Alfred exposition in Batman was perfect. The Jokers motivation must be explained. 1. Wayne is wring about Joker as another power hungry thug, enabling the exposition. 2. Only Alfred has the rare wisdom and life military experience to know about Joker like, watch the world burn villains. 3. Alfred cares greatly for Wayne, allowing the audience to care about the exposition, that Joker could be a mortal threat to Gotham and Batman. The Jokers exposition to the criminal kingpins gathering was similarly perfect. The visual stunts in the room, henchman murder by pencil, grenade string, cover for it all. Joker exposition to Bat girlfriend with knife works as a dance with that single rising note signaling horror, providing cover. Nolan can do exposition well, just not in Tenet. As Joker said to the mighty, ‘ what happened, your balls fall off?’
Same here!!! 😂😂😂 And I’m rocking a full 8.2 Dolby Atmos system. And still had to pull the subtitles. For a moment I thought my center channel was failing me 😂
I live in an English speaking country but English isn't my native tongue. I watched this movie with two native speakers and had to ask them if they could hear a word of what was being said. Luckily they couldn't. For a minute I actually started to doubt my command of the language.
Tenet is seriously flawed but the "that would be bad, right" response to the particles colliding-annhilation was definitely humour not a failed exposition and the delivery made it clear.
Yeah, to the point where it almost sounds like the character is referencing Ghostbusters in shorthand - "Don’t cross the streams" "why?’ "It would be bad" [shortened] "ok, that’s bad". Plus, the second "paradox" line in Inception is just a callback, not exposition itself.
@@davevenable We're already in the land of nitpickin so, yeah I understand. I really enjoyed the film tho, but I wish they kept the mystery and time traveling aspect hidden.
Exactly 🤣🤣 It's weird how Tenet has made me appreciate Inception even more and I already loved it. Inception was a movie where all the "Nolanisms" were in perfect measure. He got carried away in Tenet.
@@Nineteen1900Hundred Honestly I'm not sure that's actually true. I think it feels less complex because it's explained very well in the movie, but if you actually take the entire plots of the two movies Inception is probably more complicated.
@@bryanchu5379 Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think that's correct. Inception is only about a small team, infiltrating a dream, and manipulating someone to have an idea. I'm not saying Tenet is emotionally complex, nor is the overall plot complicated because its basically a Bond movie. I just mean the technicalities of the rules of the sci-fi plot. Tenet features people and objects moving forwards and backwards, multiple doubles, multiple perspectives. Look at the car chases for example: For Inception, the most complex it gets is a dream above affecting the physics in a dream below. Like how the van spins, so it spins the hotel dream below. In Tenet, there are characters moving backward, driving cars that are inverted. Characters moving backwards that are driving cars that are NOT inverted. Kat is held hostage by an inverted Sator. Nolan even neglects to show where the "Plutonium" ends up more than once. It's dare I say... a mess. There is nothing in Inception's car chase as truly complex as the car chase in Tenet.
"No shit" was my thought I would really like to have an explanation for the decision of this line, i can't believe no one was against it The movie was ok, but only because of the visual effects and because it's about a topic which isn't overused, but the delivery is horrendous
It's also getting silly how they often change the scenery to something more exotic when deliver exposition. Like mid sentence a character goes "hey, let's go downtown to the opera house and continue our discussion there".
nolan is falling into this strange trap of like, leaning too hard into the style he's become famous for, and then trying to distinguish his films from his previous films by one-upping himself. so the elements most characteristic of a nolan film just keep getting more and more exaggerated with each successive nolan film. the cerebral themes, the mindbending plots, the technical dialogue, the avant garde sets/locations as backdrops for otherwise boring exposition, etc.
by the way, I actually don't think the dialogue is pseudo-intellectual at all. what it is is WAY overly technical, there's WAY too much dialogue and it's spoken (more like muttered) WAY too fast, so that it's very easy to miss what someone said. and in this film you really can't afford to miss a single line. I can't even imagine trying to watch it in a theater. I had to watch it with subtitles and back it up constantly just because my hearing is not so good and if people mutter their lines, I'm very prone to mishear them. these are huge problems for a film I think. like you just can't relax and take the film in, because you're so worried you're gonna miss the dialogue that's been sprayed at you rapid-fire from an AK-47. I think this might have been a good idea for a book. it's a lot like the three-body problem novel series, which is very successful. in a film I just don't think you can convey all this highly technical information in a single film in a way that's satisfying to the reader. and there just isn't enough of an arc to stretch this into more than one film, so that wouldn't be a solution either. so I think the excess of technical information causes immense problems in this film. but with all that said, it's definitely not pseudo-intellectual. a lot of the technobabble that other writers would shoehorn into scripts to explain the otherwise-nonsensical is replaced in tenet with real scientific or philosophical concepts that do genuinely relate to the story. just as an example, the (admittedly ridiculous) dialogue about positrons and electrons, about relativistic quantum field theories' concept of certain particles being essentially wavefunctions oriented in time in the opposite direction, basically moving through time with the opposite sign, this is all real physics. it's a huge stretch to try and relate that concept to the motion of a macroscopic object through time, like a human, obviously. and it doesn't really make sense for nolan to explain the concept of "reverse chronology" to the viewer by comparing it to positrons, something 90% of viewers have never heard of. even among the 10% of viewers who do know what a positron is, 99% will not have heard of feynman diagrams or will at least not have heard that one way of modeling their behavior is to consider them as electrons moving through time with "negative" sign. so it's completely useless as exposition because you're explaining something super strange and obscure by comparing it to something even more foreign and incomprehensible. anyone who will understand the positron-electron reference will already be so familiar with quantum mechanics that they won't need any help grasping the (comparitively sophomoric) time reversal premise of tenet. the premise already was too difficult to explain without exposition, and now you're explaining it in terms of something else that requires even more exposition... yet at no point in the film does anyone actually explain the positron-electron reference. so what purpose is it serving? it's just increasing the density of the fast-paced expositional dialogue, and the density is already way too high. so it's just stressing the viewer out as they already felt like they couldn't relax, already felt like they needed to sit up straight and listen intently to every line, lest they miss something important. and there are so many points in this film where you're worried you're going to miss something important in the dialogue, but the line ends up being completely pointless. if you didn't know this obscure fact about antimatter, then after you got done intently listening to this line, and didn't understand the reference at all, you probably felt cheated and deceived and frustrated that you were trying so hard to follow the plot but still completely missed the point of the reference. and you would have missed the point not because of your own ignorance, but because despite all the exposition, the film often didn't even succeed at explaining what everyone was talking about. because there was sooo much exposition and it was so dense and rapid in pace, you had to listen to every line as if an explanation was forthcoming, or risk missing the line that would make everything make sense. but for the average viewer, that moment never comes for so many concepts in this film, because the concepts are only ever explained in terms of even more difficult/obscure concepts. it seems less like nolan is trying to explain the concepts to the average viewer, and more like he is trying to guard against naysayers looking for plot holes or trying to find cracks in the realism of his sci-fi universe. which is obviously absurd. nolan jams lots of little random references and factoids into this film, ostensibly in an attempt to make the fantastical elements feel grounded in some verifiable component of reality. of course, they won't be recognizable components of reality for the vast majority of viewers, but they are all verifiable. all of the stuff like that in tenet is ultimately grounded in real physics, cosmology, and philosophy concepts. and I get the distinct sense that that's where christopher nolan ultimately gets his film ideas from - from real physics, cosmology, and philosophy. it's not just random jargon or pseudo-intellectual word salad, like you really do see in so many blockbusters. christopher nolan really is very well educated and in touch with a lot of intellectuals across a huge variety of fields. not just as a verifiable fact but you can also clearly see that in interviews, that he is informed and fluent in subjects far outside his realm of cinema. he's obviously not a scientist but he's clearly a science enthusiast who keeps up with theoretical physics and cosmology. so, I think of him like an interdisciplinary autodidact and I imagine he spends a huge amount of time reading about theoretical physics and cosmology and psychology on the internet when he should be trying to sleep. I see him as a genuine renaissance man but that's one of the reasons I was so disappointed with tenet, it feels like he indulged those technical instincts to extreme excess in this film. I know some people have said that physicists would enjoy it but not laypeople, but I don't even think that's true. obviously the reason I was able to identify these references is because I was familiar with a lot of the supporting information and concepts. but I didn't enjoy them, even a little bit. it didn't feel validating or something. it just felt like wasted screen time that stressed me out because of the insane pace of the dialogue and how quiet and indistinctly the actors mutter their lines. the dialogue does feel realistic in terms of tone and pace. of course it feels forced in the sense that they're often discussing things they should already be aware of, for the "benefit" of the audience. but in terms of the quality of their voices they sound like real people. but that's not necessarily a good thing when they're talking about really convoluted shit. people in the real world mumble. i'm not sure that's worth simulating in what amounts to a physics lecture lol. if those lines were given some time to breathe and were stated more clearly and distinctly so you could reliably understand them without subtitles or rewinding, then I think I wouldn't have minded as much. but in the end, the viewer shouldn't need to take courses in quantum field theory to understand the references in your blockbuster film. so it's a fail either way.
Thinking about the exposition in Memento. The main character literally has to explain his condition to every person he encounters just so they know what to expect from him, and he often starts explaining it to people he doesn't know he's already met, only to be interrupted. The exposition turns into a running gag, it's great.
oh yeah i remember those scenes started to feel a lot less like exposition and a lot more like tragedy "I know you know this already, but you're gonna sit through it again because he has to sit through it every time"
Well it is only natural to explain something to someone that doesn’t know, so showing such exposition is necessary for the audience to understand too. What bothers me in other movies of his such as Interstellar for example that he lets scientists explain other scientists simple stuff they should know from the get go. Exposition only aimed for the audience is just annoying and bad filmmaking in my opinion. His films are not bad overall, but some of them suffer heavily because of that issue. He tries to be soo much like Hitchcock, but ultimately fails.
Like in Ghostbusters when Egon says what happens when you cross the streams "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light." Then Venkman is like "That's bad, right?"
By far the best example of 'pope in the pool' exposition is The Terminator. Reece explaining to Sarah what a terminator is and how it works, as well as huge concepts like time travel and the end of the world, during a tense car chase. It all works SO well.
its also because its realisitic. a guy from the future is gonna explain what shit is going down to the uninformed. the problem with something like interstellar explaining crap is they are all scientists who basically know all the stuff already or people over explain stuff when it wasnt needed. to be more like kubricks space oddysey and show, dont tell. let us stand in the wonder of it all without being x-splained eveyrthing
Best uses of exposition: 1. The Truman Show - They hide the exposition under the Christof interview. The info dump about the show, fake actors, brand placement feels very natural because the interview format is a logical place for questions and answers. 2. Inglorious Basterds- It's very natural for Hans Landa to announce who he is and what his mission is to the Frenchman. The exposition is further intensified with the reveal that the Jewish family is hiding under the floor. The shakedown is also a natural place for questions and answers. 3. Back To The Future - The exposition is very tense because it happens right after Marty finds out George McFly is dead. So the audience WANTS exposition at that moment. Doc using the blackboard to explain it is very natural and it really helps the audience understand it. 4. The Matrix - Morpheus using the Loader Program to explain the Matrix also feels natural because Neo just got extracted and he has a lot of questions at that point, so the audience WANTS exposition just as much as Neo. The stylish visuals also help understanding the explanation.
best explanation to the audio problem really. he realised that he was contradicting himself with the 'dont try to understand it..' line which was widely used in trailers and all
This is why Dunkirk is my favourite Nolan film. I don't know whether it's his best, but it's the one most suited to his skills (and which - perhaps more importantly - avoids his weaknesses).
