TENET is one of my favorites of Nolan's along with Memento. Memento would be very interesting to cover because of the storyline split into two parts as they go on.
It would be amazing if you compared Nolan's Insomnia (2002) with Skjoldbjærg's Insomnia (1997). There's a lot of identity in both. And also... In the future: How the cinematography in Nolan's films changed. A comparison between Pfister's and Hoytema's work.
Ironically the scene where the protagonist stats “I’m the protagonist” has felt profoundly emotional to me upon repeated viewings. It feels very noble and shows his dedication to the bizarre job of saving the world he was recruited into.
Nolan has indicated in interviews that watching it more than once is a big part of the point. He has always admired films that hold up to, or even benefit from, multiple viewings, and is self-consciously trying to create films like that. He just tried a little too hard this time.
@@QuinnMiller Well, I surely didn't UNDERSTAND everything from one viewing. I surely got all the pieces, but had to watch it multiple times to put everything perfectly together. So props to you
@@phantom2683 fair enough I guess there are probably some connections that make more sense in hindsight I might still pick up on. Maybe I should see it again
Something I'm surprised you didn't mention is Dunkirk, because I think it also experiments with nameless protagonists who don't have prior introduction, and as you pointed out in the Nolan interview, we are forced to jump straight in and witness their story
@@useless_name I agree, to the soldiers their prime goal in the movie is survival, and from that objective u can see how it reflects on different soldiers’ mind set in the war, it’s simple yet effective
That's the thing about Dunkirk though: there's no story. There's no plot or goal for anyone. It's literally as if Nolan took the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and made that into a feature-length film. Even some of the reactionary bits in Dunkirk make no sense, like the Captain turning around and the shot holding on his face that turns to a look of surprise and joy, as if we as an audience are about to see something that will surprise us. But it's not. It's just the boats come to help, which we already knew about, making the choice to hold on his face in anticipation a nonsensical move.
@@LevCallahan I agree. Nolan basically took the story that we already knew the start and the end of, but made it grandiose and blockbustery. There was no surprise in the storytelling, only for the fxs. Even in this regard the immersion is largely ruined by the inability to recreate the sheer frantic and congested beach of Dunkirk due to his stubborn reliance on practical work.
I just noticed --- It's crazy that in a way, this movie makes use of not having a character backstory by making the MOVIE the actual backstory, which you now use to inform yourself on and connect yourself to the protagonist when rewatching.
Exactly! I think the emotional connection builds this way too. At the end of the film himself and Neil have had their first great adventure, are now trusted friends, and will a great friendship in the future, even though he has to mourn his loss in the present.
I watched this film a second time as soon as the credits rolled. It immediately felt obvious that it was a second-viewing kind of film, as everything fell into place. The Protagonist's actual character and motivation, and even story-arc, is subtle, but it's clear if you factor in a key character everyone seems to dismiss: Kat. The Protagonist starts the movie off as a classic James Bond-style protagonist, whose only goal is to get the job done. He even has a Bond-like performative flirtation with Kat to deliberately provoke the Sator, the Antagonist. But something happens shortly after that when, like Bond, his cavalier actions put Kat in immediate, mortal peril. And unlike a James Bond movie, she confronts him about it, throwing all his delusions of heroism in his face. That sparks the story's central twist, and the key to its philosophy. The protagonist who's so busy trying to win that he disregards the lives of the people around them, or even actively puts them in danger, is no hero at all. From that point on, the Protagonist is confronted with this truth again and again, until he shifts his priority to protecting Kat. Her life becomes his top priority, not for reasons of logic, but for reasons of honor and decency, because after all, he's the one who keeps putting her in danger. And it turns out that Kat becomes the key to saving the world. Hers is the hand that kills Sator, as she's the one with a personal stake. Not in the world, but her son, and his future. For her, the personal and the global are the same thing. So the Protagonist shifts from simply a guy doing a job to someone with personal stakes through simple dint of developing empathy for another person, something he didn't have at the beginning. Not a flirtation or a romance. Not because he wanted a future with her, but simply because he needed a future worth protecting, and he personally didn't have one. In the final debate between Sator and the Protagonist, Sator reveals his inability to comprehend existence outside his personal experience, so he sees no reason existence should continue without him. The Protagonist's reluctant acknowledgement that Kat's life matters more than doing his job is the thing that gives his job purpose in the first place. Without that acknowledgement, the world he's trying to save is only a theoretical world. Empathy for Kat is what gives him the faith that Sator lacks. Just as Interstellar builds a world of cold, heartless science, and then positions love at the central, unknowable force that binds it together, Tenet positions empathy as the redemption of a clockwork world where everyone is at the mercy of predestination. Caring for others is the only thing that gives existence meaning.
Well put. I've seen complaints that the Protagonist has no personality - but he's truly an interesting man: underneath the ruthless CIA agent he cares deeply for people. Unlike the typical secret agent archetype, people's lives come before the mission and not the other way around. We see this with Kat and Max (obviously), but also while planning the plane crash he ensures the safety of the innocent crew members. PS. I liked that Nolan didn't try to shoehorn in a romance with Kat. The Protagonist doesn't need to be in love to want to save her, he just needs to be a decent person.
@@PurtyPurple Right, I think that was a key point. If you step back far enough, Tenet is a James Bond adventure (with a sci-fi twist) but where James Bond has a crisis of conscience and ends up centering the love interest's life as the goal, whilst simultaneously abandoning his romantic interest in her. So it's actually a direct subversion of the James Bond trope. And as is often the case with subversion, this is what I think people found offputting. When they say the protagonist had no personality, what they mean is he didn't personally benefit from his triumph. Typically in movies, being the protagonist means the movie is about you. James Bond may claim to fight for queen and country, but in the end, he's the one that personally triumphs. This movie was making a statement that the protagonist was deliberately de-centering himself. He wasn't looking for accolades or rewards, especially not in the form of "the girl." He just wanted to save the world.
I actually liked that he didn't have a name because I think a spy movie works better when the protagonist isn't known by the whole enemy country (thanks bond)
What are you talking about? I saw it in theaters and it made perfect sense. The artifacts they were after were created in the future. By putting the objects together, the world will end. The Russian dude has cancer, and wants the world to die with him. It's as simple as that.
I watched it in Imax I couldn't hear shit during the whole phonecall scene at the end, this could have been solved by not having the big scary Russian try to scare people by whispering every word.
I think strangely a great film to contrast with Tenet is The Martian. Both films feature a protagonist who is mostly defined by his job, isn’t given lots of backstory, and spends a lot of the action working alone. But The Martian does really well in giving the audience reasons to care about and root for the protagonist, while Tenet doesn’t really give the Protagonist many opportunities to connect with the audience. It’s fine that he doesn’t have an extensive backstory, but I wish the film allowed him to show more emotion and spent more time building the relationships between him and the other characters.
*- If this weapon is used, everything and everyone in the universe will die* *- Including my son* This is still my favorite line of dialogue in the history of cinema.
It doesn't help that the main actor didn't have much of a personality. He barely showed any emotion when the scientist lady was showing him how to shoot a bullet in reverse. A better actor would have improved the movie experience. I think Jake Gyllenhall should have been cast for the part.
@@nerychristian I just think John David Washington isn't charismatic enough to play a protagonist. Unlike his father or Will Smith, DiCaprio and other actors.
@@nerychristian That's what bugged me the most: man is showed some pretty miraculous stuff and his reaction couldn't be much more downplayed. To him it truly seemed to be just a Tuesday.
everything in this movie is set in a high end luxury setting with exotic scenic backdrops and strict dress codes, there is no enjoyment in any of those things, every moment makes you extremely uncomfortable, despite all these things. seemingly tells u, luxury and high end things only work to your distress.
I liked tenet. Watching it the first time I didn't really know what I just saw and couldn't quite make sense of everything. I didn't feel things I expected to feel. But I know that Nolan can write very emotionally compelling stories. And that alongside the fact that the protagonist had no name and there he himself was being guided through the film made me think that this is exactly what Nolan was aiming for. Tenet is not like a story. It's more like a puzzle. A game which rules you have to figure out in order to enjoy the whole picture in its beautiful complexity. And watching it a second time under this premise was genuinely one of the most fun experiences I ever had while watching a film. I think it's amazing.
The thing that I love about Nolan, is that he seemingly does his best to totally disregard the QC checklist of a movie. Personally, personally I loved the artistry of the movie. I wish I could go in depth without sounding like I'm whining on his behalf but here we go. I asked myself the questions 1. Does Christopher Nolan know how to ensure that vocals and language are clear in a film? Yes, he's done it before, it's a hallmark of his work. 2. Does he know how to develop characters such that the audience knows and relates to the protagonist? Adding; such that we also can predict to varying degrees plot reveals? Yes he can, he's done it countless times. 3. Does he know how to prepare the minds of the audience for the plot that is to come? Yes....must I repeat? So if an accomplished Director "drops the ball" in any many of these areas, do we call it a bad film, overly clever...or do we not assume intention perhaps? I'll agree Nolan's films aren't for everyone and some people will hate it, they are allowed to. Personally I see his supposed disregard for fundamentals as a fresh approach to story telling. I can always expect a niche experience. All the "flaws" of this movie felt very premeditated. I mean this was a movie of two melding time runs. So of course he experimented the HELL out of the pacing, how much we knew and when we knew it. Nolan's movie accomplishes one thing every time, they let you FEEL what it must be like to be in the film. Not knowing and understanding is kinda the point of the film, right? When we finally get told the effect that making that directional switch has, we understand that vision hearing and understanding are blurred. So when WE can't get the details at times doesn't that make you feel like you also made that switch? Should we be surprised that he attempted to give us that experience? In fact weren't we all watching this in reverse? The fact that it all made perfect sense gradually as the movie went on whilst "missing" dialogue is proof in my book of his intentions! Controlling the experience like Nolan does is something I'm not sure we're all ready for. Boiled down therefore, what Christopher Nolan did was read us two bed time stories simultaneously, one in reverse word after word...That is artistry in my books. Writing and Directorial prowess. Captivating! It felt wholly original. Mind you, he is a psychopath for even attempting this, but I love it. More please.
Simply put, tenet is purposely obtuse so as to to encourage you to watch it again to find it’s deeper details. Yet to be actually intrigued by a film enough to watch it again, the basic plot and themes need to be clear on first viewing, otherwise it just feels unnecessarily confusing. TLDR: Nolan tried too hard to be subversive and mysterious
@@joaosantos5503 There are some movies that benefit from a second viewing. But this movie was not one of them. I think I understood most of what was happening during my first viewing. But I just didn't care enough about the plot, because it seemed like the main character in the movie hardly cared enough to show much emotion.
When I watched Tenet, I felt like I was learning something from a research paper or a textbook. It's complicated, and there is little guide. I don't think it was as much of a mess as other people say that it is, nor is it covered in mystery as the film’s first act suggests it does. The order of the weird phenomena that occur as the result of time inversion was, in my opinion, probably one of the most cohesive way to understand the concept. To be more specific, Nolan first shows us a glimpse of a bullet traveling backwards, followed by objects flying backwards, followed by a person fighting backwards. These should be enough to introduce the concept of temporal pincer movement, which he shows us twice during the highway car chase scene. All of these information come together at the final Stalsk-12 war scene. It's a long buildup, but I was engaged from trying to understand the concept during the time the film took to do it, and the timing of the final glimpse of the real history between the protagonist and Neil was just right for me to hit my feelings. All of these timings made me really appreciate the film during my second watch, because I was now able to feel it knowing, albeit partially, how everything works together.
I agree with your comment for sure. I love the movie, I think time inversion is a fun and interesting idea. It’s so much different than just basic time travel, and the fact that the implications of this form of time travel is so well and accurately handled is amazing to me. I haven’t been able to find a single flaw or contradiction in the story as it’s presented, which to me is amazing and hard to do with this style of time travel.
I also agree with you and the comment above. This movie is misunderstood in many ways in my opinion. Someone here in the comments pointed out that the protagonist wasn't a character to care about a lot due to lack of information about him. I agree but I don't see it as a problem. He, especially in this story, is not a character the viewer is supposed to build emotions towards, that role is given to the lady with her son and her boyfriend/husband/the villain. Of course it was a hard movie to follow during the first watch. But it was so rewarding to finally be able to understand it. After watching it I had a half an hour conversation with my dad about it. This is what this film was supposed to do. And with the sound problem... Well I watched the German version so it was 100% fine for me.
i think a big issue wtith the move was how easy it was to miss an essential detail, an since the climax is an accumulation of what you have lerned, it felt like finishing a test but you're still trying to work out a problem. and sice the climax relys on the present moment to get the audience invested, it took allot of the impact away. it is better on a second viewing but id give it a pretty low score on my first and then better on the second but still not great.
It feels like Nolan has been experimenting with how far he can take the anonymity of his characters. In Dunkirk it made sense, it's a war and you're seeing it through the eyes of soldiers: the whole point is they don't need a Hollywood sob story to be in a terrifying situation, they were just random kids thrown into the fray. With Tenet though you're asking a lot by severing the emotional connection to the main character altogether. The film is so well made that it still works and works well, but even The Man With No Name feels emotionally motivated: we realize not just that he's skillful and intelligent, but that he's capable of both great violence and great humor. You don't want to be on the wrong side of him. He also has a far more clear throughline where we always emotionally understand his goals. Maybe the critique he got for tackling love and familial concepts in Interstellar made him go "alright, you want analytical and cold? I'll show it to you" or something, but it's the one aspect of Tenet that makes it lesser than Inception or Interstellar, we have a ton of spectacle but no real reason to be emotionally invested in it at all. Felt largely the same about Dune - amazing visual spectacle throughout, a really commendable film, but do you ever care about Paul Atreides as a human being? I didn't, at least not much.
True. And it didn't help that the actor playing the protagonist was bland. He didn't emote much. Not even when he is first being told about time travel, and when he first sees bullets traveling in reverse. He didn't seem shocked or excited about what was happening. It was like just another mission for him.
Funny comparison with Dune. After reading the first book and a half of the second one I think Frenk Herbert didn't want you to care about Paul as he was deconstructing him as an antihero. Paul definitely didn't care about others as he started pursuing his ambitions. Though I agree acting in Dune movie was meh. If not a good script and a recognizable IP this movie would be forgotten already.
I’m so confused on the hate the Dune movie is getting, I really liked the acting. I also liked the acting in tenet, even from the main guy. But I’m awful at picking up body language, if my Brain wasn’t alphabetti spaghetti I would probably hate it lol. Also read the first dune book, felt like the movie was a perfect adaptation. Maybe my local theatre has been spiking the popcorn?
I highly recommend watching Tenet in a language that isn't native to you and WITHOUT captions (for example the german dub is really nice to listen to without actually understanding it). You will understand that you really don't need the dialogue that much in order to understand what is happening because of how it is structured and shot. Just like you mentioned at 1:40 it's not the voice of an actor that draws me into Nolans movies, it's the whole package that immerses me into the moment. I don't need to 100% understand the words when an actor can deliver emotions through his acting, I don't need some character explaining what's going on/what will happen, when the screenplay and cinematography delivers everything I need. Emotions, Setting, Mood... these are all things that can be shown via visuals rather than words. And that's why I love CN movies, cause he delivers exactly that! Tenet has been my favorite movie ever so far. And I rewatched it more often then any movie before, even did a rewatch that was completly in reverese.
