further. I need to be economical with my words, so I’m ending my intro here. I plan on squeezing my ‘Review Score’ for ‘Tenet’ in the article somewhere too - I hope that you find it acceptable!

I started Part One of my review in an ‘unusual place’; in other words, I quailed at the prospect of approaching ‘Tenet(‘s)’ plot - the film’s defining feature - and chose to discuss colours instead. I can fend off the inevitable no more. The movie in question is defined by its mind-bending plot (for better and for worse). Christopher Nolan is known for creating cinematic brain teasers, and his latest is no different (I won’t hear anything about Rach 3 until you’ve sat through ‘Inception’ and ‘Tenet’ back-to-back without going crazy.) This certainly puts people off his films (as if Covid wasn’t enough of a deterrent) but I don’t think that it should. Whilst being brilliantly unique and gripping, the plot of ‘Tenet’ is not unreasonably hard to follow (for the most part). I did need two viewings to reach this conclusion though, to be honest. The film’s trailer did not give much away: ‘International Espionage’ was touted as the broad focus, I seem to remember. I definitely wasn’t mentally prepared for the time-travel mindbuster that we was actually got. ‘Tenet’ is a work of genius. It’s one thing to come up with the idea of ‘inversion’, but to work it into a plot successfully and coherently is another. The Nolan Brothers handled the film’s core idea excellently. 

The notion of reversing one’s entropy (‘Inversion’) comes with so many possibilities, but so many ramifications too. For example, the very nature of ‘Inversion’ makes for stunningly distinct action sequences (exactly what you want in a film of this genre), and the apparatus for ‘Inversion’ (the turnstile and the peruvian window) helps make ‘Tenet’ the cinematic spectacle that it is. On the other hand, ‘inversion’ disturbs the idea of a linear plot, making story-writing much more difficult, I’d imagine. Subsequently, In ‘Tenet,’ we have a similar situation to that in ‘Memento’ (another Nolan film). The English director's latest picture begins after the event, takes us a bit further forward in time, at which point we’re ‘inverted’ (sent backwards in time) ending up in the period before the event for the film's final Act. The ‘event’ (my name for it) is the source of the film’s drama and tension, despite the fact that it’s resolved almost at the start of the story (we don’t know this at the time, though). Inversion demands this to happen, and the Nolans negotiate it excellently. The truth is carefully hidden in plain sight - we’re forced to go the long way to understand this. It’s very hard to explain without explicitly spoiling the plot. What I’m trying to say is that ‘Inversion’ is a tricky, but excellent, idea, and the Nolans have demonstrated masterful screenwriting by working it into a story without any cost to tension. ‘Tenet(‘s)’ plot is superb.

The idea of Inversion also lends itself to clever linked moments in the movie - the lady diving off the yacht for example, or the mysterious silver car which is critical in the passing of the plutonium. I also really liked the explanation for the two assailants in the Free Port (it was the same person twice) I adore ditties like this in a film: bits that are initially left unexplained, but when the time comes, their true meaning and relevance is delivered (what I’d call ‘Oh I see’ moments). ‘Tenet’ is rich in this commodity (the aforementioned scenes being prime examples.) The presence of such moments in a movie is evidence of considered writing.

I have to mention the ‘temporal pincer movement’ in ‘Tenet’ too. It’s possibly one of the most mind-wrecking concepts I’ve ever encountered, but it’s superbly clever. One side of a team travels backwards in time through an event - they use the intel they gain from doing so to inform the other side of their team, who are set to travel forwards in time through the same event. The team travelling forward in time now knows what to expect. I think that this is the gist of the ‘temporal pincer’. I’m in awe of anyone who can concoct an idea like this - even more so if they can work it into a film. The Nolans did both. This is yet another thing that speaks favourably for ‘Tenet(‘s)’ plot. 

I’d like to draw attention to the treatment of paradoxes in ‘Tenet’ too. ‘The Grandfather Paradox’ threatens the integrity of the movie’s plot - Nolan deals with it excellently. The antagonist (or antagonists) in ‘Tenet’ is a future generation, represented by Kenneth Branagh’s character; they want to use an inverted weapon to destroy the civilization we see in the film (our present world). If they follow through with this destruction, though, surely they’re threatening their own existence too? How will they be born if they kill their distant predecessors? This is the essence of the ‘Grandfather Paradox’. The film doesn’t answer these questions, nor does it resolve the paradox - that would be impossible. It does the next best thing. Kenneth Branagh’s monologue near the end of the film (a fine monologue) addresses the paradoxical grey-area perfectly: the offending generations are taking this risk with the inverted weapon because they have nothing to lose. In their time, the world is ravaged and exhausted: there’s nothing left for them to harvest, and the seas have risen to their shoulders. They want to reverse our climate neglect, to save their own souls. They have no choice but to test the paradox, as they’re on course for devastation anyway. This is ingenious writing by the Nolan Brothers - it’s rather subtle too. ‘The Grandfather Paradox’ seriously threatened their story, and rather than backing down from it, or seeking a cop-out, they took it head on, and found the perfect solution (bar actually figuring out the paradox (which is impossible)) I feel as if this aspect of ‘Tenet(‘s)’ plot deserves endless credit.

As I’ve made clear, ‘Tenet’ has a cracking story and a superb central idea. It’s on this basis, with my feelings for the film’s plot safely established, that I feel comfortable enough to air some minor issues I have with the movie’s proceedings. First of all, I’d like to qualify a statement I made earlier - that ‘Tenet(‘s)’ plot is ‘not unreasonably hard to follow’. Whilst I stand by this claim, I would like to add that some of the film’s plot wanders into the ridiculously complex. I don’t mean ‘ridiculous’ to be strictly derogatory - I’m simply trying to say that a few plot developments asked too much of my brain, for my liking. The ‘temporal pincer movement’ is an example of this. The film’s denouement is preposterously perplexing too, which annoyed me. Neil’s antics in particular were baffling - he saved the day, but I didn’t (and still don't) understand how he did so. Not only was he literally in two places at once, but he made a strange comment about being in a ‘loop’ too which went over my head. I didn’t sit through 2 hours of brain punishment to not understand the ending of the film! This was rather unsatisfactory. I think Nolan took the biscuit here. 

In the interests of readability, I’m bringing this part of my ‘Tenet’ review to an end. I’ve still got a little bit more to say on the film - I haven’t quite yet exhausted my checklist - so keep your eyes peeled for part 3 (three), which should be posted next Monday (hopefully!). I struggled to decide whether it would be a bigger mick take to make this post really long, or to split it into two, which would add a third part to my ‘Tenet’ review. I originally opted for the first option, but even I (the writer!) struggled to read to the end of it. This is why I’m taking the unprecedented step of devoting three posts to a single film. I think that this in itself speaks of ‘Tenet(‘s)’ quality though. Remember - I believe that you should actually watch Nolan’s film, rather than reading my review. I’ve given you more time to get to the cinema now. I expect you to have seen the film by the time my next article is posted. With that said, I’ll thank you for reading this part of my ‘Tenet’ review! I hope to see you again for part three! As always, please tweet me your thoughts (thoughts pertaining to this article and its contents preferably) @Torpaldo.

Thanks.