Been saying this since it came out - Nolan is by far the best spectacle director of all time. Without a doubt. His weakness is how bad he is at dialogue, characters, drama and exposition. Every single one of those were stripped away for Dunkirk, letting Nolan focus on spectacle and pacing, which are out of this world in that movie.
i agree. but even in Dunkirk, there's this one unmotivated preachy line from the old boat captain babbling about young men sacrificing for old men blah blah.. that moment in the theater, i thought 'yeah, you can't help yourself, can you? you HAVE TO teach us something."
Well that goes to show how Dunkirk felt like a breath of fresh air for Nolan, he didn't bother with delivering cumbersome exposition and let the visuals tell the story on their own.
@@matthewbishop8395 Yeah he is? Just because you're incapable of seeing his very strong character traits doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. He was being sardonic as he often is
Many years ago, when The Dark Knight came out, I had a conversation with a friend about how almost every single character in every Nolan film is an exposition machine. I love his filmmaking style, but nearly all of his characters explain what's happening in the movie whenever they're on screen. Which is wild to me, because he's clearly a film buff who gets how film works, and as such should trust his audience to interpret what's happening on screen in the way he intends, without having to have some character explain it. It's at its most egregious in the films he writes himself. I don't think a great deal of him as a writer. His dialogue is bland, too wordy, loaded with exposition, but the man directs a scene and commands the screen like few others. He's great at showing, but so so bad at undermining that with telling, as you say. I'm glad this exists. It chimes with a feeling I've had for a while.
He's a Sherlock Holmes fan, and the Sherlock books were bad about this too. The Sherlock endings were only surprising because they withheld information. For Nolan, The Prestige is an example of this. They don't earn their endings. But yes, I agree with you, every one of his movies has this problem.
Well, I hope your friend told you're wrong - because you are. Because exposition specifically refers to explaining mechanics of the plot, which every plot-heavy movie has. Characters talking to each other in philosophical or internal terms is interaction, not exposition. It exists in literature, so why shouldn't it exist in movies. Besides, exposition is bad only when it's used poorly or is a result of lazy writing. One of my most hated cases of exposition done wrong is in Taika Waitit's awful Thor movies, which are clearly a result of someone working on autopilot and writing lazy nonsense with no care or visuals to accompany it. Like when that awful villains Hela explains her backstory and the story of Asgard and there is no visual callbacks to that and no narrative point, it's just lazy writing to give a one-dimensional character poorly written backstory because they first chose on the villain for the so-called story, but then remembered that villains need motivation. And if you don't think great deal of him as a writer, see, that's is your problem, because he can clearly craft a well-structured story with profound characters, stakes and subversions that actually compliment, not destroy the story. And being a film buff doesn't mean you have to drive yourself into a corner and appease the Taxi Driver aficionados who think "show, don't tell" is an actual rule in filmmaking. No, it isn't. If it was, films would still be silent.
You really wrote all that for nothing. We are saying Nolan often uses bad exposition not that you can't use it at all. Tenet was like the flaws of Inception made a movie on its own. It's basically universally agreed upon that Tenet is the worse of Nolans work. I still love the movie though. @@antona.1327
watch enough novel and I just ignore this. When characters are "explaining", it is time to learn the lore or machanic that I couldn't learn elsewhere (in the film)
@@antona.1327 It just have to make sense as to why the exposition is there. Not just for the audience, but for a character and with a certain restriction on how the characters understand or not. It is not imperative that every character should reveal their emotions, intentions and desires. Most of them can show them. Of course, for character development, that have to be shown and told. But for concepts that can't be revealed without being to "wordy"? I mean, it was perfect how the Dreams were relayed to the characters in Inception. It felt natural and it actually made a bond between characters and why the are doing what they are doing. But when you need to tell every single reason why something is how they are, it's pedant. I agree some movies are bad at this with their reasons and motives being shown after, but this is not mutually exclusive. Little information and too much information are just as bad because you end up confused, dazed and without a direction unless you get yourself out of the movie to stop and get what has been said.
Often when I publish a critical essay like this the comments turn into a mess. Before you comment, here are a few things to bear in mind: *I'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan and his work.* When Inception came out it played a role in re-igniting my interest in filmmaking. I've seen all his films, many multiple times, and made a video examining his work in the past. This video is not a personal attack against Nolan or anyone who likes his films. What it is, is an attempt to examine and talk about one aspect of his writing and filmmaking that has frustrated me in several of his films, and the aspect that I think ultimately kept TENET from being a great movie. It's because I like and respect so many other aspects of how Nolan makes his films- that I would spend so much time dissecting one aspect that I think he gets wrong. You might disagree! Maybe what I talk about in this video doesn't bother you, and you think TENET is Nolan's best. Maybe you're somewhere in between. All that is fine. The point is we're making individual, subjective analysis of our own experiences, and then trying to share those experiences with each other. Feel free to elaborate in the comments on why you think I'm wrong, but let's all be respectful of each other and the filmmakers. Please provide actual examples from the film, or elaborate on what part of film theory or analysis you think I'm getting wrong, instead of attacking me personally. A critic disliking and criticizing something that you like is just part of the ongoing discussion surrounding film- don't take it personally.
I've loved every one of Christopher Nolan's film before this one, including Interstellar. Tenet just isn't good. It's one huge exposition dump interrupted once in a while by a pretty good action scene. Exposition doesn't even help understand the plot or make sense of the science. I get some of it is supposed to be better understood on second viewing, but it doesn't excuse how boring the first viewing experience was.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +6
The fact that you have to explain that shows how some fans are. I love Steven Spielberg, but I have many criticisms of his films, and that´s fine.
Not sure if this gives the movie brownie points for being self-aware but I wholeheartedly feel like Nolan and company made a conscious and creative decision to not make this movie emotionally connective. It’s more of an “in the middle moment experience.” I harken back to a line from inception, when Leonardo’s character says; “you never really remember the beginning of a dream, do you?” I feel like in tenet’s case, given the concept of time moving forward and backwards simultaneously (never having a clear beginning and endpoint)- is probably why Tenet doesn’t feel like there’s an “origin” or character genesis/exploration involved. It’s kinda ballsy but it’s almost like they’ve already WRITTEN the characters outside of the movie itself and we’re just witnessing the “main/middle” events unfold. Sorta like what he did with Dunkirk. Obviously, if that’s what a certain moviegoer is expecting or wanting out of the film (emotional connections) then I’m sure they’ll be disappointed in some capacity. That said, I really do think it was very, very intentional of them to make the movie the way it was...for better or for worse. In short, don’t believe Nolan was ignorant at all about this when he was directing it. If looking at it this way provides a better, worse or indifferent view of the movie then it’s up to the viewer! Just my two cents!
What drove me crazy in tenet is people would explain super complex time issues to the protagonist and he'd just be like "yup cool, got it!" Everyone in the movie just understood everything instantly.
Ya, I don't think that the Protagonist just "got it." I think he just "accepted it." There is a difference. Something a lot of the audience of Tenet struggle to do, just accept the reality of the movie.
The lack of emotion or even freaking surprise when learning that people can actually go back and forward in time or even learning to properly use it immediately with no help was almost comical to me in TENET.
sartre wrote something else about it: can you experience pleasure, or be happy, without being conscious of it ? he said you cant, and i think the same way. you cant be happy or have pleasure without knowing it is so. There is no difference between the experience of the feeling and the knowledge of it. That said, I do think that generally, you cant be happy when youre thinking. But theres a difference between being aware of something and thinking about it. tldr: You cant enjoy the best steak without being aware of it being the best steak youve ever had, but when you start to compare it in your mind with some other steak, it kind of ruins the fun
@@bastiaanschouwink3562 Your TLDR doesn't exactly fit with what you said above. You are saying being concious of happiness. I'd like to say complete opposite of what Sartre says; I think you can be even more happy if you are aware of your happiness. Because unlike the best steak, there is no measure for happiness. The best happiness for a person is the happiness s/he already has. There might be levels of happiness, of course life is not a straight line. But then, when you are not _that_ happy when you were concious of it, you can think those time where you were aware of that and feel grateful.
I'll never forget the scene in Batman Begins where Liam Neeson is trying to crash the train into Wayne Tower, and Nolan keeps cutting to the guy in Wayne Tower explaining what we're seeing. "IF THAT TRAIN REACHES WAYNE TOWER, ALL THE PIPES IN THE CITY ARE GONNA BLOW!" This is after Liam Neeson has already clearly explained his plan, and we've seen pipes bursting throughout the city.
It’s Hitchcock’s rule of 3: explain an important plot point at least three different times for the audience to understand it. This doesn’t mean necessarily through dialogue, but visually too. I personally don’t subscribe to this philosophy at all though. It leads to those, “Yeah, no shit,” moments like the one you described. I’d rather a plot point be explained once-or sometimes not at all-and have me figure out the rest as a reward. I get that blockbusters need to cater to a larger audience, but we should really expect more of them at this point.
With the interstellar comparison I think it makes sense that the rest of the crew is explaining these concepts to Cooper because he essentially is only acting as the pilot
@@Apenzuur movies do it a lot, briefing right before the mission, while in reality briefing happens weeks, months, days, before the mission, not the exact hour of the mission.
@@nekoshbbg1192 Thank the Lord! I was thinking I'm the only one who's actually watched the movie --- don't get why everyone is so hell bent on hating it...