Imagine that someone walked onto to your front lawn and, with a friendly wave, started whispering something to you while you stood on the door step. You might ask them to repeat themselves, only to have them whisper again. They’re clearly not infirm or in distress, so you might take a few steps closer while repeating a request that they speak up. But after they persist in whispering and get even quieter, you might eventually tell them to get off of your lawn and stop wasting your time. It wouldn’t matter that they were whispering the most beautiful words of uplifting poetry or telling you secrets you craved to know. The fact that they showed such a callous disregard for your ability to hear them would be enough for you to dismiss what they had to say unless you had a rare capacity for patience. Most people are willing to listen. And in the case of a Nolan movie, many came as audience members eager to listen. But people also have a sense of self-respect when it comes to communication. They may meet you half way, but they feel that they are worth the effort of being reached. Their time and attention had value to them, and they’re sharing those things with you as a show of good faith. Intentional or not, artistic choice or not, Nolan has repeatedly and after numerous warning signs conveyed to the audience that they are not worth the effort of being communicated to in a clear fashion. He’s a brilliant filmmaker and has made some of my favorite movies, but I came away from Tenet with the impression that he was acting in bad faith and that he didn’t particularly care about communicating with me as his audience member.
He just over estimated his audiences ability to understand his movie. It makes perfect sense if you actually pay attention and rewatch it, but most people lack the intelect and attention span to do that.
@@Classicalmusicscores1984 Ah, yes, of course, you do need an abnormally high IQ to understand the guy who wrote literally one of the most popular blockbusters from the past decade after all. Such correctness, such smart.
@@Classicalmusicscores1984 I don't think it's that hard to understand. I got the idea the first time I saw it. He just made decisions that made it harder for audiences to engage. For me, that's on him.
I think that Nolan’s Tenet is a cool experimental piece that did a great job exploring the more niche side of sound, dialogue, and pacing in a movie. I don’t believe that the goal of this movie was to establish any emotional connection with the audience but rather to make a movie about an intellectual concept that Nolan has had for years. A.K.A: “Ok guys, hear me out: Temporal Pincer Movement”.
A minute into the viewing of this I had to pause and watch the movie before watching the video fully, so thank you.. Stellar premise and truly intriguing sequences throughout. I think a lot of time paradox movies or time travel movies in general fall flat, but this hit on something real and true. Including a mother's struggle for her son made the whole film grounded in reality when inherently it wasn't. Truly wondering what I missed if I think I understand it, though, after reading the comments.
I loved Tenet. Look, I understand that not many people enjoyed it because of the plot being confusing with time inversion and the sound but at the time Christopher Nolan was experimenting with sound as he did with Interstellar. But the way he didn't use CGI with the time inversion scenes or the 747 Boeing Airplane makes it that we always don't need to use CGI in big and impactful scenes. He can create any scene that is genius with his storytelling that can go all over the place. Nolan uses time as a prominent theme from hunting a killer to a temporal pincer. It just needed more of an understanding than trying to judge its book by its cover. At the end of the day, he's still the genius he is.
In my theatre viewing, I was so distracted by piecing the plot together that the big spectacles of the truck heist or the plane crash BARELY registered. I had a pretty good understanding of the plot on my first viewing, but at the expense of all the visuals. When I watched it on a tiny laptop screen at home with subtitles turned on, it was then and ONLY then could I enjoy those scenes, which were intended to have been breathtaking when watching in theatre. Too late. The time Nolan intended me to use "experiencing the moment" was instead spent a scene or two behind as I tried to figure out dialogue and time-inversion concepts. The time Nolan intended me to use to figure out the details was instead spent enjoying the spectacle as much as I could on a 12" laptop screen. The issue wasn't that the plot wasn't interesting, or the big scenes weren't spectacular, or the practical effects weren't convincing. It's not even that you couldn't appreciate all these things at the same time. The issue with tenet is that the audience will invariably want to experience these things in the "wrong" or unintended order. This is 100% on Nolan. To be frank, his experiments with sound are a failure.
@@jarvy251 I think the thing with nolan's movies is either he makes a lot of unexplained assumptions, or he explains a lot of them. That's the risk when you're going big. I think the biggest problem with Tenet is, who cares about the villain and the stakes.
I think one thing that I learned from doing a very limited amount of audio editing (not even much mixing) is that what you hear, as a person who knows what's going on, what's being said, and having listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times, is so far from what someone will hear the first, second or even third time they listen to it... You can hear every tongue click and plosive peak, you can hear a motorcycle you caught from a mile away. The casual listener isn't going to pull apart the sounds. If what you're "going for" is dialog as a sound effect, fine... But then don't treat the story as something to be deciphered by picking apart that "sound effect". I get that the performance is more than just reading the lines, but when you treat dialog, especially dialog that is meant to be important to the plot, as disposable, you do a disservice to the story. There's a trick to buying a suit off the rack, which is to start with too big and try on smaller and smaller sizes until the jacket is too uncomfortable and you can't move much then go back a size. The audio editing and mixing should have used the same principle. Start with a version that's perhaps TOO dialog focused, then show it to someone with fresh ears and trim it back, again and again until it's too difficult to make sense of... The back it off one notch. You're much more likely to achieve the kind of results you're looking for without creating a product that makes no sense to the general public.
I sat down to watch it at midnight on my computer, expecting to be in bed by 3am after I had finished it. By the time the credits rolled, I could already see some sunlight creeping from outside. I had to keep pausing and rewinding to understand what they were talking about and how everything worked. Guess that's one alternative to watching it again. It was definitely an experience.
Tenet is great to just watch and enjoy. And I’ve also found that maybe Neil was always intended to be THE main character that we grow attached to because in a way, we are the protagonist
As a child, I have special difficulty understanding dialogue in movies, so as I grew, I learned how to read lips and focus hard on sound to put together lines as they came. I had very little trouble hearing lines in Tenet.
I had no trouble hearing or understanding the dialogue in this movie either, now i cannot nessisarily read lips. But as a dutch kid watching a lot of english movies without subtitles part of me always automatically pays more attention to it and the other noise almost gets washed out in a way. Wich is funny because on repeat viewings i suddenly do hear all the other noise more wich always makes a second watch a new experience.
You just dropped the best Tenet commentary without even realising it. 'watch it again, kind of like a temporal pincer movement' That's is the best way anyone has ever, or will ever word it. You are 100% correct.
What your describing is like my experience of Winter Soldier in theaters, when I saw it in theaters I couldn't understand a lot of critical plot details so I felt lost and didn't enjoy the film very much, which didn't help with the massive tone shift from the first movie so I was alienated from it in theaters, however watching it at home with subtitles and knowing what happens at the end I really like it, with Tenet I watched it first time at home with subtitles and I adored it, I think Nolan needs to compromise with the sound mixing side because even if I don't remember or understand the context of what people are saying the first time I want to be able to hear it and have a chance to follow and be engaged, thats what makes me watch a movie a second time
The first time I watched Tenet I felt that it had an amazing start with great elements throughout but I felt that the quality of the experience was being diminished as it went on. There was so many qualities of the filmmaking I’d praise, but the idea of reverse entropy is counter to everything I’ve learned and experienced over the course of my entire life, so much so that it was difficult to grasp, even for someone who found Inception relatively easy to follow. After having it in the back of my mind for a few months however, and finally understanding at a basic level the temporal pincer maneuver(the red and blue symbolism really helps while watching) it felt so incredibly rewarding the second time, and I look back at my first viewing fondly. My favorite Nolan film for sure. I’ve seen many a film critic who view its initial inaccessibility as one of if not the greatest flaw of Tenet; but that seems to me that there’s an implication that there’ is a ”right” or “correct” way to enjoy a film. I’m accustomed to reading subtitles and have never watched Tenet without them, I also began reading the screenplay to understand it better, so I’m not sure what I’m gaining/missing from that.
"Watch it again... like a temporal pincer maneuver..." is the point. One of the things I love about Nolan's stories is that they're about more than what is shown on the screen. In this case, it helps me, an accountant, appreciate something about films and filmmaking that I wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
I did watch it multiple times, every time in the cinema, and I absolutely loved the film. I still would have loved for the dialogue to be audible, especially in important story moments, and I don't think there's a good reason for it to be muffled (the plot alone demands and deserves multiple rewatches, the inaudible dialogue doesn't need to)
Interstellar and inception are both confusing yet very enjoyable to watch. After rewatching each about 3 times it clicks and it makes it even more better. However tenet never felt enjoyable at any moment.
IMO tenet was the confusing one. Inception was fairly straightforward once you understand the central concept. Interstellar can be pretty confusing but after learning about some scientifical theories, it's easy enough to understand
True. I think this is a movie that sounded good on paper, but once they began filming, they probably realized it didn't have much of an emotional impact. There was nothing really memorable about it. Neither the acting, nor the soundtrack, nor the storyline made me excited about what was happening on screen.
100%. Lot of the discussion surrounding the movie focuses on the comprehensibility of the plot but the real killer is that the movie is simply not enjoyable. Terrible pacing, stone cold wax figure actors, zero emotional impact, bad sound mixing, and obnoxiously stupid dialogue. The unfathomable plot is merely the icing on the cake.
All foreign movies are subtitled in my country so I didn't even think of this when I saw Tenant. However I have noticed when ever I see American movies lately that the dialogue is really hard to hear when you turn the subtitles off. This is not only a Nolan problem, it's more widely spread.
why was the final gunfight a bunch of people running around firing at buildings and no people (or like one guy with a rocket launcher). It genuinely felt like it was one side fighting no one.
@@STANNco Yeah. none of my problems with it would be improved with a rewatch either. I think there's a reason no one had done the rewind stuff before (outside of technical reasons), and that's that it doesn't really look good. imo of course.
yeah, i was irked by that too. I mean, in real combat often times you don't get a good look at the enemy but not during an all-out assault like that. There would've been lots of close contact. Plus the camera could've revealed enemy positions for the film's sake. They didn't do that at all. It was one of the weirdest action sequences i've ever seen. In Inception, the firefights hold up very well because even though they were just fighting projections of the subject's mind, it was still played out in a very direct way that was entertaining and easy to follow.
Temporal pincer, both sides had a team going forward and backwards in time, combine that with a battle plan that isn't as clear in all the action and that's why it seems confusing
@@Holoflux I wouldn't call it confusing. more just, (I guess badly is the word I'm looking for) shot. I only watched it last week. And i can't remember seeing any bad guys in that scene. it all just looked like a training drill.
Underrated film. I feel the cinema establishment crowd like to poke at it for certain reasons, and the mainstream click hunting press (at least in headline) love to talk about Nolan dialogue. I’ve never had a problem with dialogue in his films. I feel it’s related to the idea of ‘active listening’ and something I’d love to hear Kirk Hamilton discuss in relation to cinema, not just music, but the concept is there. Have we been taught to derive too much from dialogue, in general? And is Nolan pushing back on that here; an interesting dichotomy in the context of Nolan often using dialogue heavy exposition.
I think the issue is that instead of us wanting to know more, the film primes us to expect more. Then it delivers at the very end. So, as a whole, we don’t have the context we need to care about anything because in order to care, we have to understand the deeper machinations. You don’t need that in Sergio Leonne’s movies or James Bond. The protagonists aren’t shown off to you as complex individuals, they’re just real life people or charismatic faces in situations that endear us to them. And half of what makes James Bond enjoyable to watch is the dialogue. It’s all a mess in Tenet. There’s no scaffolding. When you need dialogue, you can’t hear it. When you need simplicity, you get complexity. So many pieces are missing, and the ethos isn’t committed to, to the degree that there’s no foundation to build anything substantial OR base-level enjoyable on.
That is to say, either you create something simple and investing that carries you moment to moment, or you invite us into a complex world. You can’t half-ass both and expect a good result.
@@UltimateKyuubiFox I suspect that great art succeeds in both, but as you said, it doesn't work if either bit is half arsed. They have to both be there in extremis. Otherwise it's a boring, pretentious art piece, or forgettable popcorn. I see The Water Margin, or the works of Shakespeare, as best achieving this combination of catchy, vulgar randomness and base thrills - with fascinating revelations and highly complex concepts. Perhaps The Wire and The Sopranos to a degree.
My daughter and I went to an early showing. It was mid-pandemic and there were only 7 people in the theater. I had no problem following the story, but felt I was missing a lot of subtleties because of the dialog. When I got home I searched some dark corners of the interwebs and found a full copy of the shooting script, that answered a lot of questions. I think most of Nolan's films benefit from multiple viewings, it's one of the reasons I love his work so much.
I was so looking forward to Tenet, it was my first movie post lockdown and man, what a disappointment. Nolan is a pretentious man, that's no secret, but until that point his films delivered, at least on some level. But by the middle of tenet you are already disconnected, because you don't care, at all, about anyone on it. So the "spectacle" is just noise. That, and the real noise.
@@nerychristian better, yes. But still wouldn’t have made it a good film. It’s almost fundamentally flawed on all fronts. Terrible dialogue, obnoxious editing, and a completely generic story outside of the time inversion gimmick. Theres almost no redeeming qualities outside of the raw filmmaking itself (shot-composition). The lead was just kinda the nail in the coffin for me; the tootsie roll on the shit-flavored cake if you will.
Christopher Nolan making the protagonist a “blank canvas” to tell such a conceptually dense narrative added to my experience watching this. The protagonist’s motivations simply being: I need to serve the mission at hand at any cost, made the movie work. The adventure he will embark on is the beginning of his humanity in a lot of ways and him growing from being a cold and calculated spy to being someone who empathizes and wishes to see humanity endure is what people miss in Tenet. With that said it also helps having a “blank canvas” character because then more attention can be given to the concepts Nolan is positing. A character like Hobbs from Inception with all his “inner demons” would have been a very distracting layer for Nolan to work into. Which kind of speaks to one of Nolan’s biggest struggle as a filmmaker and that’s his characters. For the most part his concepts overshadow his characters but his technique and storytelling are so captivating we can forgive him most of the time. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed the protagonist in this Nolan movie, it was him saying “the character will become a characters as I develop and explain these highbrow concepts” and for me I thought he succeeded. By the end of it the concept is understood by the audience and the protagonist has a higher purpose than just completing the mission, now it’s also protecting those he has an attachment towards. P.S. Sound mixing was very rough when watching it in the theatre but I found it better when I watched it at home. Still though it should have been done much clearer than it was and is a very understandable critique.
You know, even in films where the character he no name, they're usually given a nickname based on their appearance or profession or something the audience can reference. Sergio Leone's man with no name is 'blondie', Jack Norton in Fight Club is 'Jack', Kill Bill has 'the bride', Drive has 'the driver', etc. HOWEVER because the film itself references him as THE PROTAGONIST, if you go onto Tenet decisions boards everyone refers to him as either P or TP, So now whenever discussing this film I'm inadvertently reminded of urine and toilet paper. Great job, Chris!
I think what people are missing is what makes this movie so cool is the fact that the story is literally moving in two directions at once. It’s a thought exercise about the implications of the kind of technology in the film. So emotional aspect of the characters is not meant to be center stage. Kind of like how Avatar is amazing not because nobody has ever told a story as powerful as that but because of how awesome the visuals and world building are. There are many things that can make a movie good.
I watched it at home on VOD first, with subtitles. Then again a few times till I grasped the mechanics. Then in IMAX on re-release! I didn't like it that much at first, but it grew on me.