Yeaaa, it be like that bro haha. I think people generally stick with other people with similar opinion and since the video is critiquing the movie, more people having problems with the movie will probably watch and express their opinions too. I'm sure there are other people having similar opinion like us too. I really enjoyed the movie, imo its Nolan's best work so far. Hope you enjoyed it too. Have a nice day :)
"That would be bad, right" for me it felt more like the character being sarcastic or genuinely asking it because he's a secret agent and needs to know the level of threat he's facing in the mission
I find this to be very well done and largely accurate. However, I feel like some things were presented in a black and white manner when they exist outside of the strict parameters of "exposition." For instance, JGL's use of "paradox" actually just provides a symmetry in the scenes, a front and back that we know Nolan loves. Like a musical refrain, while your interpreting of it as exposition is plausible, it isn't exclusive. Then there is the line about annihilation. To me, that rang not just as humor, but as a possible homage to the humor in Ghostbusters. There is a line in that film in which the more knowledgeable, exposition delivering, scientist, Egon, tells Venkman if they cross the streams everything will explode (paraphrasing) and Bill Murray goes, "Right, so that's bad." Yes the exchange delivers exposition that sets up stakes that come back into play during the finale. But it's played with humor over it, almost calling attention to the fact that it is what it is in a satirical manner. Ultimately, these are artistic choices. And my point isn't that your assessment is wrong or that the artists are right. I'm simply saying with some examples, there is a subjectivity. It can't be boxed into a black and white technical failure of form because of the other, subjective variables. So to wrap up I'd like to say, I love the essay, fantastic work was done here from start to finish. I'd also like so say that while I do enjoy Nolan, I don't want any one to see this post as a defense of him. It isn't. I'd just like to enter into the conversation that certain other variables should be allowed in the critical thinking process of critique, for instance, the notion that an artist retains the right to objectively see and acknowledge a structural or technical redundancy or issue, and choose to ignore it for the favor of some other artistic choice. Then the debate can detour into whether that artistic choice merited the deviation or not, of course, but the possibility is always allowed. Thank you for indulging me lol.
Yeah there's definitely a certain grey area or subjectivity in even defining what "exposition" is. I think you make some pretty valid points here. One of the things I think is interesting about film criticism and critique, is that two people might have the same conclusion- but disagree about certain aspects that lead to that conclusion, or details of the assessment.
The symmetry in the scenes is visual. It doesn't also need to be referenced in such an unrealistic verbal way. This is already addressed in the video, keep up
There are also several instances when the characters decided to have a chat at to a random location that snapped me out of the experience to ask "why are they talking here?". E.g. the sailing scene where they can't barely hear each other, some viewing platform on top of a mountain where you have to climb to get to, in the middle of the street, on a bus, and on a ferry - the old lady is a rich arms dealer, the Protagonist and Neil have an small army in their organization, and they all are discussing their top secret plans while riding public transportation? LOL.
This bothered me as well. They are supposed to be intelligence officers, but they speak so openly about plans that would have global consequences. It's just weird and doesn't make any sense, especially not from professionals.
@@tellybegoin To be fair though, anyone near by wouldn't think much of what was being said. It's a similar thing that causes social anxiety/self-consciousness. Thinking people actually care about your presence and what you're doing and how you look, and what you're saying. Most people are in their own world, and even if you did say or do something embarrassing/damning, most people would forget all about what they saw/heard in less than 5 minutes, and won't give it a single further thought afterwards. So I guess it's realistic If they are making a calculus that people aren't actually playing attention or that they care. Which would be a good calculus. But it's still super unprofessional. And these people are supposedly charged with saving the entire world, lol.
@@DrunKao That's because most of us are talking about what we're having for dinner tomorrow, not HOW TO BOMB AN AIRPORT. Like you're ears aren't going to perk up hearing phrases like NUCLEAR POLICE and AMBUSH.
And I thought calling a joke "exposition" was bad. But "Why would they talk while they're going anywhere?" has to be the most inane nitpick I can imagine. As usual the popularity of a comment spoils my faith in humanity. This whole video is about how the film is trying to write a doctoral thesis to explain to the audience what's going on. No one in the general population of Estonia is getting any useful "Top Secret" information from their little tea parties, and the antagonists are people who can travel backwards through time, it stands to reason that if any of them are in a position to listen to your conversation it won't be because you did a little careless whisper on the L-train. Logically they don't even need to eavesdrop on you to know what you're going to do next. That's archaic to them.
Brace for impact. The Nolan fanboys will hate you for critiquing him but this issue in particular irks me to no end about his films. Even more so than the inaudible dialogue.
I agree, but can we please acknowledge that there has never been a more efficient, sharp, and standalone masterclass in script economy than the line "I ordered my hot sauce an hour ago"
In Shane Carruth's "Primer" one of the multitudinous Aarons at one point says something to the effect of "I haven't eaten since nine hours from now." That line and it's delivery simultaneously showing just how much Aaron and Abe's way of thinking has had to shift to work with time travel, revealing how blasé the whole thing has become for them both, and working as a moment of comic relief is script economy. Plus, unlike the dialogue in Tenet, you can actually hear it.
I'm not really a fan of Nolan but I think the "that would be bad" bit is just dry English humour. This is normal in Britain and Ireland. I attempted to make some jokes like this with some American friends and they responded to me sincerely.
@@coopermiller3216 that’s an extremely pretentious and off-base thing to say. Nolan is not an excellent filmmaker but he doesn’t even have similar qualities to Michael bay. Not even on a visual level
Nolan doing Tenet was like: Fuck it, im going to make the most Christopher Nolan movie possible. I like it tho. Also i saw it with subs so that helped.
The director is the one in charge of the overall movie. If an actor's delivery is bad then the director should tell them what they want or pick a different take with a better delivery. The fact is, he chose that one for his movie. His responsibility
I thought it was funny too... it shows the character's cockyness and confidence...I think the video maker is too busy critiquing rather than accepting.
@@kwalitykontrol well, the protagonist isn’t just any spy, yes in the beginning of the film he is in the CIA, but the way he acts throughout that whole opera house scene he didn’t seem like WTF is going on and seeing that reverse bullet for the first time too, he showed confusion but it just wasn’t that much shown expressively 🤷 Like, even when that scientist was explaining how these things can be time manipulated he barely showed an expression of freaking out
Tenet definitely had some issues but after understand it more and more I love it more. It’s such a unique idea and just the fact that they were able to pull it off visually is crazy.
I agree, I definitely noticed during the movie that they were just saying things to explain it to the audience but that didn’t make me like the movie any less. And after I heard ab the Neil is Max idea it made me think ab all the little things in the movie and I was just laughing because it made sense. I stopped watching Tv and rarely watch movies because they are so predictable. Tenet and most of his other movies make my think and surprise me which I love.
The action is unique, but the story is not. It was already done (much better, in my opinion) with a major character arc in Doctor Who (which may be a rip from something else of which I'm not aware).
Unique? The grand conclusion is that the hero created the solution in the future... so, about the same as interstellar. It's as classic as it gets. Only the visuals are here to salvage it, but if you switch off all sense of logic to what is presented to you. One of the biggest disappointment I got to experience in cinema.
Ariadne as the audience surrogate is a great way to give exposition without feeling clunky. You’re absolutely right that when characters are discussing things that they should already know, I immediately notice it and it takes me right out of the movie.
Great video, I personally disagree with JDW “That would be bad right?” line though. I always took it as a joke and it did make me chuckle. His character throughout the movie is always a bit of a smartass and cracking wise, I felt like his response to “annihilation” was perfectly in character for him. He was making light of the serious situation he’s in.
The main character was insufferable, the whole movie was built around making him look cool. He was so cool he couldn't be bothered to act, every other actor was doing his job except him cause he was supposed to be too cool to express any human emotion. The actor had no charisma whatsoever and the plot didn't make any sense at all, if I was Robert Pattinson I would have killed the blonde bitch just to make the main character stop compromising the entire operation cause he was simping for her
@@LarryHazard That's your opinion. Seemed to fit his character just fine and reminded me of other spy movie protagonists. Confidence even if perceived by you as too much and unfounded may be a necessary component for a person like him to found Tenet in the future.
@@exilius333 nah it's just bad acting from a nobody actor. Idris Elba would have made more sense. Nolan just wanted to self insert with another gamma male
Yeah. I didn't mind the movie but I concur that linbe of dialogue is what you can expect from that cocky character and not trying to be expositional at all.
Watch tenet for free on any device - ww4.0123movie.net/movie/tenet-101355.html Ps: sometimes you might get pop up ads and if you do just exit out of em and hit play again.
Great exposition in cinema: Dr. Emmett Brown = His lines are basically 90% explanations, yet he's still regarded as a very entertaining character. 12 Angry Men = Tell, don't show. You can listen to the dialogue w/ your eyes closed and understand most of the story, but watch the film w/ the sound off and you'll be lost. USS Indianapolis speech in Jaws = Iconic scene despite not even bothering w/ a flashback. Fight Club = Narration galore that conveys lots of personality. Cinema is also an auditory medium, hence the key is execution rather than the approach.
@@Alice-me2qk There's a saying that silent films were never actually silent. Are you not aware that they were accompanied by music? They even displayed text narration & dialogue.
Yes! I almost used video essay of an example of "good exposition." One thing I think is interesting though, is that, even within a video essay where it's all kind of exposition there's "direct exposition" and there's still an element of "show don't tell." For example in my videos could just say everything, but I often try to use examples from the films that directly illustrate the point I'm making so that the audience can "see for themselves" what I'm talking about. I don't always do this well, but when I do, I think it's more enjoyable for the viewer.
@@ThomasFlight So you're saying you can do it in your videos coz 'it's more enjoyable for the viewer." But when Nolan does it, it ruins the viewing experience, makes sense.
In every other Nolan movie, you could answer this question: what is the main character dealing with personally apart from the plot? In Tenet, there is no answer. Thus, no personal connection to the main / audience POV character for the viewer.
No character besides Pattinsons had any depth, or emotional worth... Washington felt so bland, and emotionless. I almost thought after watching it if it was Nolans intention to make us not care about anyone. Also hard to understand what anyone says the entire film. gibberish, and talking to fast... just watch the intro to this video alone.. Did he intend on that? Cause if not, arguably my favorite director of all time has seriously fallen off. Here's to hoping Openhiemer is better than Tenet.
It sounds like, if people don't get a romantic connect or a parent child connection in a movie, then people can't understand how there are any emotional connections or motivations at all. People can't fathom that the Protagonist is Tenet, empathized with Kat and her child and that was his emotional motivation (as well as not wanting the world to end, seems like enough motivation for me, but I guess I am weird). But because Kat and the Protagonist, never fucked or expressed romantic feelings then people are like "why would he care about this women and her child?" I think that says more about the audience watching the movie then it says about the movie.
@Meta Man Is this a copypasta like the Rick & Morty one? 😅 Tenet will stay with me for a long time, sure, but not in the way Inception does. I'll mostly use it for jokes and making fun of someone.
I couldn't even tell who they were battling at Stalsk-12, they weren't visually distinct from the protagonists (and that was already confusing with the red team/blue team dynamic). Could have been an amazing scene but it just left me bewildered.
Oh boy, this is gonna be a long ass comment. Firstly, I'm grateful for you sharing your opinions and think you did a great job laying them out! There's a literally device called a tricolon that involves a thrice repetition or listing all relative to the same underlying topic. Here is one in the form of a quote, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." -Benjamin Franklin Each sentence refers to information and builds upon the last. "Veni. Vidi. Vici." Here, each one builds upon a narrative. I came. I saw. I conquered. This is key to appreciating Tenet as it dictates how the story is told. I'll do my best to incorporate examples of this as I continue. *UNDERSTANDING & EXPOSITION:* You picked 3 poor movies as examples. Interstellar, Inception, and Tenet. All of which are complex in their nature. Humans learn through repetition and do so faster with multiple sensory inputs, hence the exposition AND the visual. There is so much going on in these 3 movies that the extra details add up in rewatches for a more holistic understanding and better appreciation. That's where the concepts become cemented in your mind and the extra details are opened up to your consciousness as you can focus all around the scene rather than what's in the limelight. Just because you, the characters, and I might understand the situation, it doesn't mean the person watching next to us will. Nolan compensates for that. These repeated expositions allow what's essentially an instinctual understanding of what goes on. He breaks suspension of disbelief then remakes it in the following scenes. Nolan himself says this in 9:09 of the video *EMOTION:* In regards to emotion in Tenet, you have 3 people who represent various emotions. Neil, being happiness. Kat, being that of love. And Sator, as anger. Neil repeatedly shows how happy he is to be with The Protagonist throughout the film. And he goes through great lengths to keep him safe because of this. Hell, even from his intro you can see there are times he can barely contain himself. Props to R.P. for such excellent delivery. Kat's actions are driven by her love of her son. She was given an out but chose to stay. Yes she grew calloused, however, her motivations remained the same. Her "why" is the love of her son. Even in the end when she calls herself a vengeful bitch, it's because Sator made her feel twisted about her love and commitment by offering the deal where she never sees their son again. Sator is the embodiment of anger. He feels it's unfair that he's dying and lashes out. If he can't live a fulfilling life no one can. If he can't have Kat, no one can. You can call this envy too but the scene where he calls himself a tiger to be admired until you feel it's rage, and that makes his primary emotion lean more towards anger or wrath. *WHY THE PROTAGONIST CARES:* At the beginning of the film we see The Protagonist (TP) fail his mission and as a result his team died. When he wakes up out of the coma he very quickly asks if they are okay. When told he was the only one to make it out, he cries. Right there he's cemented as an empath. Even before this, he saves the innocent people at the opera when he didn't have to. How many times have you gone through life wishing you could do things differently in the past or because of it? TP feels that and does his utmost to help Kat BECAUSE he is able to. TPs motivation is his sense of duty and the fact he cares deeply about others. The end of the movie has Neil smiling (again reinforcing he represents happiness) as he says farewell knowing he's going to die. Again you see TP tear up. TP is consistently stoic when it comes to himself and emotional when it comes to others. The rage towards Sator when he shoots Kat. The love for her that isn't meant to be. And the happiness he feels when with Neil. His general emotional reservation highlights and has the inverse effect on others. 16:39 you say that there isn't a visual clue for when TP "realises" everyone worked for him but you showed the scene seconds before when that very thing is explained by Neil. That the whole operation was HIS. And when he's in the car explaining this to Priya, again, he's consistently stoic. He doesn't need to explain where he found out that information because he's there to tie up loose ends. If anything, it's him being snarky again. When it comes to U.S. Special Operators, this is a pretty common and necessary trait due to their work being clandestine. I've had the privilege of working with them in my own career and have seen this throughout. TP is extremely well written and does require a bit of outside knowledge to fully appreciate. Great movies always open up dialogue just like this and I'd love to hear any critiques on what I've put forth. (Edits made are for readability/typos)
Damn that's too deep, but seriously reading your comment made me appreciate the movie even more. It's just that audience r too much into cliched and predictable storytelling that they underestimate films like this, I mean all critiques use same lens and keep comparing. Problem is, tenet is ahead of it's time. From character development to exposition, they all have same POV but unwilling to look into the mechanics of the film. People need exposure to such class of films rather being stuck with superheroes and supernatural world
If I must add, Kat's 'awkward' line "...Including my son?..." gets a lot of flak from reviewers when in they haven't considered two factors. First being her still delirious/semi conscious from being shot hence that was the first thing she says despite even the world is in danger; and the second one building to that which is the most important thing for her is her son. I have a third point to that, only if we account the theory that Neil is her son, because after her line Neil proceeds to take care of her which is timely and secretively a powerful scene to show their love for each other as mother and child. As for the the Protagonist, it is refreshing to see a merry/ quirky lead compared to the more serious, emotionally burdened leads from Interstellar and Inception. Lastly people should judge the movie not how they experienced it poorly but in its supposed form--Tenet and Interstellar getting criticisms on sound mixing is the same as whining not understanding Canterbury Tales because its old/ middle English. While its frustrating, it is unfair to lash on the movie entirely.
THANK YOU! Someone with a brain. I watched this and was like "this guy is just bitching to bitch" nolan literally does this so you can know wtf is going on and focus on the other details. thats why I always pick up on so much more on the second watching of his films.
@Meta Man it's weird because none of his films have ever done that for me. I leave thinking "wow that was beautiful and pedantic". That's it. And I don't think I'm stupid, but maybe I am. Haha I did enjoy and get a lot out of inception. But interstellar came off as convoluted and complicated for the sake of being complicated. As if that makes it smart. And then the boring, flat storyline was painted over with visually stunning iconography. I feel like he thinks the more complicated, the smarter it is, and I disagree. It seems based on your comment, youd take Nolan's viewpoint Which is fine but Idk I just see him as subpar overall, but his style just doesnt fit mine in terms of writing so it makes sense. I dont think he deserves to be torn down but I also dont think hes mastered anything but beautiful cinematography (and it's a crutch for him)
It's scary to me because the first time I watched it, I was like "this is a great movie but I don't like it because its just exposition and action. An action scene happens and the next scene they explain." And I also loved the fact that the woman Kat was envious of because "she had freedom" was in fact future her who had just obtained her freedom by kill Sator. And he brings up all of this lmao
The only thing that got me slightly emotional in Tenet wasn't even due to Nolan, it was the musical theme for Cat. Honestly, Ludwig Gorranson's score is easily the best part of the movie for me. Kinda shows that when Nolan just lets the filmmaking happen, just lets the audience take clues from the way the film its made rather than just jamming words in there, there are some genuinely great moments.
This is spot on. I completely agree that Nolan's exposition crutch is forgivable in past films because it is outweighed by other positives, especially compelling motivated characters. Tenet just left me cold. And worst of all the exposition didn't work! I still didn't understand the plot. And since I have no character I care about I don't even have any compulsion to solve the riddle that is the movie's plot.
Yep, this is exactly how I felt too. Lost interest in solving the puzzle because the characters were all flat. Its like a jigsaw with all white pieces.
Have you heard ab the Neil is Max theory? It made me rethink the movie and like it more. Basically Neil is the main character but we see the movie through “the protagonist” POV.
Completely agree on 90 percent of this video's break down... besides the exposition in the tesseract scene. I think it added layered context and nuance to the scene without taking any of the emotion away at all
@@atomicambition4435 I understood this movie, saw it twice, I think it earns its 7.6 on imdb, but I have to agree with the OP, it just happened. Inception, Interstellar, Prestige, Memento stuck in my mind forever but I watched this twice in a week and barely remember it. I know what happened intellectually but it just didn’t stick with me as a story at all. Robert Pattinson is one of my favorite actors, too, and Nolan is a top 3 director for me, so I really wanted to like this, I just didn’t.
Exactly. I thought the same. It's the same non-linear, time bending high concept movie but with an emotional core. It's Tenet done better and without guns or chases.
@@aashiv93 As far as I remember Arrival, this is just not true. It had a little twist at the ending including non-linearity of time but it was quite easily understood and not complex at all. Don‘t understand me wrong here. I loved Arrival and everything made perfect sense. It just is not complex, which obviously it does not have to be.
I never understood the love for Arrival because I always felt like it ended too soon. Also it’s incredibly similar to “Contact” movie. Similar idea that aliens give some signal to humans or language. On contact they actually show more after they receive the signal.
Arrival kept coming to my mind as well. That movie was artistically crafted and trusted that the audience would both be awed and curious to keep trying to understand the themes of the film long after the film was over, knowing it’s okay to not fully grasp it initially. Arrival showed this trust in the audience by using virtually no exposition in places where they could instead paint over those ideas visually.
@@hagindor Yeah, I don't mean to say that Arrival's scifi plot was as complex as Tenet's. Arrival had a complex over-arching plot with fairly simple specifics while Tenet's over-arching plot and the specifics were both complex. Which ultimately bogged down Tenet because the movie was more interested in making us understand the plot rather than care for the characters. It's plot over characters. Arrival, on the other hand, was perfectly measured in its proportions of brainy plot and fleshed out characters. Tenet's final twist doesn't hold a candle to Arrival's.
I just saw Oppenheimer for the second time and his exposition issues are there, too. There’s a scene where RDJ’s character, Strauss, informs Oppy that one of the scientists at Los Alamos was a spy. Here’s what he says: NAME OF CHARACTER, “the British scientist that you hired for the project”, was a spy for the Soviets. Oppy wouldn’t need the quoted description of who he is. You wouldn’t need to hear if you were being told about a friend of yours. All you’d need was the name, but since the movie did fuck all to make that person a character worth remembering, they HAVE to tell us who he was more specifically so we’d know, AND they did a flashback to the character so we’d know exactly who was being talked about. And you can’t use the excuse of having so many characters. Lord of the Rings is overflowing with people but I knew who everyone was by film one because of the care put into the character work.
@ 14:30 - The Protagonist's motivation for saving Kat's life is established well. The first time he saw Kat, sitting in his car far away, he watched her kiss her kid goodbye. He knew she had a young son to raise and yet he told Sator to bring in Kat for the plutonium exchange. Sator used her as a hostage and shot her. He felt bad for involving an innocent normie in his deadly mission without her consent. After he woke up from being frozen, he told Kat, _"I'm sorry I involved you."_ He's an empathetic and selfless hero. Later on, when he told her to be the "backstop" to make sure Sator doesn't kill himself too early, he gave her a choice. He told her, _"I'd like to say, that you don't have to do this."_ He explained the consequences of Sator dying too early, she understood the gravity of the situation and got involved voluntarily this time around. Sure, he told Neil that he'd be willing take a woman hostage if he had to, but that doesn't mean he'd just let an innocent normie die after he used her for his mission without even asking her. He's not that heartless. Also, Neil's question was framed vaguely, he just said "a woman." Well, it depends on the particular woman and the context, doesn't it? He was comfortable with killing a woman like Priya to "tie up the loose ends" for the mission because she was an arms dealer. We know how he feels about arms dealers. Earlier he told Priya's husband, _"You're an arms dealer, friend. This may be the easiest trigger I've ever had to pull."_ Priya also broke her promise to not kill Kat so that just made it even easier for him.
Also people seem to forget he goes off mission and risks his life at the very beginning of the movie to save the cheap seats. He will do what he feels his right. This supports him looking out for Kat even further. "Not our mission." "It's mine now."
@@Ebi.Adonkie I ain't, he ain't the greatest but for the tone of the film it wasn't out of character to do what he did. The band wagon goes both ways. Some people think they're smart by hating, some people think they're smart by simping. Or we could all be objective, but this is the internet, like that would ever happen.