What amazes me is that I've watched this movie being about 17 yo (and a rather bad student, especially in math-related subjects) and totally felt like i understood most of it. The plot seemed fully logical and well-thought out and most of my peers of that time felt the same. I remember the discours from that time, with all the criticisms of it being overcomplicated or just a nonsensical spectacle. While it surprised me for quite some time, after this video i think i might have found the catch - as a non-native english speaker I obviously watched this movie with subtitles on. More than that, I was already so used to it that watching almost any movie was effortless for me and I've had no problem in memorising the info. "Tenet" is a complicated movie for sure, but not in a way as some see it - it definitely makes sense, just similarly as "Memento" it's more of a huge brain puzzle. What I understand now is that english viewers were in a much worsen position. As it hit cinemas, many of the dialogues could have been misheard or just missed, and even at home they would miss some of them/had to rewind the movie/had to enable subtitles (when many of them weren't as comfortable with it as me, who uses subs for most of my life). Which means potentially this movie was universally more enjoyable for everyone except US ...which I see could be preeetty problematic for a Hollywood movie. It's interesting to once have an advantage in something over you guys lul What I also find interesting is that we encounter the same problems with Polish cinema. For us the lacking sound is more often bc of small budgets then artistic choice, but the effect is the same - we often struggle with understanding the characters, as many of the dialogues sound unrecognizable. At the same time, when these movies hit sometimes streaming services or cinemas abroad the reception seems to be better - one of the reasons? We don't have subtitles and other countries do, so paradoxically we're the only ones who struggle with understanding our own language. "Tenet" is for me definitely the most overhated Nolan's film. While I don't see it as anything perfect (for mostly the same reasons as most of Nolan tbh - badly written exposition-heavy dialogue, lacking characters, cringy overuse of pathos) I really appreciate the videogame-like structure, masterfully crafted action and astonishing high-concept shenanigans. He definitely should get more credit for this movie!
Didn't see Tenat, and no plans to due to the atrocious sound mixing. I don't think I've actually seen a Nolan film since Interstellar actually. For me Nolan films are now best consumed by just reading through a synopsis of the plot.
Nolan kinda forgot that a good movie can't hinge solely on a gimmick. It's the reason Michel Gondry doesn't make films anymore. Tenet was one of Christopher Nolan's weakest films because when you take away the special effects & modern edge, it's just a mediocre action film from the early-90's. Like, a Jean-Claude Van Damme schlock adventure. The cinematography was steely misery, and a lot of the effects looked bad. Let's not forget that much of the acting was not great, mostly because the dialogue was weightless. Every character was forgettable, which made the weak plot obvious. I know Nolan wanted to make his own Bond film, but what he ended up with was a very expensive airplane movie. I love Nolan, and I love Gondry, but everything has to be in service of a good story, not a reverse-engineered, stylized pony show.
I feel like Nolan probably only had the concept for the film before beginning production. Like he had action set pieces in mind, and some basic concepts. But he didn't have a fully formed script. You can tell in the dialogue and acting. Especially the main actor. He seemed to be just going through the motions, and not really expressing much emotion.
You feel like a genius that knows how to play out a movie like TENET. It took him 7 years to write TENET. Even an amateur writer like me can do a lot of crazy things in one year. Just imagine whatever a professional writer like Nolan can do in 7 years. Just think of your senses. Who tf wants to spoon-feed everything in 2 hours that took 7 years to develop?
@@mahbubulhaque735 The film wasn't as "deep" as you thought it was, and if it took him 7 years to write this mess, then I'd argue he should leave the writing to his brother Jonathan. It wasn't confusing and it wasn't groundbreaking, by any measure; it was just "meh".
6:17 What Nolan says here makes me think he would really like Mass Effect. Ive gotten a friend of mine into the series recently and was reminded just how much that series throws you into this world with no real primer or anything. The world feels like it existed before you showed up and it will exist after your time here is done. You are Shepard, a soldier in the Alliance Navy serving on the SSV Normandy, now get out there and play your role, thats pretty much it. They drop lore onto you constantly and it can feel overwhelming not knowing exactly what they are talking about at times, so you just try and focus on the core pieces and pick up on bits of the lore as you go along. You slowly start to build your knowledge of the world and then if you play it again you now fully understand the context of everything you were being told. It greatly rewards multiple playthroughs.
You can make a movie that is visually and auditorially overwhelming where the dialogue doesnt matter that much OR you can make a movie with a plot so convoluted that it requires tons of complex expositional dialogue. You can't do both. I watched it at home WITH SUBTITLES (obviously) and had a reasonably interesting time. Can't say it was fun. More like doing a crossword puzzle in a different language. It was an experience with some satisfaction in having completed it. I would love to get to see it and hear it on the big screen AND know what's going on, but Nolan made that impossible.
Exactly the issue I had. I was able to follow (barely) the plot in theatre when focusing entirely on the dialogue and trying to use context to fill in words I had missed because the horrid sound decisions made them inaudible. The big spectacles like the highway chase and the plane crash barely registered in theatre because my attention was completely elsewhere. A few days later when I watched it again on a 12" laptop screen with subtitles on, it was so much more enjoyable that I actually recommended to all my friends that they skip the theatre entirely. I wonder what Nolan would have thought of that?
As an audio engineer with many high-fidelity options to listen to the film with, I disagree that the dialogue was difficult to hear; I appreciate the realistic nature of the audio and I think it makes the film more immersive. It's unfortunate that this concept is ineffective on lower resolution systems, but I don't see this as an argument for not making the film the way Nolan did. If you would like to appreciate art more, you should invest in the means to do so. Otherwise, simply say you don't care to do so, but don't devalue it.
@@dudeydude77_clips People shouldn't have to have access to high end equipment just to understand a movie. Sure, higher end equipment should allow you to enjoy and appreciate it more, but it should NOT be unwatchable without it. Neglecting 99% of your audience and only letting the "elites" who happen to have access to these things be able to enjoy your movie is a bad move.
Honestly, this is my favorite Nolan movie of all time and I don't say that lightly. I've been following his work since Memento. Personally, it takes a lateral approach to watching Tenet. If I watch it with the sense of moving backwards, while moving forwards, it makes sense. Or at least the puzzle unravels more and more and a clearer picture comes into view. And yes, I had to watch this with closed captioning from the first viewing (especially when watching it on Blu Ray). That's when you reveal another layer of complexity which is the use of quantum physics to describe the wonky use of time in this film. Otherwise it's brilliant, no matter how difficult this film is. I love this film even more than The Prestige, Inception or Interstellar.
I love Nolan for this way of showing us a story. It reminds me of working on the oil rigs And being given some pretty important information under the loud sounds of the rig. you focus in more when u r forced to do so. I personally think that's what people miss about Nolan movies. In a way I think Nolan is like his own Kubrick and make movies that enrich themselves with each view. I have a rule in watching Christopher Nolan movies turn off all the lights off put some headphones on
I called it his shark jump based on the first full trailer alone when i saw it. I think he's stuck in that place between being too familiar (he's now almost a self-parody, making movies playing with time, blah blah) and being too reliant on his own brand to be able to reinvent himself because the people who turn out do it because they want a certain thing so if he like, starts making comedies, it'll be trickier to keep being "the guy" and getting the budgets he wants. I think he's also in "historical mode"; he's about 50 now and rich. He's not making movies for the same (or any?) audience anymore. If he can keep making them and they keep making a profit and people are generally pleased, then he wins in my book.
My friend and I got to talking about tenet. We talked about how we both had seen it a while ago, and we both came to the conclusion that we did not know if it was a good movie or not. We decided to sit down and rewatch it with subtitles and really think about it. To REALLY watch it. dissect it. I now think that it simply had a bad gimmick. But a bad Gimmick doesn't mean a bad movie. The gimmick simply gets the viewer in the theatre. The story, the writing, is what the viewer stays for. I think the writing is rather good. I enjoyed the ride the movie provided, and how the inversion mechanic was used in the film. I don't think the inversion idea is all that confusing if you take any amount of time to think about it. I do think the real problem with tenet is how the movie keeps everything confusing until the very end because, as mentioned in the video, this takes your mind away from the characters and keeps you thinking that you missed something. You lose opportunities to connect with the characters. I do think the payoff in the end is very rewarding and fun, and worth the confusion. I think oceans 12 made me feel a similar way, except I really don't like that movie because it makes no sense, and then in the end the payoff is super anticlimactic. overall, I really enjoyed and understand tenet, and I think it a fun movie to watch and dissect with friends.
Being someone who plays with time in my own stories, my main issue with tenet is that it has a cool concept but it has nothing more to keep you engaged, the story seemed more like a random series of scenes with a hamfisted story of some evil Russian guy who had 0 motives, there was enormous amounts of pointless exposition, followed by a scene of what they just described. This is a problem since it wastes time talking about what we are about to witness, while that time could be used to motivate the characters rather than force them into scenarios. A prime example is they are planning the first robbery into the airport, they spend like 5-10 minutes describing the plan in a random street, then cut to everything going down, similar to GOT teleporting fleet problem. They just have all this stuff together and ready, just because they said so, I’d rather see them set it up and getting to the objective than waste my time only useless information.
@@jattdachannel6652 but it doesn’t do that, it’s tries to make you care, but you just don’t. The movie was a cool concept but they failed to deliver a story worthy of the idea. Lol bad Russia man want world to end lol, heroic guy must save da wurl and save da gurl.
@@jackmeowmeowmeow2177 the russian man was really just depressed and wanted to suicide everything, it was the crappiest villain I've seen in a long long time. girl wasn't likable at all, I was hoping she would die and leave the movie alone, protagonist is an empty vessel. I guess the whole point was to make the characters as bad/uninteresting as possible as part of the exercise? the question is, how does that make the movie good/better?
JDW: "So Chris, what's my motivation in this scene - in the whole movie really?" Chris: "You're the protagonist." JDW: "Very good Chris. Short, but pointless."
Nolan set out to make a cinema-only experience, one that you'd have to go see again and again to understand what's going on. Except the best way to watch the film is from home or on your phone with the subtitles on.
I feel like the only person that had no problems understanding the dialogue in tenet. Perhaps I'm just used to picking words out of background noise? Otherwise, Good Video!
I did an editing course once and I was taught that when showing text on screen you must cut a bit later than it takes for you (the editor) to read it. If you already know what the text says you can read the words instantly, but someone who is reading it for the first time needs a bit of extra time to see it, read it, process it and understand it. This problem is seen often in a lot of youtube videos where they'll throw in a block of text for half a second that nobody can read unless they go back and play it frame by frame to read what it said. Christopher Nolan and the sound designers know exactly what the dialogue is saying, so no matter how muffled, quiet or complicated it is, it will always be clear enough for them because they already understood it before they put it in the mix. So them making it intentionally difficult to hear ends up making it impossible for the audience to hear. The only way to remedy this I think is to watch it with subtitles. That way you hear the sound as it was intended to be heard, but you also know what the people are saying. Sometimes in a documentary or news report, they'll put english subtitles over someone with a thick accent even though they're still speaking English and you might think "Why do they need subtitles, they're speaking clearly enough" but if there weren't subtitles it might sound a lot less clear than you realise.
I'm one of the people who've watched Tenet more than once and I must admit that its value increases with rewatches. My first viewing was in IMAX and while I did have a good time, I didn't consider the movie to be anything special, just a fun cryptic flick. Now, after a few rewatches, I'm convinced that Nolan's movies don't really need much character backstory. To elaborate I have to talk about Interstellar, the Nolan movie I care about the least. I was very excited to watch it when it came out and while I did enjoy it, it didn't leave a lasting impression in the same way as Memento, The Prestige or Inception. For those three, I was thinking about and reflecting on the stories for several days after watching the movies. And honestly, I didn't think much of any of it until I watched Arrival. That movie released at a time when there was a general air of space movie fatigue. With Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian already released there wasn't much left to say, or so I thought. Arrival proved me wrong in the best of ways and became my favourite space movie. That's when I realised that Nolan was more suited to directing complicated cerebral concepts than he was to emotionally charged scenes and stories. Denis proved that with grace, as both Interstellar and Arrival had a similar emotional core - a parent's grief, but Arrival hit so much harder despite being a smaller film in budget and cast. Nolan depends entirely on an actor's skills to display emotions (Interstellar has some excellent acting as well), meanwhile Denis crafts and molds everything - the plot, the camera work, and the music - to ensure that the final reveal truly affects the viewer. Tenet, as far as I can tell, is the spiritual successor to Inception. And while Inception did flesh out Cobb's backstory, I'm convinced that for most viewers it wasn't all that important. I only cared about it to the extent that it affected the plot. I'll admit that not knowing your reality is an intriguing concept, perhaps super-emotional too in another director's hands, but I didn't really care about Mal's death as far as this movie is concerned, despite the fact that I was very clearly meant to. I, like most people, was more into the high concept dream within a dream within a dream adventure that was the real draw and highlight of the movie. Tenet is the same way as at its core it doesn't have a character's emotional journey but the concept of temporal pincer movement. Once you make peace with that, the movie's true value becomes clearer. It's about a protagonist, in fact the Protagonist, who's part of a time loop, a larger loop than what's initially apparent, whereupon the distinction between cause and effect becomes hazier as the story moves forward. It's about how an impossible phenomenon might look on film. Truth be told, this is what sets Nolan apart as a director. His films have a similar kind of value to that of the works of Jules Verne, where the characters may or may not be fleshed out but that's not what you're here for. Frankly, Nolan shouldn't be bogged down with character depth and backstories, he's clearly not very good at it nor does he seem to care about them more than his central concept. The one time he did try to focus on how the characters feel the result was Interstellar, a movie with a ton of tears and one where emotions were literally part of the plot, but the audience (and especially I) was unaffected by it. Moreover, I saw a lot of people criticizing John David Washington's portrayal in this comment section and I'm quite appalled. His role is literally a nameless international spy guy of unknown origins. What in the hell more could he have done to better portray this character? His physique and physicality are both in peak condition, thanks to his athletic history, and it really shows in the film. He is very believable as a guy who could beat up five much larger guys all on his own. As far as his charisma is concerned, a guy doesn't need to be in your face and quippy to be charismatic. It's more about the subtle things, a quiet confidence that comes from knowing your capabilities and your aims, and in portraying that, John David Washington is nigh perfect as the Protagonist.
I loved it, saw it in 3 different kind of cinemas, and I heard every word, saw every visual, and understood the plot and dynamics of it all. Still makes me think to this day but I enjoy it
I saw Tenet for the first time recently. Got it on Blu-Ray and had no problem hearing the dialogue. I have several Christopher Nolan movies on Blu-Ray and the audio mixing on his films are the best of all the movies I have. All I have is a samsung soundbar/sub, but when I put in one of his movies it's almost like I brought theater home with me. He really gets the most out of my speakers. The only film I had a problem with was The Dark Night Rises. Banes voice is twice as loud as the rest of the movie and it's really jarring every time he talks. I don't know how that made it into the final cut like that. The only other notable film I had a problem with was The Northman. Again the dialogue was too loud in the mix. You have this really intense loud music come in that really sets the scene and it gets completely undermined when the dialogue comes in even louder. The music now feels like it is quiet background noise and all that intensity it built up becomes quite diminished.