Haven’t finished the video yet, but I think the “unnecessary words” (paradox, frozen cloud) can be seen as confirmation device for the audience. Yes some audience might not need confirmation to know what they’re seeing, but for some it’s nice to hear the character say the word that’s on their mind.
I find the "Annihilation" less bothersome than the "My son" one, because even if the delivery fell flat, it's clear that it was an attempt of humor; the latter one was on the brink of acknowledging the audiences.
The "my son" line is the worst line in the whole movie. I just sneered and put the movie away till further notice. I've completed the movie. Glad I didn't watch it in the cinema. Imagine taking your girlfriend, she'll ask you so many questions you got no answer for
@@jonh2853 sadly I think I may have. I was wondering if I was missing something. Perhaps all this thinking is too much for my tiny lady brain to handle :P
Overall, I quite enjoy Tenet because it has certainly become so idiosyncratic that it is interesting in and of itself. The ridiculous volume and emotional greyness and the endless exposition make this a very textural movie and I think it is best experienced laid back, with the dialogue washing over you as though it's in a foreign language. I don't think it's anywhere near as "deep" as some claim; Nolan wears all his narrative complexities on his sleeve, and it gives the illusion of there being more beneath.
All his focus in the film Tenet was ensuring its continuity held up. The fact Kenneth B. learned how to speak Russian backwards. That Washington filmed both sides of himself fighting. Actors acting in reverse. Running film in reverse. It's a technical marvel. The dialog is just there to affirm what's happening, it has a minimalist function for most of its use. And it works imo. Yes doing something intentionally when it's not recommended doesn't always excuse it. But I don't think you can complain about not hearing dialogue and then complain that the dialogue was bad. Nolan knew you only needed to catch enough of what was said to follow along. Hence the score having the ability to overpower dialogue and not risk losing the audience as to what's happening.
@@1992WLK You guys are making excuses... it's easy to say "well it's not the point to care about characters, or dialogue cause that's not what Tenet is about"... but to you guys I say... why not? You could easily make the characters intriguing, have depth, have emotions... The dialogue, is horrendous, the performances, are boring, bland, and meaningless.. they speak gibberish, fast, can't hear them, just a bunch of non-sense... The whole film the audience is going "who, what, where, when, why, how?" You say "the dialogue has a minimalist function" yet it's nothing but dialogue, and exposition for most of the film lol... it's crazy excuses that you think "he just put dialogue there for the audience to follow along" lol what? Especially when most say they can't follow lol. He got too deep, and lost control.. He was too focused on the logic, and laws of Tenet rather caring about characters, and dialogue, that's extremely apparent to me. The audience needs to understand, and care first, and foremost... that other stuff comes later... With Nolan being my favorite director of all time, this was a massive disappointment... It's a great idea, and from a visual, technical standpoint it's incredible, but for a movie experience, I think it's pretty bad.
@@randomrecipes5007 "yet it's nothing but dialogue, and exposition for most of the film lol" "The audience needs to understand, and care first, and foremost... that other stuff comes later..." This. Tenet already did a great job at visually showing the audience it's internal logic and rules. Then, why the heck did Nolan waste almost all dialogue quota to elaborate MORE of it and end up over-explaining? It's completely unnecessary. He should've allocated more of the characters' dialogues to character development, not convoluted physics mumbo-jumbo.
@@ashutoshsamantaray6596 I enjoyed watching a very specific moving thing, for (and in spite of) specific elements and choices Nolan made. I've seen the movie a few more times since writing that comment, and I have come to enjoy it a lot more having taken the time to switch on subtitles or intentionally unpack the narrative beats. So, I am receptive to the argument that Tenet's sound mixing takes away from the film's enjoyment, but there is a far more interesting conversation to be had here about the 'Nolan fan' and their typically pretentious, sometimes elitist, attitude towards filmmaking. I will absolutely put up my hand and admit that I wrote a pretentious comment that was overly dramatic. I am not receptive, however, to your reductionist and dismissive attitude which neither engages with anything in any substance, nor honestly expresses what you really feel, which is you didn't like that I wrote passionately about a movie I cared about.
Say what you want about exposition, but Robert Pattinson's scene when he's explaining stuff after being woken up is so hilarious to me. It spoke to my emotions and I don't know why.
the dark knight rises has the some of the single worst and laziest exposition dumps I’ve ever witnessed in a film. Where one character was literally explaining to cat woman what the “clean slate” system was even though she obviously already knows what it is.
I guess you missed the "Sound too good to be true, right?" line. Him giving that detailed explanation wasn't just for us, it was for Dagget to bait her into believing he was lying. When you take that line out of context, it does sound clunky, but when you don't, it's actually believable.
@@drlca6601 I think I agree. I loved when it first came out but it hasn’t aged well, like you say it’s very pretentious, I find it quite clumsy at times too
From a critique stand point this is true for TENET. But these expositions really helped. When NEIL talks about his future in the final act, every word he said I felt. That's not annoying.
LOL! Why do I agree with you though? I already agreed with _him_ about that scene. To be fair that's probably just good acting you're responding to, Pattinson could have done that well enough without all of that.
The problem is the exposition is too much, even at some good moment and scene, we didn't get a time to pause, cause they just keep bombarding us with exposition Take example of when cooper meet his daughter, or when the final moment of inception where you are leaving questioning, is it the dream or reality? That's the moment when we all pause and let the character have their live, so they can stop being an exposition machine for us In Tenet, there is none!
This exposition problem really hit me in the scene when neil was about to fall asleep and the protagonist was asking him multiple questions. You analyzed this problem very effectively and concisely. Thank you!
I interpreted "Including my son" very differently when I saw the picture. I got the impression that the audience was already supposed to know that was her concern, and the line was directed toward the protagonist, because she didn't trust his priorities.
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 Well,the entire movie he keeps taking big stupid risks,just for her The line was her way of making sure TP had that in his mind all the while
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 Nah bro Lets rewind back to the start He is a CIA operative who has doesnt get emotions or other things come in front of his goal He is expendable,he literally took a suicide pill(which he didnt know was fake) instead of giving up on his collegeus When Tenet organisation pick him up they say they chose him because of how loyal he was,he would die for achieving his goal But as the story grew,you see him building a relationship with Neil,TP said he wouldnt kill him YET,he would rather wait till the mission ended and decide then Also,when he saw Kat and her love for her child,while he was undercover in a car,and he said he would give her a get-out-of-jail card by stopping Sator AND freeing her By the end both his motives collide
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 He also develops a strong bond with Neil Yet that isnt given away in a lot of "exposition" Think about it,TP saw how Neil saved him in the past,TWICE Neil even says that they get along in the future,because they knew what he had done in the past
TP says he got recruited by himself He says he recruited Neil And this is time loop.Future TP goes back in past,lays info for past TP,then past TP gets that info,saves the world,leaves it for another past TP And you think,bloody hell,which TP came first? When you really,hardly,think about it,you truly appreciate how special and how brilliant the concept is You kight have heard about it commonly called "Time Loop" :)
If I must add, Kat's 'awkward' line "...Including my son?..." gets a lot of flak from reviewers when in they haven't considered two factors. First being her still delirious/semi conscious from being shot hence that was the first thing she says despite even the world is in danger; and the second one building to that which is the most important thing for her is her son. I have a third point to that, only if we account the theory that Neil is her son, because after her line Neil proceeds to take care of her which is timely and secretively a powerful scene to show their love for each other as mother and child.
Im ur not wrong. What I felt after I watched the movie twice and read the script was that he didn't set up the conflict properly. Since the trailers helped us understand the bulk of inversion, what we needed was the conflict and the gravitas of the conflict. This resulted in the distant connect the movie had. Regardless, it's a great movie! Maybe not Nolan's best, but definitely a great watch!
Agreed. I never understood the "bad" guy's motivation or the motivations of his handlers from the future. The "Making of" special has an interview with Nolan where he compares the Tenet villain's drive to the Joker's "just want to watch the world burn" motivations... I did not get that sense from Branagh's character AT ALL. There seemed to be a hint of the promise of immortality in Branagh's final scene dialog, but the plot and its related McGuffin never delivered even a clue how or why that would be the case. Something, something, global warming... something, something, time annihilation. I've seen lots of conversations with Nolan about the mechanics of his plot device, but never anything about the actual storyline plot. It's almost like explaining time inversion was the plot of the movie... really aggravating.
Honestly you are reading way too literally sometimes. E.g. The "paradox" line is not exposition. It's just a quip he makes before he kills the guy. It's the Nolan equivalent of "Hasta la vista". And the "annihilation" line is obviously a joke! It's dry Brit-like delivery, but a joke nonetheless. You want him to slap his thigh and wink to the camera???
Coming back after watching Tenet for the first time. I'll agree that Nolan loves those exposition dumps, but this made me appreciate how many revelations weren't given any exposition or dialogue. Niel's sacrifice, the midpoint showcase of how inversion actually works, and all of the moments in the first half of the movie which we thought were strange suddenly making sense now that we are looking backwards. I wonder how much of the movie would be lost without the exposition in the beginning; itd be a fundamentally different movie. Definitely have to give Tenet a rewatch.
I feel like some the many problems presented here, has to be features. You're supposed to ask "What just happened?" When the credits roll. Either you can respond by Feel it, do not seek to understand. Those people will probably walk out of the film with "I didn't understand it story/characters, therefor it's dumb." In a way, those people are correct the movie didn't do a good job for them. For the other part, it's an excellent opportunity to delve into the theories about time. I never had this experience with Inception, in regards to dreams, but Intestellar did piqued my interest in black holes and multi dimensions. Inception did have paradoxes, but it was mostly wishy washy. The main pull behind Inception for me was the complex story, but as a consequence, it also limited my interest to the emotional aspect of the main characters. The scientific interest in dreams was void. *shrugs* as I said, Interstellar was in between. With Tenent, I really enjoyed figuring out the complexity of all the action. It's awesome when you GET IT! When it all clicks together. Like a great symphony, and all the parts create beauty greater than the sum of their parts. I couldn't care about the story or characters. Mere distractions, and that's fine with me. I loved it for what it was. In sum. Maybe that is just me, but what issues people had with Tenents, I almost see as features that steer me to wonder about time. 🔴⏯⏳⏪🔵
@@willek1335 The writing of Tenet Flows like a Song which you never forgets the lyric of, It is one of my favorite chris nolan movies. i love the feeling of just understanding it more and more. it is simple and complicating at the same time.
I had no problem with the film and enjoyed it immensely--aside from the well-acknowledged and to-be-corrected sound problem. The emotional coolness of the film and the *exposition* actually seemed well-judged and appropriate as the realities that the main characters occupied (and even without the time reversal elements) seemed perilous and over-complex, necessitating extreme focus while maintaining situational awareness on their parts. Perhaps verbalizing--real world "exposition"--offers needed reassurances in complex, overwhelming, situations. I suspect people with some experience in the military, intelligence work, and certain police work would appreciate this film.. In situations where professionals are trying to, as they say, "stay frosty," emotions and reassurances are present but conveyed through subtitles, nuances, and light banter, sarcasm, and irony. Working in a world were time can flow forward and backward would be like walking through a minefield. The "movie" provided this particular audience member with that sensation. I welcomed the exposition as breaks in the somewhat relentless tension of a world where the basic rules of Reality no longer applied. Imagine the premise of this film appearing in a story full of ordinary people instead of a collection of characters whose jobs & lifestyles all seemed to involve walking through various minefields. You'd end up with an extremely different, and far more conventional, and far less novel and interesting, film. I'm still working this out. I hope that made some sense.