I just watched it with subtitles, it only took me a few minutes to realize that this was the type of movie that has questionable sound mixing on purpose and I wasn't willing to put up with that BS, the film becomes a lot easier to follow when you can actually understand what the characters are saying. The movie didn't leave that good of an impresion on me, it's well executed and it has an interesting plot but it feels indulgent, like it could have been condensed into a much shorter piece and still work just as well or even better. It's basically a cool sounding concept for time travel and a bunch of added stuff to justify its runtime, at no point does it feel like it's trying to say something unlike Nolan's previous movies, just pure mechanics with little emotion. Would have been better as a 15 to 20 minutes short with high production value, just boil it down to what's actually necesary to tell the (honestly quite limited) story.
@@axelprino it was a poor attempt at a joke as some parts of the movie go backwards... I watched it on amazon prime and had no issues with the audio. so in general i liked it. Even though it had clear shortcomings it just felt like a breath of fresh air in between all the fking superhero movies lately. I kind of agree with the length. it definitely has some pacing issues. It could have been like a 5 part mini series or a short film showing the concept in a interesting and novel way. I think it has to do with the main character being basically a blank slate. We don't really get to know him. So you don't really care that much about his fate. Robert Pattinsons character is way more interesting and fleshed out. This obviously was intentional but still makes it one of the lesser Nolan movies.
@@thereisnospace English isn't my first language, I actually have no irl experience speaking it, I largely learned the language through reading. So I struggle to follow when characters start mumbling or the sound mixing prioritizes music or ambient noise instead of the voices, this whole "naturalistic" approach to audio that movies are doing so much nowadays is a bit of a pain for me because it forces me to turn on subtitles and most streaming services have no option for plain English subtitles, only the CC with all the cues for noises and music that can be a tad annoying when you can hear. As it might already be evident I have quite a few gripes with the sound in this movie, and that got me in the wrong mood from the get go :P
Funny people mentioned characters cannot be heard properly but in other languages (like in French), dialogues can be clearly heard at anytime 😅 And if you are used to watch anime like Steins;Gate, the story is quite easy to understand and really enjoyable 😊 Love the movie and wish there was a sequel ❤🎉
Because Nolan wasn’t in charge of the mixing the foreign languages dialogue, the dialogue is ad lobbed as in a completely separate track than the dialogue he captures on set, and the audio engineers in charge at the company financing Nolan’s film understands that dialogue should be heard and that a good engineer would do the opposite of what Nolan makes his audio techs do for the Final Cut. Basically it’s just Nolan saying he doesn’t give a fuck about the auteur nature of his sound design for any language other than his.
Excellent film essay on TENET! I think it was Nolan's most brilliant ! I was agitated and bewildered after my first viewing, but as I walked out of the theatre I marveled at this new concept of time travel, even though I was utterly confused, and at how excited the film made me feel. Then I remembered that Nolan doesn't throw anything extraneous into his films, he is very precise with the telling of his stories, and that is when I realised my agitation wasn't with his film, it was with myself being unable to solve it. I made a point of seeing it again knowing everything I needed to understand and solve the film was already in the film. I saw TENET 3x in IMAX within the first 2mos of release. It is the first film Ive ever done that with. And Ive watched my Blu-Ray at least another 4 or 5 times. It is rewarding each time. People who are mad a Nolan or dismiss the movie for not understanding it, should not watch Nolan films. It was his prerogative to make a film puzzle that required multiple viewings to unlock. I respect him even more for this! The first viewing of TENET you watch through the eyes of the Protagonist, the second viewing you watch as Neil!
Most people aren't complaining because the movie was hard to understand. They are complaining because it was boring, and the muffled dialogue didn't help. The Prestige and Inception also introduced many interesting concepts, and there were things that made you want to view it more than once to fully understand it. This movie did nothing for me. I understood most of what was happening, but I just didn't care. And the main actor was bland and didn't show much emotion. You would think that a character who is just discovering time travel and bullets traveling in reverse, would be blown away and asking all kind of questions to understand it. But he didn't. He looked bored.
@@nerychristian He was too cool for you. Bolan wanted to make his version of a Bond film, and this was it. Bond is too cool to be overwhelmed by whatevers happening. The vocals are a weird quirk of Nolan's, and as an artist he has that privilege, but one thing to note, the amount of unintelligible speech varied from theatre to theatre . But as far as boring, I didnt get that at all. Hope his next one is exciting for you.
I guess I accidentally stumbled into the perfect viewing experience for this movie. As in, the first time I watched it, was with headphones on a laptop, and I caught every word of dialogue, and understood everything happening the first time, and I thought the experience was fantastic.
this movie is brilliant. The scene of them repelling upwards (backwards) up the tower, laying down on tiles of red and blue. Foreshadows the rest of the film. The small details add up after every rewatch. Also I only ever get confused trying to match together the final battle backwards/forward scenes lol
I felt the same way, I think it's because that final scene has like 3-4 separate timelines happening at once and that's also when the most impossibilities happen. Like the building that is broken, reforms then explodes again. So was it only ever a full building for that 1 second? Movie was fine enough to follow, I've only seen it once and watched a few videos to help me understand but I did already understand most of it, that final battle just has so much going on that it confused me and made me feel the whole movie was confusing
Nolan's theory of "forcing the viewer to live in the moment" absolutely falls apart because, when faced with a complex plot, the audience's mental attention is focused entirely on trying to piece that plot together. For example, in the basement of the opera house during the opening, they examine the object they're trying to extract with. They say "I've never seen [*mumble*] like this." It bothered me I had missed this key word, to the point of distraction. I didn't know what that word was, but I knew it was important to the plot. When I got home, I watched the clip on youtube a dozen times, trying to make out the word. Couldn't, it's mumbled too badly. It wasn't until the movie came out on streaming services and I could turn on subs did I find out the word was "encapsulation." Oh! They thought they were after a nuclear device, but the dialogue hints that it was not! That would have been GREAT to understand on the first viewing as it builds the mystery! But at the same time, it *doesn't* improve from repeat viewings because you get this information, again, later in the film, when it is less intriguing. This leads to the problem with Nolan's intent: The time Nolan intended me to use to "experience the moment" was instead spent a scene or two behind as I scurried to parse dialogue and time-inversion concepts. The time Nolan intended me to use to figure out the details was instead spent enjoying the spectacle as much as I could on a 12" laptop screen. The issue wasn't that the plot wasn't interesting, or the big scenes weren't spectacular, or the practical effects weren't convincing. It's not even that you couldn't appreciate all these things at the same time. The issue with tenet is that the audience will invariably want to experience these things in the "wrong" or unintended order. I was the first person in my friend group to see Tenet. I recommended that they watch it at home, with subtitles on, because I firmly believed that the only way to enjoy your first (or only) viewing. I can't think of a more scathing condemnation of Nolan's methods.
I think this is a movie that started out as a promising script. But I feel like, once they began shooting the film, Nolan maybe realized it would be more complicated to film, or that it might actually not be too good. So maybe he purposely made the voice dialogue muffled so that when his movie gets panned by critics, he can blame the sound. Or maybe it was purposely obscured to force people to watch it more than once to understand what is said. But either way, it was a bland movie.
@@nerychristian I'm not sure about this, because the dialogue is actually really interesting and explains everything thoroughly. It's just too bad I had to read it instead of hear it!
Was worried where you were going with this. But in the end, yes, re-watching is all part of the fun. It's like any movie with a good twist that's worth rewatching and there isn't really a twist. Not really. I had a lot of fun re-watching and putting the timeline together. The first time my brain didn't quite get it.
The idea that you don’t need to hear dialogue to feel it, that environmental authenticity is far more important, only ever comes form people who already know what is being said. It’s the curse of knowledge.
This film has so much to offer. I've watched it at least a dozen times, after the first two views, I decided to pay attention to a different aspect of the film each time, and I finally feel like I fully understand the film. However, I still see or hear new details every time I rewatch despite having a full understanding. I also completely understand why some people don't want to have to watch a film more than once to understand it, but that doesn't devalue Tenet to me. I appreciate art that takes time to digest.
Half Tenet's dialogue problem is the surround to stereo downmixing. It happens to a lot of movies. Tenet is on the edge with the overloaded mix to begin with, and generic crappy stereo downmixing pushes it over.
A bit late but I watched twice in cinemas and thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing trying to piece together everything. However, understanding basically everything about the movie from the first movie I absolutely loathed my second viewing, it felt extremely boring and there was no anchor to keep me hooked in. I even somehow managed to miss dialogue that I know I heard from the first viewing and hear dialogue I missed on my first viewing which was an extremely weird experience. Depending on the depth that you engaged with Tenet on the first viewing drastically changes how one will see it a second time. I wish that there was some emotional through line to keep me hooked. Like maybe foreshadowing of Robert Pattinson's Character's Death would have made for something far more emotionally engaging imo.
Ive noticed in a lot of newer movies or shows that the dialogue is hard to hear, it's like they muffle talk. It's really quiet talking. So I turn up the sound bar and then there's an action scene and it's extremely loud. This seems to be a common issue. Maybe there's some common thread, same software or way of editing.
It's because theatrical movies have their audio mixed for the theatre, which allows for a wider range of sound volume than a home environment typically does. I guess most film studios just can't be bothered to re-mix the audio for their home media releases. As a point of comparison: you might notice that you don't have to adjust your volume nearly as much when watching TV shows, since unlike movies they're already properly mixed for home viewing
I've never had an issue with his dialogue so this really confuses me! Interstellar I found totally fine, Tenet too. I never saw the original mix for Rises though
Fact: Inception was inspired by a specific shot in high school musical 3. This implies that Christopher Nolan has watched high school musical 1 and 2 also.
Probably the biggest drawback of this movie is that it's horribly forgettable. I always watch movies with great focus, but I can't remember the plot at all apart from the reversed time motif, let alone the villain's motivation.
Bro. I had the concept of the gimmick stuck in my head for 2 weeks so i watched the movie again. It isn't one of best Nolan films but it definitely stood out to me and will always be remembered by me.
the villain's motivation is that he's depressed and evil and waaaa kill everyone suicide etc. it was terrible. that's one of the reasons it's hard to care about this movie.
I hadn't realized that using subtitles would be such an advantage for understanding this movie. I've had bad enough hearing loss for the last ten years that having subtitles on is my default for watching anything now. (It also helps that I'm a very fast reader.) My wife and I loved Tenet. We got most of what was happening and was able to enjoy the film on the first viewing. I suspect my dependance on subtitles helped a lot here.
It really doesn’t matter if he has a real name or not. It’s all about personality. The Main character also worked perfectly fine for me, because he wasn’t Nolans focus anyway. Some people need character-focused narratives to be entertained, but I just enjoyed the immersive and entertaining action, which I felt was what Nolan promised the movie to be, from the opening scene.
I deliberately went back and saw Tenet 3 times in theaters. Partly because it was there, partly because it would hep the theater, and mostly because it is an awesome cinematic experience! I STILL never caught that he held on to the algorithm while tossing the case.
I don’t mind that we need subtitles, i just wish they show it in the cinema with subtitles. I also don’t mind that we need to rewatch it, AND i also agree that Nolan fumbled that with Tenet with the whole yknow PANDEMIC thing going on. I haven’t thought of the whole sound design angle, that’s really interesting. I do agree that it’s an iffy reason because as you pointed out his movies do rely a significant amount on dialogue. Like with inception, i really like the universe of Tenet and I don’t have an issue with how complicated the ideas in it are, i think that’s half the fun. I think in terms of dropping you smack dab in the middle of whatever the hell is going on without any explanation, it’s like Memento (a movie which i greatly enjoyed but which did leave friends who watched it with me greatly confused, so I understand it’s easier to get the 2nd time around). Inception had Ariadne to hold the viewer’s hand so it was a lot easier to understand (& most of the dialogue in Inception is also comprehensible!).
I just couldn't get into this movie.. if there was an emotional core it was the friendship between the main character and Robert Pattinson, I think that needed to be "dialed up"
I swear for Tenet Nolan came up with this really awesome VFX idea for the time warping effects and tried to build a story around that. Then did all he could to hide the fact that there is no story by being as confusing and cryptic as possible
This "problem" just feels crazy to me. As someone who always watched with captions, I didn't even notice the dialogue was not audible and I could follow everything fine. It's really not a problem.
It honesty felt like a parody of a Nolan movie. High concept action movie with lots of exposition and big spectacle and little character development. Like Nolan looked at his critics and thought “Fuck ‘em I’m gonna make a movie with all the things you do t like turned up to 11!”
Favorite Christopher Nolan movie? Or one you’d like to see covered on here in the future?
TENET is one of my favorites of Nolan's along with Memento. Memento would be very interesting to cover because of the storyline split into two parts as they go on.
The Dark Knight is wayyyyyy my favorite
It would be amazing if you compared Nolan's Insomnia (2002) with Skjoldbjærg's Insomnia (1997). There's a lot of identity in both.
And also... In the future: How the cinematography in Nolan's films changed. A comparison between Pfister's and Hoytema's work.
Something on momento following or the prestige
The Prestige, please.
Ironically the scene where the protagonist stats “I’m the protagonist” has felt profoundly emotional to me upon repeated viewings. It feels very noble and shows his dedication to the bizarre job of saving the world he was recruited into.
also when he realised he lost his best friend who he didn't even know, was really emotional
To em it felt like a villain named bad guy or a pimp named slickback
I am literally shaking and crying right now. protagonist was one if the protagonists of all time
@@hannibalburgers477 lol
Recruited... Bruh he was the OG leader. That's the whole point. He starts the program 👍
Nolan has indicated in interviews that watching it more than once is a big part of the point. He has always admired films that hold up to, or even benefit from, multiple viewings, and is self-consciously trying to create films like that. He just tried a little too hard this time.
He just over estimated his audience
I saw it once and think I got it pretty well. Not sure there was a lot that was easy to miss if you actually payed attention to the movie
@@QuinnMiller Well, I surely didn't UNDERSTAND everything from one viewing. I surely got all the pieces, but had to watch it multiple times to put everything perfectly together. So props to you
@@Classicalmusicscores1984 The movie didn't make sense. It's not my job to figure out a way to enjoy a story that doesn't work.
@@phantom2683 fair enough I guess there are probably some connections that make more sense in hindsight I might still pick up on. Maybe I should see it again
Something I'm surprised you didn't mention is Dunkirk, because I think it also experiments with nameless protagonists who don't have prior introduction, and as you pointed out in the Nolan interview, we are forced to jump straight in and witness their story
Yeah but Dunkirk worked, because you could understand the central conflict
@@useless_name I agree, to the soldiers their prime goal in the movie is survival, and from that objective u can see how it reflects on different soldiers’ mind set in the war, it’s simple yet effective
That's the thing about Dunkirk though: there's no story. There's no plot or goal for anyone. It's literally as if Nolan took the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and made that into a feature-length film.
Even some of the reactionary bits in Dunkirk make no sense, like the Captain turning around and the shot holding on his face that turns to a look of surprise and joy, as if we as an audience are about to see something that will surprise us. But it's not. It's just the boats come to help, which we already knew about, making the choice to hold on his face in anticipation a nonsensical move.
@@LevCallahan I agree. Nolan basically took the story that we already knew the start and the end of, but made it grandiose and blockbustery. There was no surprise in the storytelling, only for the fxs. Even in this regard the immersion is largely ruined by the inability to recreate the sheer frantic and congested beach of Dunkirk due to his stubborn reliance on practical work.
@@javidelvalmusic if u don’t give af what others think u wouldn’t comment here lol
I just noticed --- It's crazy that in a way, this movie makes use of not having a character backstory by making the MOVIE the actual backstory, which you now use to inform yourself on and connect yourself to the protagonist when rewatching.
Well-explained
what a ripoff
Exactly! I think the emotional connection builds this way too. At the end of the film himself and Neil have had their first great adventure, are now trusted friends, and will a great friendship in the future, even though he has to mourn his loss in the present.
I watched this film a second time as soon as the credits rolled. It immediately felt obvious that it was a second-viewing kind of film, as everything fell into place. The Protagonist's actual character and motivation, and even story-arc, is subtle, but it's clear if you factor in a key character everyone seems to dismiss: Kat.
The Protagonist starts the movie off as a classic James Bond-style protagonist, whose only goal is to get the job done. He even has a Bond-like performative flirtation with Kat to deliberately provoke the Sator, the Antagonist. But something happens shortly after that when, like Bond, his cavalier actions put Kat in immediate, mortal peril. And unlike a James Bond movie, she confronts him about it, throwing all his delusions of heroism in his face. That sparks the story's central twist, and the key to its philosophy. The protagonist who's so busy trying to win that he disregards the lives of the people around them, or even actively puts them in danger, is no hero at all. From that point on, the Protagonist is confronted with this truth again and again, until he shifts his priority to protecting Kat. Her life becomes his top priority, not for reasons of logic, but for reasons of honor and decency, because after all, he's the one who keeps putting her in danger.
And it turns out that Kat becomes the key to saving the world. Hers is the hand that kills Sator, as she's the one with a personal stake. Not in the world, but her son, and his future. For her, the personal and the global are the same thing.
So the Protagonist shifts from simply a guy doing a job to someone with personal stakes through simple dint of developing empathy for another person, something he didn't have at the beginning. Not a flirtation or a romance. Not because he wanted a future with her, but simply because he needed a future worth protecting, and he personally didn't have one. In the final debate between Sator and the Protagonist, Sator reveals his inability to comprehend existence outside his personal experience, so he sees no reason existence should continue without him. The Protagonist's reluctant acknowledgement that Kat's life matters more than doing his job is the thing that gives his job purpose in the first place. Without that acknowledgement, the world he's trying to save is only a theoretical world. Empathy for Kat is what gives him the faith that Sator lacks.
Just as Interstellar builds a world of cold, heartless science, and then positions love at the central, unknowable force that binds it together, Tenet positions empathy as the redemption of a clockwork world where everyone is at the mercy of predestination. Caring for others is the only thing that gives existence meaning.
wow, really good analysis. thanks
Well put. I've seen complaints that the Protagonist has no personality - but he's truly an interesting man: underneath the ruthless CIA agent he cares deeply for people.
Unlike the typical secret agent archetype, people's lives come before the mission and not the other way around. We see this with Kat and Max (obviously), but also while planning the plane crash he ensures the safety of the innocent crew members.
PS. I liked that Nolan didn't try to shoehorn in a romance with Kat. The Protagonist doesn't need to be in love to want to save her, he just needs to be a decent person.
@@PurtyPurple Right, I think that was a key point. If you step back far enough, Tenet is a James Bond adventure (with a sci-fi twist) but where James Bond has a crisis of conscience and ends up centering the love interest's life as the goal, whilst simultaneously abandoning his romantic interest in her. So it's actually a direct subversion of the James Bond trope.
And as is often the case with subversion, this is what I think people found offputting. When they say the protagonist had no personality, what they mean is he didn't personally benefit from his triumph. Typically in movies, being the protagonist means the movie is about you. James Bond may claim to fight for queen and country, but in the end, he's the one that personally triumphs. This movie was making a statement that the protagonist was deliberately de-centering himself. He wasn't looking for accolades or rewards, especially not in the form of "the girl." He just wanted to save the world.
beautiful explanation!
Very well put.
I actually liked that he didn't have a name because I think a spy movie works better when the protagonist isn't known by the whole enemy country (thanks bond)
I watched Tenet with subtitles, I still didn't know what they were talking about.
Ah, heh. Well… Nolan can’t win ‘em all I guess. At least there are actions scenes in the movie to distract us from not understanding.
What are you talking about? I saw it in theaters and it made perfect sense. The artifacts they were after were created in the future. By putting the objects together, the world will end. The Russian dude has cancer, and wants the world to die with him. It's as simple as that.
Honestly it took me a few viewings to fully understand it, but I get it now. And oh yeah, subtitles are the only way to go.
do you not know how to equalise?
I watched it in Imax I couldn't hear shit during the whole phonecall scene at the end, this could have been solved by not having the big scary Russian try to scare people by whispering every word.
I think strangely a great film to contrast with Tenet is The Martian. Both films feature a protagonist who is mostly defined by his job, isn’t given lots of backstory, and spends a lot of the action working alone. But The Martian does really well in giving the audience reasons to care about and root for the protagonist, while Tenet doesn’t really give the Protagonist many opportunities to connect with the audience. It’s fine that he doesn’t have an extensive backstory, but I wish the film allowed him to show more emotion and spent more time building the relationships between him and the other characters.
*- If this weapon is used, everything and everyone in the universe will die*
*- Including my son*
This is still my favorite line of dialogue in the history of cinema.
It doesn't help that the main actor didn't have much of a personality. He barely showed any emotion when the scientist lady was showing him how to shoot a bullet in reverse. A better actor would have improved the movie experience. I think Jake Gyllenhall should have been cast for the part.
@@nerychristian I just think John David Washington isn't charismatic enough to play a protagonist. Unlike his father or Will Smith, DiCaprio and other actors.
@@nerychristian That's what bugged me the most: man is showed some pretty miraculous stuff and his reaction couldn't be much more downplayed. To him it truly seemed to be just a Tuesday.
everything in this movie is set in a high end luxury setting with exotic scenic backdrops and strict dress codes, there is no enjoyment in any of those things, every moment makes you extremely uncomfortable, despite all these things.
seemingly tells u, luxury and high end things only work to your distress.
I liked tenet. Watching it the first time I didn't really know what I just saw and couldn't quite make sense of everything. I didn't feel things I expected to feel. But I know that Nolan can write very emotionally compelling stories. And that alongside the fact that the protagonist had no name and there he himself was being guided through the film made me think that this is exactly what Nolan was aiming for. Tenet is not like a story. It's more like a puzzle. A game which rules you have to figure out in order to enjoy the whole picture in its beautiful complexity. And watching it a second time under this premise was genuinely one of the most fun experiences I ever had while watching a film. I think it's amazing.
Had a very similar experience but definitely now how everyone responded to the ending after the first watch h
The thing that I love about Nolan, is that he seemingly does his best to totally disregard the QC checklist of a movie. Personally, personally I loved the artistry of the movie. I wish I could go in depth without sounding like I'm whining on his behalf but here we go.
I asked myself the questions 1. Does Christopher Nolan know how to ensure that vocals and language are clear in a film? Yes, he's done it before, it's a hallmark of his work.
2. Does he know how to develop characters such that the audience knows and relates to the protagonist? Adding; such that we also can predict to varying degrees plot reveals? Yes he can, he's done it countless times.
3. Does he know how to prepare the minds of the audience for the plot that is to come? Yes....must I repeat?
So if an accomplished Director "drops the ball" in any many of these areas, do we call it a bad film, overly clever...or do we not assume intention perhaps?
I'll agree Nolan's films aren't for everyone and some people will hate it, they are allowed to. Personally I see his supposed disregard for fundamentals as a fresh approach to story telling. I can always expect a niche experience. All the "flaws" of this movie felt very premeditated. I mean this was a movie of two melding time runs. So of course he experimented the HELL out of the pacing, how much we knew and when we knew it. Nolan's movie accomplishes one thing every time, they let you FEEL what it must be like to be in the film. Not knowing and understanding is kinda the point of the film, right? When we finally get told the effect that making that directional switch has, we understand that vision hearing and understanding are blurred. So when WE can't get the details at times doesn't that make you feel like you also made that switch? Should we be surprised that he attempted to give us that experience? In fact weren't we all watching this in reverse? The fact that it all made perfect sense gradually as the movie went on whilst "missing" dialogue is proof in my book of his intentions! Controlling the experience like Nolan does is something I'm not sure we're all ready for.
Boiled down therefore, what Christopher Nolan did was read us two bed time stories simultaneously, one in reverse word after word...That is artistry in my books. Writing and Directorial prowess. Captivating! It felt wholly original. Mind you, he is a psychopath for even attempting this, but I love it. More please.
Simply put, tenet is purposely obtuse so as to to encourage you to watch it again to find it’s deeper details. Yet to be actually intrigued by a film enough to watch it again, the basic plot and themes need to be clear on first viewing, otherwise it just feels unnecessarily confusing. TLDR: Nolan tried too hard to be subversive and mysterious
Yes. Well put.
Bingo
If a film needs to be seen more than once to be "understood", then it has failed completely. This excuse is total bs.
@@joaosantos5503 There are some movies that benefit from a second viewing. But this movie was not one of them. I think I understood most of what was happening during my first viewing. But I just didn't care enough about the plot, because it seemed like the main character in the movie hardly cared enough to show much emotion.
I couldn’t even finish the first time… had to finish in different sittings..
When I watched Tenet, I felt like I was learning something from a research paper or a textbook. It's complicated, and there is little guide.
I don't think it was as much of a mess as other people say that it is, nor is it covered in mystery as the film’s first act suggests it does. The order of the weird phenomena that occur as the result of time inversion was, in my opinion, probably one of the most cohesive way to understand the concept. To be more specific, Nolan first shows us a glimpse of a bullet traveling backwards, followed by objects flying backwards, followed by a person fighting backwards. These should be enough to introduce the concept of temporal pincer movement, which he shows us twice during the highway car chase scene. All of these information come together at the final Stalsk-12 war scene.
It's a long buildup, but I was engaged from trying to understand the concept during the time the film took to do it, and the timing of the final glimpse of the real history between the protagonist and Neil was just right for me to hit my feelings.
All of these timings made me really appreciate the film during my second watch, because I was now able to feel it knowing, albeit partially, how everything works together.
I agree with your comment for sure. I love the movie, I think time inversion is a fun and interesting idea. It’s so much different than just basic time travel, and the fact that the implications of this form of time travel is so well and accurately handled is amazing to me. I haven’t been able to find a single flaw or contradiction in the story as it’s presented, which to me is amazing and hard to do with this style of time travel.
I also agree with you and the comment above. This movie is misunderstood in many ways in my opinion. Someone here in the comments pointed out that the protagonist wasn't a character to care about a lot due to lack of information about him.
I agree but I don't see it as a problem. He, especially in this story, is not a character the viewer is supposed to build emotions towards, that role is given to the lady with her son and her boyfriend/husband/the villain.
Of course it was a hard movie to follow during the first watch. But it was so rewarding to finally be able to understand it. After watching it I had a half an hour conversation with my dad about it. This is what this film was supposed to do.
And with the sound problem... Well I watched the German version so it was 100% fine for me.
i think a big issue wtith the move was how easy it was to miss an essential detail, an since the climax is an accumulation of what you have lerned, it felt like finishing a test but you're still trying to work out a problem. and sice the climax relys on the present moment to get the audience invested, it took allot of the impact away. it is better on a second viewing but id give it a pretty low score on my first and then better on the second but still not great.
@@jojogh10 none of the other characters are better at making you care, unfortunately. they're all pretty bad.
It feels like Nolan has been experimenting with how far he can take the anonymity of his characters. In Dunkirk it made sense, it's a war and you're seeing it through the eyes of soldiers: the whole point is they don't need a Hollywood sob story to be in a terrifying situation, they were just random kids thrown into the fray. With Tenet though you're asking a lot by severing the emotional connection to the main character altogether. The film is so well made that it still works and works well, but even The Man With No Name feels emotionally motivated: we realize not just that he's skillful and intelligent, but that he's capable of both great violence and great humor. You don't want to be on the wrong side of him. He also has a far more clear throughline where we always emotionally understand his goals. Maybe the critique he got for tackling love and familial concepts in Interstellar made him go "alright, you want analytical and cold? I'll show it to you" or something, but it's the one aspect of Tenet that makes it lesser than Inception or Interstellar, we have a ton of spectacle but no real reason to be emotionally invested in it at all. Felt largely the same about Dune - amazing visual spectacle throughout, a really commendable film, but do you ever care about Paul Atreides as a human being? I didn't, at least not much.
True. And it didn't help that the actor playing the protagonist was bland. He didn't emote much. Not even when he is first being told about time travel, and when he first sees bullets traveling in reverse. He didn't seem shocked or excited about what was happening. It was like just another mission for him.
@@nerychristian Yep. That's Denzel Washington's son of all people.
Funny comparison with Dune. After reading the first book and a half of the second one I think Frenk Herbert didn't want you to care about Paul as he was deconstructing him as an antihero. Paul definitely didn't care about others as he started pursuing his ambitions. Though I agree acting in Dune movie was meh. If not a good script and a recognizable IP this movie would be forgotten already.
I’m so confused on the hate the Dune movie is getting, I really liked the acting. I also liked the acting in tenet, even from the main guy. But I’m awful at picking up body language, if my Brain wasn’t alphabetti spaghetti I would probably hate it lol. Also read the first dune book, felt like the movie was a perfect adaptation. Maybe my local theatre has been spiking the popcorn?
I loved the acting in Dune anyone that can get emotion out of the wooden characters of that book is amazing.
I highly recommend watching Tenet in a language that isn't native to you and WITHOUT captions (for example the german dub is really nice to listen to without actually understanding it). You will understand that you really don't need the dialogue that much in order to understand what is happening because of how it is structured and shot. Just like you mentioned at 1:40 it's not the voice of an actor that draws me into Nolans movies, it's the whole package that immerses me into the moment. I don't need to 100% understand the words when an actor can deliver emotions through his acting, I don't need some character explaining what's going on/what will happen, when the screenplay and cinematography delivers everything I need. Emotions, Setting, Mood... these are all things that can be shown via visuals rather than words. And that's why I love CN movies, cause he delivers exactly that!
Tenet has been my favorite movie ever so far. And I rewatched it more often then any movie before, even did a rewatch that was completly in reverese.
i watched it 7 times in theatres and it got better each time, one of my favourites
Put the Crackpipe down Christopher it's time for your meds.
Bruh get a job
Tenet: How to make a simple idea sound as complicated as possible, and thus failing to tell a compelling story.
Imagine that someone walked onto to your front lawn and, with a friendly wave, started whispering something to you while you stood on the door step. You might ask them to repeat themselves, only to have them whisper again. They’re clearly not infirm or in distress, so you might take a few steps closer while repeating a request that they speak up. But after they persist in whispering and get even quieter, you might eventually tell them to get off of your lawn and stop wasting your time. It wouldn’t matter that they were whispering the most beautiful words of uplifting poetry or telling you secrets you craved to know. The fact that they showed such a callous disregard for your ability to hear them would be enough for you to dismiss what they had to say unless you had a rare capacity for patience.
Most people are willing to listen. And in the case of a Nolan movie, many came as audience members eager to listen. But people also have a sense of self-respect when it comes to communication. They may meet you half way, but they feel that they are worth the effort of being reached. Their time and attention had value to them, and they’re sharing those things with you as a show of good faith. Intentional or not, artistic choice or not, Nolan has repeatedly and after numerous warning signs conveyed to the audience that they are not worth the effort of being communicated to in a clear fashion. He’s a brilliant filmmaker and has made some of my favorite movies, but I came away from Tenet with the impression that he was acting in bad faith and that he didn’t particularly care about communicating with me as his audience member.