I like the quality of your thoughts. I do think the acting was quite subpar which really hampered the believability of the portrayal of this dynamic you're referring to.
You make a good point about suppression of emotion in military/intelligence/police. But whether or not that's the reason, it's not a meaningful addition to the film. You might as well add 30 minutes of the characters filing paperwork since that's a part of the job. Films about frosty cops or soldiers resolve this by either showing the struggle of suppressing the emotion and the occasionally cracking under pressure, or by contrasting the cops with ordinary citizens to underscore the impact of events. Tenet could've used either one. "Imagine the premise full of ordinary people...You'd end up with a far less novel and interesting film." The problem is that the premise _is_ what makes the film novel and interesting. The characters add nothing, and more emotive ones would only improve the film.
exactly I was like, "what???!? the protagonist (washington) is into Kat now, for some reason? why? and why didn't they ever show that on screen?" maybe some really important love- or sex-scenes were cut before release or something, I can't believe the writing was THAT bad
@@secretjazz93 Not all action movies has to do with that. They film it while coronavirus is still exist, i don't think the actors will agree about doing that scene on-screen
just started the video but I feel the expo in his movies are apart of the expeirence and add to the story in a great meaningful way because it's just so fascinating
That's why Dunkirk is by far my favorite Nolan film. No dialogue, no exposition just visual storytelling. And since the time twist here is on a meta level no one is there to explain it.
While I love it, I do know a lot of people who did not like that movie at all. They felt like there was no point to the story and that it was boring. What I’m trying to say is that people will always try to find a reason to hate something, but that doesn’t make any of this videos points less valid.
"That's not our mission." "It's mine now." "Move away. You don't have to kill these people." this is why he went great length to save her. he saw her as innocent but he dragged her to all of this.
Because he dismantled her right on the spot. She had no choice but to explain herself and how she was being blackmailed by her husband, she saw him as a way to recover her son.
I remember thinking how charming and odd it was that Sator was a health nut, obsessed with his Fitbit, then realizing even the character development is a plot device.
@@anthonymartensen3164 let me rephrase.. I'd say Nolan himself can be thought of as the main character that's why the protagonist primary role.. what I'd like to think is nondescript enough to serve as a proxy for both us & in a symbolic way to Nolan, just like Inception.
Like how it always is. Even in the Dark Knight, the Batman and Joker et al were just there to further the plot and its ideas, not the other way around.
nolan writing be like: woman: these bullets go back in time protagonist: 😐 protagonist shoots: *bullet go back in time* protagonist: 😐 wow they are going back in time the end
Michael Caine is now officially typecast by Nolan as “refined exposition gentleman”
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ it's about 60 years of career too late for that
Alfred exposition in Batman was perfect. The Jokers motivation must be explained.
1. Wayne is wring about Joker as another power hungry thug, enabling the exposition.
2. Only Alfred has the rare wisdom and life military experience to know about Joker like, watch the world burn villains.
3. Alfred cares greatly for Wayne, allowing the audience to care about the exposition, that Joker could be a mortal threat to Gotham and Batman.
The Jokers exposition to the criminal kingpins gathering was similarly perfect. The visual stunts in the room, henchman murder by pencil, grenade string, cover for it all.
Joker exposition to Bat girlfriend with knife works as a dance with that single rising note signaling horror, providing cover.
Nolan can do exposition well, just not in Tenet. As Joker said to the mighty, ‘ what happened, your balls fall off?’
😅
And Kenneth Branagh is becoming the rugged version of that
The white Morgan Freeman
The exposition in tenet wasn't an issue for me because I couldn't understand a word they were saying.
😂
I honestly felt so much relief reading this, I thought it was just me who couldn't understand one thing being said and I thought I was going deaf
True 😂
Same here!!! 😂😂😂
And I’m rocking a full 8.2 Dolby Atmos system. And still had to pull the subtitles.
For a moment I thought my center channel was failing me 😂
I live in an English speaking country but English isn't my native tongue. I watched this movie with two native speakers and had to ask them if they could hear a word of what was being said. Luckily they couldn't. For a minute I actually started to doubt my command of the language.
"I want to focus on three films: Inception (shows Michael Caine), Interstellar (shows Michael Caine) and Tenet (shows Michael Caine),"
Is Michael Caine the real problem? Or the exposition? ha.
it was a clever tease on his part,,,
Michael caine ALWAYS Play same character in all nolan movies & that's really annoying
My Cocaine?
Micheal Caine is the Stan Lee of Nolan movies.
Tenet is seriously flawed but the "that would be bad, right" response to the particles colliding-annhilation was definitely humour not a failed exposition and the delivery made it clear.
Yeah, to the point where it almost sounds like the character is referencing Ghostbusters in shorthand - "Don’t cross the streams" "why?’ "It would be bad" [shortened] "ok, that’s bad".
Plus, the second "paradox" line in Inception is just a callback, not exposition itself.
@@Will-kt5jk , I agree. Sometimes it feels that Thomas refuses to accept a movie being movie. :-D A movie is allowed to do winks like that.
Exactly what I thought, nothing wrong with that.
@@4Everlast It's a joke. Sarcasm. Duh.
@@davevenable We're already in the land of nitpickin so, yeah I understand. I really enjoyed the film tho, but I wish they kept the mystery and time traveling aspect hidden.
"TENET" made me truly appreciate how well "Inception" laid out its rules without drowning us in them.
Tenet traveled back in time and made Inception better
Exactly 🤣🤣 It's weird how Tenet has made me appreciate Inception even more and I already loved it. Inception was a movie where all the "Nolanisms" were in perfect measure. He got carried away in Tenet.
Although, Inception has the advantage of being far less complex.
@@Nineteen1900Hundred Honestly I'm not sure that's actually true. I think it feels less complex because it's explained very well in the movie, but if you actually take the entire plots of the two movies Inception is probably more complicated.
@@bryanchu5379
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think that's correct. Inception is only about a small team, infiltrating a dream, and manipulating someone to have an idea.
I'm not saying Tenet is emotionally complex, nor is the overall plot complicated because its basically a Bond movie. I just mean the technicalities of the rules of the sci-fi plot.
Tenet features people and objects moving forwards and backwards, multiple doubles, multiple perspectives. Look at the car chases for example:
For Inception, the most complex it gets is a dream above affecting the physics in a dream below. Like how the van spins, so it spins the hotel dream below.
In Tenet, there are characters moving backward, driving cars that are inverted. Characters moving backwards that are driving cars that are NOT inverted. Kat is held hostage by an inverted Sator. Nolan even neglects to show where the "Plutonium" ends up more than once. It's dare I say... a mess.
There is nothing in Inception's car chase as truly complex as the car chase in Tenet.
The "including my son" line actually made me chuckle in the cinema
You can see it in this way, Sator might send his son to future ;) but later Sator will tell that his son will also die.
I also laughed out loud.
It’s the only thing I could think of for the 15 minutes that followed
I like the movie. But yeah... that was cringe.
"No shit" was my thought
I would really like to have an explanation for the decision of this line, i can't believe no one was against it
The movie was ok, but only because of the visual effects and because it's about a topic which isn't overused, but the delivery is horrendous
It's also getting silly how they often change the scenery to something more exotic when deliver exposition. Like mid sentence a character goes "hey, let's go downtown to the opera house and continue our discussion there".
Changing scenery to continue exposition is TIGHT.
thats because otherwise people would notice the movie is really boring and the dialogue is pretentious drivel
@@TheSuperappelflap i also thought the dialogue came across as pretentious and pseudo intellectual, but then i assumed i was just being pretentious
nolan is falling into this strange trap of like, leaning too hard into the style he's become famous for, and then trying to distinguish his films from his previous films by one-upping himself. so the elements most characteristic of a nolan film just keep getting more and more exaggerated with each successive nolan film. the cerebral themes, the mindbending plots, the technical dialogue, the avant garde sets/locations as backdrops for otherwise boring exposition, etc.
by the way, I actually don't think the dialogue is pseudo-intellectual at all. what it is is WAY overly technical, there's WAY too much dialogue and it's spoken (more like muttered) WAY too fast, so that it's very easy to miss what someone said. and in this film you really can't afford to miss a single line. I can't even imagine trying to watch it in a theater. I had to watch it with subtitles and back it up constantly just because my hearing is not so good and if people mutter their lines, I'm very prone to mishear them.
these are huge problems for a film I think. like you just can't relax and take the film in, because you're so worried you're gonna miss the dialogue that's been sprayed at you rapid-fire from an AK-47. I think this might have been a good idea for a book. it's a lot like the three-body problem novel series, which is very successful. in a film I just don't think you can convey all this highly technical information in a single film in a way that's satisfying to the reader. and there just isn't enough of an arc to stretch this into more than one film, so that wouldn't be a solution either. so I think the excess of technical information causes immense problems in this film.
but with all that said, it's definitely not pseudo-intellectual. a lot of the technobabble that other writers would shoehorn into scripts to explain the otherwise-nonsensical is replaced in tenet with real scientific or philosophical concepts that do genuinely relate to the story. just as an example, the (admittedly ridiculous) dialogue about positrons and electrons, about relativistic quantum field theories' concept of certain particles being essentially wavefunctions oriented in time in the opposite direction, basically moving through time with the opposite sign, this is all real physics.
it's a huge stretch to try and relate that concept to the motion of a macroscopic object through time, like a human, obviously. and it doesn't really make sense for nolan to explain the concept of "reverse chronology" to the viewer by comparing it to positrons, something 90% of viewers have never heard of. even among the 10% of viewers who do know what a positron is, 99% will not have heard of feynman diagrams or will at least not have heard that one way of modeling their behavior is to consider them as electrons moving through time with "negative" sign.
so it's completely useless as exposition because you're explaining something super strange and obscure by comparing it to something even more foreign and incomprehensible. anyone who will understand the positron-electron reference will already be so familiar with quantum mechanics that they won't need any help grasping the (comparitively sophomoric) time reversal premise of tenet. the premise already was too difficult to explain without exposition, and now you're explaining it in terms of something else that requires even more exposition... yet at no point in the film does anyone actually explain the positron-electron reference.
so what purpose is it serving? it's just increasing the density of the fast-paced expositional dialogue, and the density is already way too high. so it's just stressing the viewer out as they already felt like they couldn't relax, already felt like they needed to sit up straight and listen intently to every line, lest they miss something important. and there are so many points in this film where you're worried you're going to miss something important in the dialogue, but the line ends up being completely pointless. if you didn't know this obscure fact about antimatter, then after you got done intently listening to this line, and didn't understand the reference at all, you probably felt cheated and deceived and frustrated that you were trying so hard to follow the plot but still completely missed the point of the reference.
and you would have missed the point not because of your own ignorance, but because despite all the exposition, the film often didn't even succeed at explaining what everyone was talking about. because there was sooo much exposition and it was so dense and rapid in pace, you had to listen to every line as if an explanation was forthcoming, or risk missing the line that would make everything make sense. but for the average viewer, that moment never comes for so many concepts in this film, because the concepts are only ever explained in terms of even more difficult/obscure concepts. it seems less like nolan is trying to explain the concepts to the average viewer, and more like he is trying to guard against naysayers looking for plot holes or trying to find cracks in the realism of his sci-fi universe. which is obviously absurd.
nolan jams lots of little random references and factoids into this film, ostensibly in an attempt to make the fantastical elements feel grounded in some verifiable component of reality. of course, they won't be recognizable components of reality for the vast majority of viewers, but they are all verifiable. all of the stuff like that in tenet is ultimately grounded in real physics, cosmology, and philosophy concepts. and I get the distinct sense that that's where christopher nolan ultimately gets his film ideas from - from real physics, cosmology, and philosophy. it's not just random jargon or pseudo-intellectual word salad, like you really do see in so many blockbusters.
christopher nolan really is very well educated and in touch with a lot of intellectuals across a huge variety of fields. not just as a verifiable fact but you can also clearly see that in interviews, that he is informed and fluent in subjects far outside his realm of cinema. he's obviously not a scientist but he's clearly a science enthusiast who keeps up with theoretical physics and cosmology.
so, I think of him like an interdisciplinary autodidact and I imagine he spends a huge amount of time reading about theoretical physics and cosmology and psychology on the internet when he should be trying to sleep. I see him as a genuine renaissance man but that's one of the reasons I was so disappointed with tenet, it feels like he indulged those technical instincts to extreme excess in this film.
I know some people have said that physicists would enjoy it but not laypeople, but I don't even think that's true. obviously the reason I was able to identify these references is because I was familiar with a lot of the supporting information and concepts. but I didn't enjoy them, even a little bit. it didn't feel validating or something. it just felt like wasted screen time that stressed me out because of the insane pace of the dialogue and how quiet and indistinctly the actors mutter their lines.
the dialogue does feel realistic in terms of tone and pace. of course it feels forced in the sense that they're often discussing things they should already be aware of, for the "benefit" of the audience. but in terms of the quality of their voices they sound like real people. but that's not necessarily a good thing when they're talking about really convoluted shit. people in the real world mumble. i'm not sure that's worth simulating in what amounts to a physics lecture lol. if those lines were given some time to breathe and were stated more clearly and distinctly so you could reliably understand them without subtitles or rewinding, then I think I wouldn't have minded as much. but in the end, the viewer shouldn't need to take courses in quantum field theory to understand the references in your blockbuster film. so it's a fail either way.
*TENET:* 90% thinking
*THE ARRIVAL:* 90% feeling
Nail on head.
Besides that in Arrival they put like 30 minutes of boring needless exposition in the end which ruined the whole experience for me personally
You Arrival yeah not the charlie sheen film
Kids
Thank You for explaining in simple terms why I don't like both of them. Both tell me that I can't have both brain and heart on one movie.
Thinking about the exposition in Memento. The main character literally has to explain his condition to every person he encounters just so they know what to expect from him, and he often starts explaining it to people he doesn't know he's already met, only to be interrupted. The exposition turns into a running gag, it's great.
oh yeah i remember those scenes started to feel a lot less like exposition and a lot more like tragedy
"I know you know this already, but you're gonna sit through it again because he has to sit through it every time"
Well it is only natural to explain something to someone that doesn’t know, so showing such exposition is necessary for the audience to understand too. What bothers me in other movies of his such as Interstellar for example that he lets scientists explain other scientists simple stuff they should know from the get go. Exposition only aimed for the audience is just annoying and bad filmmaking in my opinion. His films are not bad overall, but some of them suffer heavily because of that issue. He tries to be soo much like Hitchcock, but ultimately fails.
Did I ever tell you about Sammy Jankis?
This didnt feel like exposition to me at all.
Thing is Nolan used to write with his brother before 2010 so those movies were well written. Now Nolan writes alone and thus......
"Everyone who has ever lived will be destroyed instantly"
"including my son?"
I actually laughed out loud at that line
I swear, it was such a ham fisted line. In effect it's a summary of the shallow characters in the movie. The movie bored me😂
What a Karen
That was not a question though
Would have been great if he turned to her and was like, "....yes, yes of course, he's part of "everyone," are you an idiot or something?"
@@Ebi.Adonkie this movie is too much for shallow minds like yours to comprehend.
the
-"annihilation"
-"that would be bad, right?" line is obviously a joke
Like in Ghostbusters when Egon says what happens when you cross the streams "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light." Then Venkman is like "That's bad, right?"
Including my son ?
Yeah I thought that was a bit nitpicky as well
Yeah why didn't he see that.
It was pretty obviously a joke, but the delivery was pretty poor.
I think the Arthur “paradox” line is just supposed to be a fun callback, not really delivering exposition. But I agree with all of your other points.
That's exactly what it is, it's especially obvious because of the identical camera angles
I don't agree with anything this guy said.
The fact that he plays them back-to-back makes that even clearer.
@@Ashestoashesjc UM HELLO I LOVE YOUR COVERS LOL
Yes, pretty much like the protagonist mirroring Priya's line "Mission accomplished".
The "annihilation" thing is definitely him joking because that's just how he is throughout the movie
Agree. That’s what I felt.
It was clearly mentioned if he touches himself it'll be annihilation. Hence, the full body covered black suit
I thought it was a stealth Ghostbusters joke.
Yeah, like that was clearly a joke and an expression of character.
"i ordered my hot sauce an hour ago" cracked me up lol
TeneT: _"We live in a twilight world..."_
Neil: *I n t e n s i f i e s*
..."I know what you are" ..
@@Netoniva "say it!"
lol
@@raquellawlitet2992"out loud"
And there are no friends at dusk
This entire video is exposition, it reminds me of my films.
Hi Mr. Nolan. Please hire me as one of your staff.
Please Mr Nolan don't hire Grec.....I don't trust him....
😂
@@BlueBARv5 lol
You haven't made a good fim since "The Dark Knight"
By far the best example of 'pope in the pool' exposition is The Terminator. Reece explaining to Sarah what a terminator is and how it works, as well as huge concepts like time travel and the end of the world, during a tense car chase. It all works SO well.
its also because its realisitic. a guy from the future is gonna explain what shit is going down to the uninformed.
the problem with something like interstellar explaining crap is they are all scientists who basically know all the stuff already or people over explain stuff when it wasnt needed.
to be more like kubricks space oddysey and show, dont tell. let us stand in the wonder of it all without being x-splained eveyrthing
Best uses of exposition:
1. The Truman Show - They hide the exposition under the Christof interview. The info dump about the show, fake actors, brand placement feels very natural because the interview format is a logical place for questions and answers.
2. Inglorious Basterds- It's very natural for Hans Landa to announce who he is and what his mission is to the Frenchman. The exposition is further intensified with the reveal that the Jewish family is hiding under the floor. The shakedown is also a natural place for questions and answers.
3. Back To The Future - The exposition is very tense because it happens right after Marty finds out George McFly is dead. So the audience WANTS exposition at that moment. Doc using the blackboard to explain it is very natural and it really helps the audience understand it.
4. The Matrix - Morpheus using the Loader Program to explain the Matrix also feels natural because Neo just got extracted and he has a lot of questions at that point, so the audience WANTS exposition just as much as Neo. The stylish visuals also help understanding the explanation.
Love that the three films of focus were accompanied not by iconic scenes, but instead by Michael Caine appearances.
The problem is that, even with the “over explanation” of tenet, a lot of peolple did not understand the movie
Right?!
Don't try to understand it, feel it
Remember?
They should just watch it twice, honestly
Just watch it a second time with subtitles and you'll probably get most of it
that's good. Then watch it again.
I believe that Nolan realized he had too much exposition in TENET after it was filmed, so he mixed the audio so terribly so that you wouldn't hear it
rekt
That's funny!!
Best comment
best explanation to the audio problem really. he realised that he was contradicting himself with the 'dont try to understand it..' line which was widely used in trailers and all
@@riddhiman2926 When she told him to not try and understand it I really felt like she was speaking to the audience.
This is why Dunkirk is my favourite Nolan film. I don't know whether it's his best, but it's the one most suited to his skills (and which - perhaps more importantly - avoids his weaknesses).
Been saying this since it came out - Nolan is by far the best spectacle director of all time. Without a doubt. His weakness is how bad he is at dialogue, characters, drama and exposition. Every single one of those were stripped away for Dunkirk, letting Nolan focus on spectacle and pacing, which are out of this world in that movie.
And yet he still tried to shove in manipulative emotional scenes in it about characters we knew nothing about.
I prefer The Prestige.
Such a flawed film...
i agree. but even in Dunkirk, there's this one unmotivated preachy line from the old boat captain babbling about young men sacrificing for old men blah blah.. that moment in the theater, i thought 'yeah, you can't help yourself, can you? you HAVE TO teach us something."
Well that goes to show how Dunkirk felt like a breath of fresh air for Nolan, he didn't bother with delivering cumbersome exposition and let the visuals tell the story on their own.
You just explained what I've failed to convince my friends about.
Exactly the same feeling man.
Send them this 20 minute video, they will definitely watch it. Problem solved.
@@baz1184
What kind of friends do you have that are willing to watch a 20 minute video you send them?
@@WhirlingMusic that was the joke.
@@baz1184
That is some weird sarcasm
The "that would be bad" line in Tenet is the Protagonist being snarky, which is in character, I wouldn't say its blatant exposition
Not really "the protagonist " isnt really a character
@@matthewbishop8395 Yeah he is? Just because you're incapable of seeing his very strong character traits doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. He was being sardonic as he often is
@@nathancollins1715 he had no emotions lmfao
It's the way he said it and the way this line was set up that makes it dumb
@@divyanshudangayach4607 you've clearly never heard of snark...
Many years ago, when The Dark Knight came out, I had a conversation with a friend about how almost every single character in every Nolan film is an exposition machine. I love his filmmaking style, but nearly all of his characters explain what's happening in the movie whenever they're on screen. Which is wild to me, because he's clearly a film buff who gets how film works, and as such should trust his audience to interpret what's happening on screen in the way he intends, without having to have some character explain it. It's at its most egregious in the films he writes himself. I don't think a great deal of him as a writer. His dialogue is bland, too wordy, loaded with exposition, but the man directs a scene and commands the screen like few others. He's great at showing, but so so bad at undermining that with telling, as you say. I'm glad this exists. It chimes with a feeling I've had for a while.