Exactly right!
He just over estimated his audiences ability to understand his movie. It makes perfect sense if you actually pay attention and rewatch it, but most people lack the intelect and attention span to do that.
Tenet makes sense on my 3rd watch
@@Classicalmusicscores1984 Ah, yes, of course, you do need an abnormally high IQ to understand the guy who wrote literally one of the most popular blockbusters from the past decade after all. Such correctness, such smart.
@@Classicalmusicscores1984 I don't think it's that hard to understand. I got the idea the first time I saw it. He just made decisions that made it harder for audiences to engage. For me, that's on him.
Mad respect for not stretching the video out 5 more seconds for those mid roll ads
I think that Nolan’s Tenet is a cool experimental piece that did a great job exploring the more niche side of sound, dialogue, and pacing in a movie. I don’t believe that the goal of this movie was to establish any emotional connection with the audience but rather to make a movie about an intellectual concept that Nolan has had for years.
A.K.A: “Ok guys, hear me out: Temporal Pincer Movement”.
A minute into the viewing of this I had to pause and watch the movie before watching the video fully, so thank you.. Stellar premise and truly intriguing sequences throughout. I think a lot of time paradox movies or time travel movies in general fall flat, but this hit on something real and true. Including a mother's struggle for her son made the whole film grounded in reality when inherently it wasn't.
Truly wondering what I missed if I think I understand it, though, after reading the comments.
I loved Tenet. Look, I understand that not many people enjoyed it because of the plot being confusing with time inversion and the sound but at the time Christopher Nolan was experimenting with sound as he did with Interstellar. But the way he didn't use CGI with the time inversion scenes or the 747 Boeing Airplane makes it that we always don't need to use CGI in big and impactful scenes. He can create any scene that is genius with his storytelling that can go all over the place. Nolan uses time as a prominent theme from hunting a killer to a temporal pincer. It just needed more of an understanding than trying to judge its book by its cover. At the end of the day, he's still the genius he is.
I agree and it gets less confusing the more times you watch it.
A lot of movies are confusing but still enjoyable. Confusion isn’t the reason. It’s smart but not in the most entertaining sense.
In my theatre viewing, I was so distracted by piecing the plot together that the big spectacles of the truck heist or the plane crash BARELY registered. I had a pretty good understanding of the plot on my first viewing, but at the expense of all the visuals.
When I watched it on a tiny laptop screen at home with subtitles turned on, it was then and ONLY then could I enjoy those scenes, which were intended to have been breathtaking when watching in theatre. Too late.
The time Nolan intended me to use "experiencing the moment" was instead spent a scene or two behind as I tried to figure out dialogue and time-inversion concepts.
The time Nolan intended me to use to figure out the details was instead spent enjoying the spectacle as much as I could on a 12" laptop screen.
The issue wasn't that the plot wasn't interesting, or the big scenes weren't spectacular, or the practical effects weren't convincing. It's not even that you couldn't appreciate all these things at the same time. The issue with tenet is that the audience will invariably want to experience these things in the "wrong" or unintended order. This is 100% on Nolan. To be frank, his experiments with sound are a failure.
@@jarvy251 I think the thing with nolan's movies is either he makes a lot of unexplained assumptions, or he explains a lot of them. That's the risk when you're going big. I think the biggest problem with Tenet is, who cares about the villain and the stakes.
My biggest problem with Tenet was that the rules of inversion weren't properly explained or consistent.
I think one thing that I learned from doing a very limited amount of audio editing (not even much mixing) is that what you hear, as a person who knows what's going on, what's being said, and having listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times, is so far from what someone will hear the first, second or even third time they listen to it... You can hear every tongue click and plosive peak, you can hear a motorcycle you caught from a mile away. The casual listener isn't going to pull apart the sounds.
If what you're "going for" is dialog as a sound effect, fine... But then don't treat the story as something to be deciphered by picking apart that "sound effect".
I get that the performance is more than just reading the lines, but when you treat dialog, especially dialog that is meant to be important to the plot, as disposable, you do a disservice to the story.
There's a trick to buying a suit off the rack, which is to start with too big and try on smaller and smaller sizes until the jacket is too uncomfortable and you can't move much then go back a size. The audio editing and mixing should have used the same principle. Start with a version that's perhaps TOO dialog focused, then show it to someone with fresh ears and trim it back, again and again until it's too difficult to make sense of... The back it off one notch.
You're much more likely to achieve the kind of results you're looking for without creating a product that makes no sense to the general public.
Loved Tenet honestly. Never really noticed the sound mixing, nor any other stand-out issues
same
THANK YOU
@@lvnar5734 not because we didn’t notice it, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
I sat down to watch it at midnight on my computer, expecting to be in bed by 3am after I had finished it. By the time the credits rolled, I could already see some sunlight creeping from outside. I had to keep pausing and rewinding to understand what they were talking about and how everything worked. Guess that's one alternative to watching it again. It was definitely an experience.
Tenet is great to just watch and enjoy. And I’ve also found that maybe Neil was always intended to be THE main character that we grow attached to because in a way, we are the protagonist
As a child, I have special difficulty understanding dialogue in movies, so as I grew, I learned how to read lips and focus hard on sound to put together lines as they came. I had very little trouble hearing lines in Tenet.
I had no trouble hearing or understanding the dialogue in this movie either, now i cannot nessisarily read lips. But as a dutch kid watching a lot of english movies without subtitles part of me always automatically pays more attention to it and the other noise almost gets washed out in a way.
Wich is funny because on repeat viewings i suddenly do hear all the other noise more wich always makes a second watch a new experience.
I actually think Tenet is his best work by a wide margin. It's a perfectly self contained action thriller that withstands multiple rewatching.
You just dropped the best Tenet commentary without even realising it.
'watch it again, kind of like a temporal pincer movement'
That's is the best way anyone has ever, or will ever word it. You are 100% correct.
What your describing is like my experience of Winter Soldier in theaters, when I saw it in theaters I couldn't understand a lot of critical plot details so I felt lost and didn't enjoy the film very much, which didn't help with the massive tone shift from the first movie so I was alienated from it in theaters, however watching it at home with subtitles and knowing what happens at the end I really like it, with Tenet I watched it first time at home with subtitles and I adored it, I think Nolan needs to compromise with the sound mixing side because even if I don't remember or understand the context of what people are saying the first time I want to be able to hear it and have a chance to follow and be engaged, thats what makes me watch a movie a second time
this video is really interesting to me, because I'm brazilian and I watched all of Nolan's movies with subtitles, so the dialogue is never "masked"
The first time I watched Tenet I felt that it had an amazing start with great elements throughout but I felt that the quality of the experience was being diminished as it went on. There was so many qualities of the filmmaking I’d praise, but the idea of reverse entropy is counter to everything I’ve learned and experienced over the course of my entire life, so much so that it was difficult to grasp, even for someone who found Inception relatively easy to follow. After having it in the back of my mind for a few months however, and finally understanding at a basic level the temporal pincer maneuver(the red and blue symbolism really helps while watching) it felt so incredibly rewarding the second time, and I look back at my first viewing fondly. My favorite Nolan film for sure.
I’ve seen many a film critic who view its initial inaccessibility as one of if not the greatest flaw of Tenet; but that seems to me that there’s an implication that there’ is a ”right” or “correct” way to enjoy a film. I’m accustomed to reading subtitles and have never watched Tenet without them, I also began reading the screenplay to understand it better, so I’m not sure what I’m gaining/missing from that.
"Watch it again... like a temporal pincer maneuver..." is the point. One of the things I love about Nolan's stories is that they're about more than what is shown on the screen. In this case, it helps me, an accountant, appreciate something about films and filmmaking that I wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
I did watch it multiple times, every time in the cinema, and I absolutely loved the film. I still would have loved for the dialogue to be audible, especially in important story moments, and I don't think there's a good reason for it to be muffled (the plot alone demands and deserves multiple rewatches, the inaudible dialogue doesn't need to)
Interstellar and inception are both confusing yet very enjoyable to watch. After rewatching each about 3 times it clicks and it makes it even more better. However tenet never felt enjoyable at any moment.
All style no substance
IMO tenet was the confusing one. Inception was fairly straightforward once you understand the central concept. Interstellar can be pretty confusing but after learning about some scientifical theories, it's easy enough to understand
True. I think this is a movie that sounded good on paper, but once they began filming, they probably realized it didn't have much of an emotional impact. There was nothing really memorable about it. Neither the acting, nor the soundtrack, nor the storyline made me excited about what was happening on screen.
100%. Lot of the discussion surrounding the movie focuses on the comprehensibility of the plot but the real killer is that the movie is simply not enjoyable. Terrible pacing, stone cold wax figure actors, zero emotional impact, bad sound mixing, and obnoxiously stupid dialogue. The unfathomable plot is merely the icing on the cake.
Inception is clearly not confusing. I watched it one time and understood everything flawlessly.
All foreign movies are subtitled in my country so I didn't even think of this when I saw Tenant. However I have noticed when ever I see American movies lately that the dialogue is really hard to hear when you turn the subtitles off. This is not only a Nolan problem, it's more widely spread.
why was the final gunfight a bunch of people running around firing at buildings and no people (or like one guy with a rocket launcher). It genuinely felt like it was one side fighting no one.
i still don't know. There's like one actual bad guy inside the compound, the rest it feels like they're fighting themselves for no reason
@@STANNco Yeah. none of my problems with it would be improved with a rewatch either. I think there's a reason no one had done the rewind stuff before (outside of technical reasons), and that's that it doesn't really look good. imo of course.
yeah, i was irked by that too. I mean, in real combat often times you don't get a good look at the enemy but not during an all-out assault like that. There would've been lots of close contact. Plus the camera could've revealed enemy positions for the film's sake. They didn't do that at all. It was one of the weirdest action sequences i've ever seen. In Inception, the firefights hold up very well because even though they were just fighting projections of the subject's mind, it was still played out in a very direct way that was entertaining and easy to follow.
Temporal pincer, both sides had a team going forward and backwards in time, combine that with a battle plan that isn't as clear in all the action and that's why it seems confusing
@@Holoflux I wouldn't call it confusing. more just, (I guess badly is the word I'm looking for) shot. I only watched it last week. And i can't remember seeing any bad guys in that scene. it all just looked like a training drill.
Underrated film. I feel the cinema establishment crowd like to poke at it for certain reasons, and the mainstream click hunting press (at least in headline) love to talk about Nolan dialogue. I’ve never had a problem with dialogue in his films. I feel it’s related to the idea of ‘active listening’ and something I’d love to hear Kirk Hamilton discuss in relation to cinema, not just music, but the concept is there. Have we been taught to derive too much from dialogue, in general? And is Nolan pushing back on that here; an interesting dichotomy in the context of Nolan often using dialogue heavy exposition.
I think the issue is that instead of us wanting to know more, the film primes us to expect more. Then it delivers at the very end. So, as a whole, we don’t have the context we need to care about anything because in order to care, we have to understand the deeper machinations. You don’t need that in Sergio Leonne’s movies or James Bond. The protagonists aren’t shown off to you as complex individuals, they’re just real life people or charismatic faces in situations that endear us to them. And half of what makes James Bond enjoyable to watch is the dialogue. It’s all a mess in Tenet. There’s no scaffolding. When you need dialogue, you can’t hear it. When you need simplicity, you get complexity. So many pieces are missing, and the ethos isn’t committed to, to the degree that there’s no foundation to build anything substantial OR base-level enjoyable on.
That is to say, either you create something simple and investing that carries you moment to moment, or you invite us into a complex world. You can’t half-ass both and expect a good result.
@@UltimateKyuubiFox I suspect that great art succeeds in both, but as you said, it doesn't work if either bit is half arsed. They have to both be there in extremis. Otherwise it's a boring, pretentious art piece, or forgettable popcorn. I see The Water Margin, or the works of Shakespeare, as best achieving this combination of catchy, vulgar randomness and base thrills - with fascinating revelations and highly complex concepts. Perhaps The Wire and The Sopranos to a degree.
Note that this is his first Movie without his brother as a writer. Big change!
@@crazydubwise should've gotten advice at least
My daughter and I went to an early showing. It was mid-pandemic and there were only 7 people in the theater. I had no problem following the story, but felt I was missing a lot of subtleties because of the dialog. When I got home I searched some dark corners of the interwebs and found a full copy of the shooting script, that answered a lot of questions.
I think most of Nolan's films benefit from multiple viewings, it's one of the reasons I love his work so much.
I was so looking forward to Tenet, it was my first movie post lockdown and man, what a disappointment. Nolan is a pretentious man, that's no secret, but until that point his films delivered, at least on some level. But by the middle of tenet you are already disconnected, because you don't care, at all, about anyone on it. So the "spectacle" is just noise. That, and the real noise.
I thought the main actor was bland and expressionless. Maybe if they would have cast someone else as the lead, the movie would have been better.
@@nerychristian better, yes. But still wouldn’t have made it a good film. It’s almost fundamentally flawed on all fronts. Terrible dialogue, obnoxious editing, and a completely generic story outside of the time inversion gimmick. Theres almost no redeeming qualities outside of the raw filmmaking itself (shot-composition). The lead was just kinda the nail in the coffin for me; the tootsie roll on the shit-flavored cake if you will.
Christopher Nolan making the protagonist a “blank canvas” to tell such a conceptually dense narrative added to my experience watching this. The protagonist’s motivations simply being: I need to serve the mission at hand at any cost, made the movie work. The adventure he will embark on is the beginning of his humanity in a lot of ways and him growing from being a cold and calculated spy to being someone who empathizes and wishes to see humanity endure is what people miss in Tenet.
With that said it also helps having a “blank canvas” character because then more attention can be given to the concepts Nolan is positing. A character like Hobbs from Inception with all his “inner demons” would have been a very distracting layer for Nolan to work into. Which kind of speaks to one of Nolan’s biggest struggle as a filmmaker and that’s his characters. For the most part his concepts overshadow his characters but his technique and storytelling are so captivating we can forgive him most of the time.
Maybe that’s why I enjoyed the protagonist in this Nolan movie, it was him saying “the character will become a characters as I develop and explain these highbrow concepts” and for me I thought he succeeded. By the end of it the concept is understood by the audience and the protagonist has a higher purpose than just completing the mission, now it’s also protecting those he has an attachment towards.
P.S. Sound mixing was very rough when watching it in the theatre but I found it better when I watched it at home. Still though it should have been done much clearer than it was and is a very understandable critique.
You know, even in films where the character he no name, they're usually given a nickname based on their appearance or profession or something the audience can reference.
Sergio Leone's man with no name is 'blondie', Jack Norton in Fight Club is 'Jack', Kill Bill has 'the bride', Drive has 'the driver', etc.
HOWEVER because the film itself references him as THE PROTAGONIST, if you go onto Tenet decisions boards everyone refers to him as either P or TP,
So now whenever discussing this film I'm inadvertently reminded of urine and toilet paper. Great job, Chris!
Why arent u saying "protag" like every normal human being?
@@jalcome4201 Ask the people on Reddit, I don't call him anything.
I call Clint's Manco tho
Tenet is my favorite Nolan movie by far. The fact that it's polarizing makes me like it even more
I think what people are missing is what makes this movie so cool is the fact that the story is literally moving in two directions at once. It’s a thought exercise about the implications of the kind of technology in the film. So emotional aspect of the characters is not meant to be center stage. Kind of like how Avatar is amazing not because nobody has ever told a story as powerful as that but because of how awesome the visuals and world building are. There are many things that can make a movie good.
I still have NO clue who is fighting who in the end of Tenet. It literally makes no sense, you don’t even see who they’re shooting at.. it’s bizarre.
I watched it at home on VOD first, with subtitles. Then again a few times till I grasped the mechanics. Then in IMAX on re-release! I didn't like it that much at first, but it grew on me.
What amazes me is that I've watched this movie being about 17 yo (and a rather bad student, especially in math-related subjects) and totally felt like i understood most of it. The plot seemed fully logical and well-thought out and most of my peers of that time felt the same. I remember the discours from that time, with all the criticisms of it being overcomplicated or just a nonsensical spectacle. While it surprised me for quite some time, after this video i think i might have found the catch - as a non-native english speaker I obviously watched this movie with subtitles on. More than that, I was already so used to it that watching almost any movie was effortless for me and I've had no problem in memorising the info. "Tenet" is a complicated movie for sure, but not in a way as some see it - it definitely makes sense, just similarly as "Memento" it's more of a huge brain puzzle. What I understand now is that english viewers were in a much worsen position. As it hit cinemas, many of the dialogues could have been misheard or just missed, and even at home they would miss some of them/had to rewind the movie/had to enable subtitles (when many of them weren't as comfortable with it as me, who uses subs for most of my life). Which means potentially this movie was universally more enjoyable for everyone except US ...which I see could be preeetty problematic for a Hollywood movie. It's interesting to once have an advantage in something over you guys lul
What I also find interesting is that we encounter the same problems with Polish cinema. For us the lacking sound is more often bc of small budgets then artistic choice, but the effect is the same - we often struggle with understanding the characters, as many of the dialogues sound unrecognizable. At the same time, when these movies hit sometimes streaming services or cinemas abroad the reception seems to be better - one of the reasons? We don't have subtitles and other countries do, so paradoxically we're the only ones who struggle with understanding our own language.
"Tenet" is for me definitely the most overhated Nolan's film. While I don't see it as anything perfect (for mostly the same reasons as most of Nolan tbh - badly written exposition-heavy dialogue, lacking characters, cringy overuse of pathos) I really appreciate the videogame-like structure, masterfully crafted action and astonishing high-concept shenanigans. He definitely should get more credit for this movie!
Tenet felt like Christopher Nolan was trying to make a Christopher Nolan movie. There was never a point in which I was engaged.
That’s an interesting way of putting it.
Exactly, nailed it
Watch it again backwards
@@Davidweedlove Yeah, no. I´m good, love.
The risk with many great artists is they can become parodies of themselves
Didn't see Tenat, and no plans to due to the atrocious sound mixing. I don't think I've actually seen a Nolan film since Interstellar actually. For me Nolan films are now best consumed by just reading through a synopsis of the plot.
Nolan kinda forgot that a good movie can't hinge solely on a gimmick. It's the reason Michel Gondry doesn't make films anymore. Tenet was one of Christopher Nolan's weakest films because when you take away the special effects & modern edge, it's just a mediocre action film from the early-90's. Like, a Jean-Claude Van Damme schlock adventure.
The cinematography was steely misery, and a lot of the effects looked bad. Let's not forget that much of the acting was not great, mostly because the dialogue was weightless. Every character was forgettable, which made the weak plot obvious. I know Nolan wanted to make his own Bond film, but what he ended up with was a very expensive airplane movie.
I love Nolan, and I love Gondry, but everything has to be in service of a good story, not a reverse-engineered, stylized pony show.
I feel like Nolan probably only had the concept for the film before beginning production. Like he had action set pieces in mind, and some basic concepts. But he didn't have a fully formed script. You can tell in the dialogue and acting. Especially the main actor. He seemed to be just going through the motions, and not really expressing much emotion.
You feel like a genius that knows how to play out a movie like TENET. It took him 7 years to write TENET. Even an amateur writer like me can do a lot of crazy things in one year. Just imagine whatever a professional writer like Nolan can do in 7 years. Just think of your senses. Who tf wants to spoon-feed everything in 2 hours that took 7 years to develop?
@@mahbubulhaque735 The film wasn't as "deep" as you thought it was, and if it took him 7 years to write this mess, then I'd argue he should leave the writing to his brother Jonathan.
It wasn't confusing and it wasn't groundbreaking, by any measure; it was just "meh".
P.S. This music video by Michel Gondry came out in 1996, and it didn't take him 7 years to figure it out:
th-cam.com/video/EN9auBn6Jys/w-d-xo.html
6:17 What Nolan says here makes me think he would really like Mass Effect. Ive gotten a friend of mine into the series recently and was reminded just how much that series throws you into this world with no real primer or anything. The world feels like it existed before you showed up and it will exist after your time here is done. You are Shepard, a soldier in the Alliance Navy serving on the SSV Normandy, now get out there and play your role, thats pretty much it. They drop lore onto you constantly and it can feel overwhelming not knowing exactly what they are talking about at times, so you just try and focus on the core pieces and pick up on bits of the lore as you go along. You slowly start to build your knowledge of the world and then if you play it again you now fully understand the context of everything you were being told. It greatly rewards multiple playthroughs.
You can make a movie that is visually and auditorially overwhelming where the dialogue doesnt matter that much OR you can make a movie with a plot so convoluted that it requires tons of complex expositional dialogue. You can't do both.
I watched it at home WITH SUBTITLES (obviously) and had a reasonably interesting time. Can't say it was fun. More like doing a crossword puzzle in a different language. It was an experience with some satisfaction in having completed it.
I would love to get to see it and hear it on the big screen AND know what's going on, but Nolan made that impossible.
Exactly the issue I had. I was able to follow (barely) the plot in theatre when focusing entirely on the dialogue and trying to use context to fill in words I had missed because the horrid sound decisions made them inaudible. The big spectacles like the highway chase and the plane crash barely registered in theatre because my attention was completely elsewhere.
A few days later when I watched it again on a 12" laptop screen with subtitles on, it was so much more enjoyable that I actually recommended to all my friends that they skip the theatre entirely. I wonder what Nolan would have thought of that?
As an audio engineer with many high-fidelity options to listen to the film with, I disagree that the dialogue was difficult to hear; I appreciate the realistic nature of the audio and I think it makes the film more immersive. It's unfortunate that this concept is ineffective on lower resolution systems, but I don't see this as an argument for not making the film the way Nolan did. If you would like to appreciate art more, you should invest in the means to do so. Otherwise, simply say you don't care to do so, but don't devalue it.
@@dudeydude77_clips People shouldn't have to have access to high end equipment just to understand a movie. Sure, higher end equipment should allow you to enjoy and appreciate it more, but it should NOT be unwatchable without it. Neglecting 99% of your audience and only letting the "elites" who happen to have access to these things be able to enjoy your movie is a bad move.
I absolutely loved your editing and choice of music, keep it up!
Thanks! New stuff every Saturday :)
-Danny
What he’s done doesn’t matter. It only matters what he does
Honestly, this is my favorite Nolan movie of all time and I don't say that lightly. I've been following his work since Memento.
Personally, it takes a lateral approach to watching Tenet. If I watch it with the sense of moving backwards, while moving forwards, it makes sense. Or at least the puzzle unravels more and more and a clearer picture comes into view.
And yes, I had to watch this with closed captioning from the first viewing (especially when watching it on Blu Ray). That's when you reveal another layer of complexity which is the use of quantum physics to describe the wonky use of time in this film.
Otherwise it's brilliant, no matter how difficult this film is. I love this film even more than The Prestige, Inception or Interstellar.
Whatever, that's just like, your opinion, man!
In all seriousness, I really enjoyed Tenet all 3 times.
lmAo
I love Nolan for this way of showing us a story. It reminds me of working on the oil rigs And being given some pretty important information under the loud sounds of the rig. you focus in more when u r forced to do so. I personally think that's what people miss about Nolan movies. In a way I think Nolan is like his own Kubrick and make movies that enrich themselves with each view. I have a rule in watching Christopher Nolan movies turn off all the lights off put some headphones on
As someone who's seen this film over 20 times now, I can confirm that it does indeed get better with every rewatch. Top 5 Nolan films IMO.
As a foreigner always watching movies with subtitles, I have never experienced this about Nolan's films. Interesting.
I called it his shark jump based on the first full trailer alone when i saw it. I think he's stuck in that place between being too familiar (he's now almost a self-parody, making movies playing with time, blah blah) and being too reliant on his own brand to be able to reinvent himself because the people who turn out do it because they want a certain thing so if he like, starts making comedies, it'll be trickier to keep being "the guy" and getting the budgets he wants. I think he's also in "historical mode"; he's about 50 now and rich. He's not making movies for the same (or any?) audience anymore. If he can keep making them and they keep making a profit and people are generally pleased, then he wins in my book.
My friend and I got to talking about tenet. We talked about how we both had seen it a while ago, and we both came to the conclusion that we did not know if it was a good movie or not. We decided to sit down and rewatch it with subtitles and really think about it. To REALLY watch it. dissect it. I now think that it simply had a bad gimmick. But a bad Gimmick doesn't mean a bad movie. The gimmick simply gets the viewer in the theatre. The story, the writing, is what the viewer stays for. I think the writing is rather good. I enjoyed the ride the movie provided, and how the inversion mechanic was used in the film. I don't think the inversion idea is all that confusing if you take any amount of time to think about it. I do think the real problem with tenet is how the movie keeps everything confusing until the very end because, as mentioned in the video, this takes your mind away from the characters and keeps you thinking that you missed something. You lose opportunities to connect with the characters. I do think the payoff in the end is very rewarding and fun, and worth the confusion. I think oceans 12 made me feel a similar way, except I really don't like that movie because it makes no sense, and then in the end the payoff is super anticlimactic. overall, I really enjoyed and understand tenet, and I think it a fun movie to watch and dissect with friends.
Being someone who plays with time in my own stories, my main issue with tenet is that it has a cool concept but it has nothing more to keep you engaged, the story seemed more like a random series of scenes with a hamfisted story of some evil Russian guy who had 0 motives, there was enormous amounts of pointless exposition, followed by a scene of what they just described.
This is a problem since it wastes time talking about what we are about to witness, while that time could be used to motivate the characters rather than force them into scenarios.
A prime example is they are planning the first robbery into the airport, they spend like 5-10 minutes describing the plan in a random street, then cut to everything going down, similar to GOT teleporting fleet problem. They just have all this stuff together and ready, just because they said so, I’d rather see them set it up and getting to the objective than waste my time only useless information.
the thing about this movie is,
this is meant to be a movie where there is no emotional connection between characters and for that it is a masterpiece.
@@jattdachannel6652 but it doesn’t do that, it’s tries to make you care, but you just don’t. The movie was a cool concept but they failed to deliver a story worthy of the idea. Lol bad Russia man want world to end lol, heroic guy must save da wurl and save da gurl.
@@jackmeowmeowmeow2177 the russian man was really just depressed and wanted to suicide everything, it was the crappiest villain I've seen in a long long time. girl wasn't likable at all, I was hoping she would die and leave the movie alone, protagonist is an empty vessel. I guess the whole point was to make the characters as bad/uninteresting as possible as part of the exercise? the question is, how does that make the movie good/better?
JDW: "So Chris, what's my motivation in this scene - in the whole movie really?"
Chris: "You're the protagonist."
JDW: "Very good Chris. Short, but pointless."
Nolan set out to make a cinema-only experience, one that you'd have to go see again and again to understand what's going on.
Except the best way to watch the film is from home or on your phone with the subtitles on.
I love the movie, but you're totally right and that's pretty funny.
I feel like the only person that had no problems understanding the dialogue in tenet. Perhaps I'm just used to picking words out of background noise?
Otherwise, Good Video!
The vocals were clear. They weren't muddy. Everything else was loud, and that's as it should be when buildings or planes are blowing up.
I did an editing course once and I was taught that when showing text on screen you must cut a bit later than it takes for you (the editor) to read it. If you already know what the text says you can read the words instantly, but someone who is reading it for the first time needs a bit of extra time to see it, read it, process it and understand it. This problem is seen often in a lot of youtube videos where they'll throw in a block of text for half a second that nobody can read unless they go back and play it frame by frame to read what it said.
Christopher Nolan and the sound designers know exactly what the dialogue is saying, so no matter how muffled, quiet or complicated it is, it will always be clear enough for them because they already understood it before they put it in the mix. So them making it intentionally difficult to hear ends up making it impossible for the audience to hear.
The only way to remedy this I think is to watch it with subtitles. That way you hear the sound as it was intended to be heard, but you also know what the people are saying.
Sometimes in a documentary or news report, they'll put english subtitles over someone with a thick accent even though they're still speaking English and you might think "Why do they need subtitles, they're speaking clearly enough" but if there weren't subtitles it might sound a lot less clear than you realise.
I'm one of the people who've watched Tenet more than once and I must admit that its value increases with rewatches. My first viewing was in IMAX and while I did have a good time, I didn't consider the movie to be anything special, just a fun cryptic flick. Now, after a few rewatches, I'm convinced that Nolan's movies don't really need much character backstory. To elaborate I have to talk about Interstellar, the Nolan movie I care about the least. I was very excited to watch it when it came out and while I did enjoy it, it didn't leave a lasting impression in the same way as Memento, The Prestige or Inception. For those three, I was thinking about and reflecting on the stories for several days after watching the movies. And honestly, I didn't think much of any of it until I watched Arrival. That movie released at a time when there was a general air of space movie fatigue. With Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian already released there wasn't much left to say, or so I thought. Arrival proved me wrong in the best of ways and became my favourite space movie. That's when I realised that Nolan was more suited to directing complicated cerebral concepts than he was to emotionally charged scenes and stories. Denis proved that with grace, as both Interstellar and Arrival had a similar emotional core - a parent's grief, but Arrival hit so much harder despite being a smaller film in budget and cast. Nolan depends entirely on an actor's skills to display emotions (Interstellar has some excellent acting as well), meanwhile Denis crafts and molds everything - the plot, the camera work, and the music - to ensure that the final reveal truly affects the viewer.
Tenet, as far as I can tell, is the spiritual successor to Inception. And while Inception did flesh out Cobb's backstory, I'm convinced that for most viewers it wasn't all that important. I only cared about it to the extent that it affected the plot. I'll admit that not knowing your reality is an intriguing concept, perhaps super-emotional too in another director's hands, but I didn't really care about Mal's death as far as this movie is concerned, despite the fact that I was very clearly meant to. I, like most people, was more into the high concept dream within a dream within a dream adventure that was the real draw and highlight of the movie. Tenet is the same way as at its core it doesn't have a character's emotional journey but the concept of temporal pincer movement. Once you make peace with that, the movie's true value becomes clearer. It's about a protagonist, in fact the Protagonist, who's part of a time loop, a larger loop than what's initially apparent, whereupon the distinction between cause and effect becomes hazier as the story moves forward. It's about how an impossible phenomenon might look on film. Truth be told, this is what sets Nolan apart as a director. His films have a similar kind of value to that of the works of Jules Verne, where the characters may or may not be fleshed out but that's not what you're here for. Frankly, Nolan shouldn't be bogged down with character depth and backstories, he's clearly not very good at it nor does he seem to care about them more than his central concept. The one time he did try to focus on how the characters feel the result was Interstellar, a movie with a ton of tears and one where emotions were literally part of the plot, but the audience (and especially I) was unaffected by it.
Moreover, I saw a lot of people criticizing John David Washington's portrayal in this comment section and I'm quite appalled. His role is literally a nameless international spy guy of unknown origins. What in the hell more could he have done to better portray this character? His physique and physicality are both in peak condition, thanks to his athletic history, and it really shows in the film. He is very believable as a guy who could beat up five much larger guys all on his own. As far as his charisma is concerned, a guy doesn't need to be in your face and quippy to be charismatic. It's more about the subtle things, a quiet confidence that comes from knowing your capabilities and your aims, and in portraying that, John David Washington is nigh perfect as the Protagonist.
I loved it, saw it in 3 different kind of cinemas, and I heard every word, saw every visual, and understood the plot and dynamics of it all. Still makes me think to this day but I enjoy it
I saw Tenet for the first time recently. Got it on Blu-Ray and had no problem hearing the dialogue.
I have several Christopher Nolan movies on Blu-Ray and the audio mixing on his films are the best of all the movies I have. All I have is a samsung soundbar/sub, but when I put in one of his movies it's almost like I brought theater home with me. He really gets the most out of my speakers.
The only film I had a problem with was The Dark Night Rises. Banes voice is twice as loud as the rest of the movie and it's really jarring every time he talks. I don't know how that made it into the final cut like that.
The only other notable film I had a problem with was The Northman. Again the dialogue was too loud in the mix. You have this really intense loud music come in that really sets the scene and it gets completely undermined when the dialogue comes in even louder. The music now feels like it is quiet background noise and all that intensity it built up becomes quite diminished.
I just watched it with subtitles, it only took me a few minutes to realize that this was the type of movie that has questionable sound mixing on purpose and I wasn't willing to put up with that BS, the film becomes a lot easier to follow when you can actually understand what the characters are saying.
The movie didn't leave that good of an impresion on me, it's well executed and it has an interesting plot but it feels indulgent, like it could have been condensed into a much shorter piece and still work just as well or even better. It's basically a cool sounding concept for time travel and a bunch of added stuff to justify its runtime, at no point does it feel like it's trying to say something unlike Nolan's previous movies, just pure mechanics with little emotion. Would have been better as a 15 to 20 minutes short with high production value, just boil it down to what's actually necesary to tell the (honestly quite limited) story.
watch it again. but this time in reverse...
@@thereisnospace how would that help?
This movie isn't Memento.
@@axelprino it was a poor attempt at a joke as some parts of the movie go backwards... I watched it on amazon prime and had no issues with the audio. so in general i liked it. Even though it had clear shortcomings it just felt like a breath of fresh air in between all the fking superhero movies lately. I kind of agree with the length. it definitely has some pacing issues. It could have been like a 5 part mini series or a short film showing the concept in a interesting and novel way. I think it has to do with the main character being basically a blank slate. We don't really get to know him. So you don't really care that much about his fate. Robert Pattinsons character is way more interesting and fleshed out. This obviously was intentional but still makes it one of the lesser Nolan movies.
@@thereisnospace English isn't my first language, I actually have no irl experience speaking it, I largely learned the language through reading. So I struggle to follow when characters start mumbling or the sound mixing prioritizes music or ambient noise instead of the voices, this whole "naturalistic" approach to audio that movies are doing so much nowadays is a bit of a pain for me because it forces me to turn on subtitles and most streaming services have no option for plain English subtitles, only the CC with all the cues for noises and music that can be a tad annoying when you can hear.
As it might already be evident I have quite a few gripes with the sound in this movie, and that got me in the wrong mood from the get go :P
Funny people mentioned characters cannot be heard properly but in other languages (like in French), dialogues can be clearly heard at anytime 😅
And if you are used to watch anime like Steins;Gate, the story is quite easy to understand and really enjoyable 😊
Love the movie and wish there was a sequel ❤🎉
Because Nolan wasn’t in charge of the mixing the foreign languages dialogue, the dialogue is ad lobbed as in a completely separate track than the dialogue he captures on set, and the audio engineers in charge at the company financing Nolan’s film understands that dialogue should be heard and that a good engineer would do the opposite of what Nolan makes his audio techs do for the Final Cut.
Basically it’s just Nolan saying he doesn’t give a fuck about the auteur nature of his sound design for any language other than his.
Excellent film essay on TENET!
I think it was Nolan's most brilliant !
I was agitated and bewildered after my first viewing, but as I walked out of the theatre I marveled at this new concept of time travel, even though I was utterly confused, and at how excited the film made me feel. Then I remembered that Nolan doesn't throw anything extraneous into his films, he is very precise with the telling of his stories, and that is when I realised my agitation wasn't with his film, it was with myself being unable to solve it. I made a point of seeing it again knowing everything I needed to understand and solve the film was already in the film.
I saw TENET 3x in IMAX within the first 2mos of release. It is the first film Ive ever done that with. And Ive watched my Blu-Ray at least another 4 or 5 times. It is rewarding each time.
People who are mad a Nolan or dismiss the movie for not understanding it, should not watch Nolan films. It was his prerogative to make a film puzzle that required multiple viewings to unlock.
I respect him even more for this!
The first viewing of TENET you watch through the eyes of the Protagonist, the second viewing you watch as Neil!
Don't cream your pants dude
Most people aren't complaining because the movie was hard to understand. They are complaining because it was boring, and the muffled dialogue didn't help. The Prestige and Inception also introduced many interesting concepts, and there were things that made you want to view it more than once to fully understand it. This movie did nothing for me. I understood most of what was happening, but I just didn't care. And the main actor was bland and didn't show much emotion. You would think that a character who is just discovering time travel and bullets traveling in reverse, would be blown away and asking all kind of questions to understand it. But he didn't. He looked bored.
@@vikramprasanna8908 Why not?
@@nerychristian He was too cool for you. Bolan wanted to make his version of a Bond film, and this was it. Bond is too cool to be overwhelmed by whatevers happening.
The vocals are a weird quirk of Nolan's, and as an artist he has that privilege, but one thing to note, the amount of unintelligible speech varied from theatre to theatre .
But as far as boring, I didnt get that at all. Hope his next one is exciting for you.
I guess I accidentally stumbled into the perfect viewing experience for this movie. As in, the first time I watched it, was with headphones on a laptop, and I caught every word of dialogue, and understood everything happening the first time, and I thought the experience was fantastic.
this movie is brilliant. The scene of them repelling upwards (backwards) up the tower, laying down on tiles of red and blue. Foreshadows the rest of the film. The small details add up after every rewatch. Also I only ever get confused trying to match together the final battle backwards/forward scenes lol
I felt the same way, I think it's because that final scene has like 3-4 separate timelines happening at once and that's also when the most impossibilities happen. Like the building that is broken, reforms then explodes again. So was it only ever a full building for that 1 second? Movie was fine enough to follow, I've only seen it once and watched a few videos to help me understand but I did already understand most of it, that final battle just has so much going on that it confused me and made me feel the whole movie was confusing
It’s wank.
Definitely felt like a film that was meant to be watched at least twice. (However this may have been to its detriment)
Nolan's theory of "forcing the viewer to live in the moment" absolutely falls apart because, when faced with a complex plot, the audience's mental attention is focused entirely on trying to piece that plot together. For example, in the basement of the opera house during the opening, they examine the object they're trying to extract with. They say "I've never seen [*mumble*] like this." It bothered me I had missed this key word, to the point of distraction. I didn't know what that word was, but I knew it was important to the plot.
When I got home, I watched the clip on youtube a dozen times, trying to make out the word. Couldn't, it's mumbled too badly. It wasn't until the movie came out on streaming services and I could turn on subs did I find out the word was "encapsulation."
Oh! They thought they were after a nuclear device, but the dialogue hints that it was not! That would have been GREAT to understand on the first viewing as it builds the mystery! But at the same time, it *doesn't* improve from repeat viewings because you get this information, again, later in the film, when it is less intriguing. This leads to the problem with Nolan's intent:
The time Nolan intended me to use to "experience the moment" was instead spent a scene or two behind as I scurried to parse dialogue and time-inversion concepts.
The time Nolan intended me to use to figure out the details was instead spent enjoying the spectacle as much as I could on a 12" laptop screen.
The issue wasn't that the plot wasn't interesting, or the big scenes weren't spectacular, or the practical effects weren't convincing. It's not even that you couldn't appreciate all these things at the same time. The issue with tenet is that the audience will invariably want to experience these things in the "wrong" or unintended order.
I was the first person in my friend group to see Tenet. I recommended that they watch it at home, with subtitles on, because I firmly believed that the only way to enjoy your first (or only) viewing.
I can't think of a more scathing condemnation of Nolan's methods.
Your comment captured everything I felt about this film👏🏾👏🏾
I think this is a movie that started out as a promising script. But I feel like, once they began shooting the film, Nolan maybe realized it would be more complicated to film, or that it might actually not be too good. So maybe he purposely made the voice dialogue muffled so that when his movie gets panned by critics, he can blame the sound. Or maybe it was purposely obscured to force people to watch it more than once to understand what is said. But either way, it was a bland movie.
@@nerychristian I'm not sure about this, because the dialogue is actually really interesting and explains everything thoroughly. It's just too bad I had to read it instead of hear it!
Was worried where you were going with this. But in the end, yes, re-watching is all part of the fun.
It's like any movie with a good twist that's worth rewatching and there isn't really a twist. Not really.
I had a lot of fun re-watching and putting the timeline together. The first time my brain didn't quite get it.
Great movies always have their detractors. Tenet is no exception. Loved it.
The idea that you don’t need to hear dialogue to feel it, that environmental authenticity is far more important, only ever comes form people who already know what is being said. It’s the curse of knowledge.
This film has so much to offer. I've watched it at least a dozen times, after the first two views, I decided to pay attention to a different aspect of the film each time, and I finally feel like I fully understand the film. However, I still see or hear new details every time I rewatch despite having a full understanding. I also completely understand why some people don't want to have to watch a film more than once to understand it, but that doesn't devalue Tenet to me. I appreciate art that takes time to digest.
Half Tenet's dialogue problem is the surround to stereo downmixing. It happens to a lot of movies. Tenet is on the edge with the overloaded mix to begin with, and generic crappy stereo downmixing pushes it over.
A bit late but I watched twice in cinemas and thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing trying to piece together everything. However, understanding basically everything about the movie from the first movie I absolutely loathed my second viewing, it felt extremely boring and there was no anchor to keep me hooked in. I even somehow managed to miss dialogue that I know I heard from the first viewing and hear dialogue I missed on my first viewing which was an extremely weird experience. Depending on the depth that you engaged with Tenet on the first viewing drastically changes how one will see it a second time. I wish that there was some emotional through line to keep me hooked. Like maybe foreshadowing of Robert Pattinson's Character's Death would have made for something far more emotionally engaging imo.
The Protagonist's excessive pullups was what suspended my disbelief. He could at least have inverted them.
Ive noticed in a lot of newer movies or shows that the dialogue is hard to hear, it's like they muffle talk. It's really quiet talking. So I turn up the sound bar and then there's an action scene and it's extremely loud.
This seems to be a common issue. Maybe there's some common thread, same software or way of editing.
It's because theatrical movies have their audio mixed for the theatre, which allows for a wider range of sound volume than a home environment typically does. I guess most film studios just can't be bothered to re-mix the audio for their home media releases.
As a point of comparison: you might notice that you don't have to adjust your volume nearly as much when watching TV shows, since unlike movies they're already properly mixed for home viewing
I'm actually happy i was part of the dark knight rises IMAX preview when it came out. many of us there mentioned the audio was difficult to hear
I've never had an issue with his dialogue so this really confuses me! Interstellar I found totally fine, Tenet too. I never saw the original mix for Rises though
Fact: Inception was inspired by a specific shot in high school musical 3. This implies that Christopher Nolan has watched high school musical 1 and 2 also.
Probably the biggest drawback of this movie is that it's horribly forgettable. I always watch movies with great focus, but I can't remember the plot at all apart from the reversed time motif, let alone the villain's motivation.
Bro. I had the concept of the gimmick stuck in my head for 2 weeks so i watched the movie again.
It isn't one of best Nolan films but it definitely stood out to me and will always be remembered by me.
@@Red_emp_tion To each his own.
So do I.Except I hate it.I focus so much on the movie that Iam missing out at the same time
the villain's motivation is that he's depressed and evil and waaaa kill everyone suicide etc. it was terrible. that's one of the reasons it's hard to care about this movie.
I keep forgetting he made tenet because whenever I brought it up, people are like, oh yeah, he made that movie.
I hadn't realized that using subtitles would be such an advantage for understanding this movie. I've had bad enough hearing loss for the last ten years that having subtitles on is my default for watching anything now. (It also helps that I'm a very fast reader.)
My wife and I loved Tenet. We got most of what was happening and was able to enjoy the film on the first viewing. I suspect my dependance on subtitles helped a lot here.
It really doesn’t matter if he has a real name or not. It’s all about personality. The Main character also worked perfectly fine for me, because he wasn’t Nolans focus anyway. Some people need character-focused narratives to be entertained, but I just enjoyed the immersive and entertaining action, which I felt was what Nolan promised the movie to be, from the opening scene.
I deliberately went back and saw Tenet 3 times in theaters.
Partly because it was there, partly because it would hep the theater, and mostly because it is an awesome cinematic experience!
I STILL never caught that he held on to the algorithm while tossing the case.
Love your videos, and the use of elliot page's name has secured that subscription!
:) Welcome!
It made me want to unsubscribe.
@@SCharlesDennicon nobody cares
They he-named them then she-gendered them three times. What?
@@Secretlyanothername From what I understand they refer to the character as she, not the actor
I don’t mind that we need subtitles, i just wish they show it in the cinema with subtitles.
I also don’t mind that we need to rewatch it, AND i also agree that Nolan fumbled that with Tenet with the whole yknow PANDEMIC thing going on.
I haven’t thought of the whole sound design angle, that’s really interesting. I do agree that it’s an iffy reason because as you pointed out his movies do rely a significant amount on dialogue.
Like with inception, i really like the universe of Tenet and I don’t have an issue with how complicated the ideas in it are, i think that’s half the fun. I think in terms of dropping you smack dab in the middle of whatever the hell is going on without any explanation, it’s like Memento (a movie which i greatly enjoyed but which did leave friends who watched it with me greatly confused, so I understand it’s easier to get the 2nd time around). Inception had Ariadne to hold the viewer’s hand so it was a lot easier to understand (& most of the dialogue in Inception is also comprehensible!).
I just couldn't get into this movie.. if there was an emotional core it was the friendship between the main character and Robert Pattinson, I think that needed to be "dialed up"
I swear for Tenet Nolan came up with this really awesome VFX idea for the time warping effects and tried to build a story around that. Then did all he could to hide the fact that there is no story by being as confusing and cryptic as possible
This "problem" just feels crazy to me. As someone who always watched with captions, I didn't even notice the dialogue was not audible and I could follow everything fine. It's really not a problem.
It seems this movie has a very polarizing response. I loved it~
It honesty felt like a parody of a Nolan movie. High concept action movie with lots of exposition and big spectacle and little character development. Like Nolan looked at his critics and thought “Fuck ‘em I’m gonna make a movie with all the things you do t like turned up to 11!”
Fantastic video, loved the editing!
Thank you so much!
-Danny