He's a Sherlock Holmes fan, and the Sherlock books were bad about this too. The Sherlock endings were only surprising because they withheld information. For Nolan, The Prestige is an example of this. They don't earn their endings. But yes, I agree with you, every one of his movies has this problem.
Well, I hope your friend told you're wrong - because you are. Because exposition specifically refers to explaining mechanics of the plot, which every plot-heavy movie has. Characters talking to each other in philosophical or internal terms is interaction, not exposition. It exists in literature, so why shouldn't it exist in movies. Besides, exposition is bad only when it's used poorly or is a result of lazy writing. One of my most hated cases of exposition done wrong is in Taika Waitit's awful Thor movies, which are clearly a result of someone working on autopilot and writing lazy nonsense with no care or visuals to accompany it. Like when that awful villains Hela explains her backstory and the story of Asgard and there is no visual callbacks to that and no narrative point, it's just lazy writing to give a one-dimensional character poorly written backstory because they first chose on the villain for the so-called story, but then remembered that villains need motivation. And if you don't think great deal of him as a writer, see, that's is your problem, because he can clearly craft a well-structured story with profound characters, stakes and subversions that actually compliment, not destroy the story. And being a film buff doesn't mean you have to drive yourself into a corner and appease the Taxi Driver aficionados who think "show, don't tell" is an actual rule in filmmaking. No, it isn't. If it was, films would still be silent.
You really wrote all that for nothing. We are saying Nolan often uses bad exposition not that you can't use it at all. Tenet was like the flaws of Inception made a movie on its own. It's basically universally agreed upon that Tenet is the worse of Nolans work. I still love the movie though. @@antona.1327
watch enough novel and I just ignore this. When characters are "explaining", it is time to learn the lore or machanic that I couldn't learn elsewhere (in the film)
@@antona.1327 It just have to make sense as to why the exposition is there. Not just for the audience, but for a character and with a certain restriction on how the characters understand or not. It is not imperative that every character should reveal their emotions, intentions and desires. Most of them can show them. Of course, for character development, that have to be shown and told. But for concepts that can't be revealed without being to "wordy"? I mean, it was perfect how the Dreams were relayed to the characters in Inception. It felt natural and it actually made a bond between characters and why the are doing what they are doing. But when you need to tell every single reason why something is how they are, it's pedant. I agree some movies are bad at this with their reasons and motives being shown after, but this is not mutually exclusive. Little information and too much information are just as bad because you end up confused, dazed and without a direction unless you get yourself out of the movie to stop and get what has been said.
Often when I publish a critical essay like this the comments turn into a mess. Before you comment, here are a few things to bear in mind:
*I'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan and his work.* When Inception came out it played a role in re-igniting my interest in filmmaking. I've seen all his films, many multiple times, and made a video examining his work in the past. This video is not a personal attack against Nolan or anyone who likes his films. What it is, is an attempt to examine and talk about one aspect of his writing and filmmaking that has frustrated me in several of his films, and the aspect that I think ultimately kept TENET from being a great movie. It's because I like and respect so many other aspects of how Nolan makes his films- that I would spend so much time dissecting one aspect that I think he gets wrong.
You might disagree! Maybe what I talk about in this video doesn't bother you, and you think TENET is Nolan's best. Maybe you're somewhere in between. All that is fine. The point is we're making individual, subjective analysis of our own experiences, and then trying to share those experiences with each other. Feel free to elaborate in the comments on why you think I'm wrong, but let's all be respectful of each other and the filmmakers. Please provide actual examples from the film, or elaborate on what part of film theory or analysis you think I'm getting wrong, instead of attacking me personally.
A critic disliking and criticizing something that you like is just part of the ongoing discussion surrounding film- don't take it personally.
U give actual constructive criticism that is helpful. Great work 👏
Also......first reply 😄
You are totally right man, I was also unable to emotionally connect with the movie and I think this was its major drawback
I've loved every one of Christopher Nolan's film before this one, including Interstellar. Tenet just isn't good. It's one huge exposition dump interrupted once in a while by a pretty good action scene. Exposition doesn't even help understand the plot or make sense of the science. I get some of it is supposed to be better understood on second viewing, but it doesn't excuse how boring the first viewing experience was.
The fact that you have to explain that shows how some fans are. I love Steven Spielberg, but I have many criticisms of his films, and that´s fine.
Not sure if this gives the movie brownie points for being self-aware but I wholeheartedly feel like Nolan and company made a conscious and creative decision to not make this movie emotionally connective. It’s more of an “in the middle moment experience.”
I harken back to a line from inception, when Leonardo’s character says; “you never really remember the beginning of a dream, do you?”
I feel like in tenet’s case, given the concept of time moving forward and backwards simultaneously (never having a clear beginning and endpoint)- is probably why Tenet doesn’t feel like there’s an “origin” or character genesis/exploration involved.
It’s kinda ballsy but it’s almost like they’ve already WRITTEN the characters outside of the movie itself and we’re just witnessing the “main/middle” events unfold.
Sorta like what he did with Dunkirk.
Obviously, if that’s what a certain moviegoer is expecting or wanting out of the film (emotional connections) then I’m sure they’ll be disappointed in some capacity. That said, I really do think it was very, very intentional of them to make the movie the way it was...for better or for worse.
In short, don’t believe Nolan was ignorant at all about this when he was directing it. If looking at it this way provides a better, worse or indifferent view of the movie then it’s up to the viewer!
Just my two cents!
What drove me crazy in tenet is people would explain super complex time issues to the protagonist and he'd just be like "yup cool, got it!" Everyone in the movie just understood everything instantly.
Yeah, nobody's ever got any extra questions to clarify anything.
totally! made me feel so stupid when I had to constantly rewind every 10sec to keep track
The complete lack of emotional reaction took me back. Not even a "Wow, ok, let me take 5 seconds to process this is now a thing."
Ya, I don't think that the Protagonist just "got it." I think he just "accepted it." There is a difference. Something a lot of the audience of Tenet struggle to do, just accept the reality of the movie.
The lack of emotion or even freaking surprise when learning that people can actually go back and forward in time or even learning to properly use it immediately with no help was almost comical to me in TENET.
Yep plus discount Washington can't act.
@@SaiKumar-oc1xu he can definitely act that movie was just so void of any emotional connection to anything
thats about how i act when im trying to wrap my head around a new concept i guess not everyone can be a walking youtube reaction video
@@Knockdownisland it’s must suck not be able to have any emotion
Just not 10 I guess
I've read somewhere that you can't think if you are happy because when you start to think you stop being happy.
That’s absurd.
That’s some of the biggest BS I have ever heard.
sartre wrote something else about it:
can you experience pleasure, or be happy, without being conscious of it ? he said you cant, and i think the same way. you cant be happy or have pleasure without knowing it is so. There is no difference between the experience of the feeling and the knowledge of it.
That said, I do think that generally, you cant be happy when youre thinking. But theres a difference between being aware of something and thinking about it.
tldr: You cant enjoy the best steak without being aware of it being the best steak youve ever had, but when you start to compare it in your mind with some other steak, it kind of ruins the fun
So cartharsis and Eureka doesnt exists?
@@bastiaanschouwink3562 Your TLDR doesn't exactly fit with what you said above. You are saying being concious of happiness. I'd like to say complete opposite of what Sartre says; I think you can be even more happy if you are aware of your happiness. Because unlike the best steak, there is no measure for happiness.
The best happiness for a person is the happiness s/he already has. There might be levels of happiness, of course life is not a straight line. But then, when you are not _that_ happy when you were concious of it, you can think those time where you were aware of that and feel grateful.
(speaking about Tenet)
"this video is sponsor by audible."
lolllllllll
best gag in this thread ;-)
😂😂😂 you should be top comment!
Half of the comedy comes from the extra L's
I'll never forget the scene in Batman Begins where Liam Neeson is trying to crash the train into Wayne Tower, and Nolan keeps cutting to the guy in Wayne Tower explaining what we're seeing. "IF THAT TRAIN REACHES WAYNE TOWER, ALL THE PIPES IN THE CITY ARE GONNA BLOW!" This is after Liam Neeson has already clearly explained his plan, and we've seen pipes bursting throughout the city.
It’s Hitchcock’s rule of 3: explain an important plot point at least three different times for the audience to understand it. This doesn’t mean necessarily through dialogue, but visually too.
I personally don’t subscribe to this philosophy at all though. It leads to those, “Yeah, no shit,” moments like the one you described. I’d rather a plot point be explained once-or sometimes not at all-and have me figure out the rest as a reward. I get that blockbusters need to cater to a larger audience, but we should really expect more of them at this point.
Yeah it's kinda a Nolan trademark to throw in heavy handed reminders for the audience
But the old guy watching the monitor is the most memorable character in all three Nolan Batman films
With the interstellar comparison I think it makes sense that the rest of the crew is explaining these concepts to Cooper because he essentially is only acting as the pilot
Yeah I agree but it should have been emphasized more.
That might be true, but it's still weird they would explain it during the mission
@@Apenzuur movies do it a lot, briefing right before the mission, while in reality briefing happens weeks, months, days, before the mission, not the exact hour of the mission.
"That would be bad, right?" is so obviously NOT exposition... It's totally in character for TP in Tenet.
Totally agree with u
@@nekoshbbg1192 Thank the Lord! I was thinking I'm the only one who's actually watched the movie --- don't get why everyone is so hell bent on hating it...
Yeaaa, it be like that bro haha.
I think people generally stick with other people with similar opinion and since the video is critiquing the movie, more people having problems with the movie will probably watch and express their opinions too.
I'm sure there are other people having similar opinion like us too. I really enjoyed the movie, imo its Nolan's best work so far. Hope you enjoyed it too. Have a nice day :)
@@nekoshbbg1192 Definitely his best work. And the soundtrack was just fine... I heard every dialogue nice and clear, except perhaps 3 lines
"That would be bad, right" for me it felt more like the character being sarcastic or genuinely asking it because he's a secret agent and needs to know the level of threat he's facing in the mission
I find this to be very well done and largely accurate. However, I feel like some things were presented in a black and white manner when they exist outside of the strict parameters of "exposition." For instance, JGL's use of "paradox" actually just provides a symmetry in the scenes, a front and back that we know Nolan loves. Like a musical refrain, while your interpreting of it as exposition is plausible, it isn't exclusive. Then there is the line about annihilation. To me, that rang not just as humor, but as a possible homage to the humor in Ghostbusters. There is a line in that film in which the more knowledgeable, exposition delivering, scientist, Egon, tells Venkman if they cross the streams everything will explode (paraphrasing) and Bill Murray goes, "Right, so that's bad." Yes the exchange delivers exposition that sets up stakes that come back into play during the finale. But it's played with humor over it, almost calling attention to the fact that it is what it is in a satirical manner. Ultimately, these are artistic choices. And my point isn't that your assessment is wrong or that the artists are right. I'm simply saying with some examples, there is a subjectivity. It can't be boxed into a black and white technical failure of form because of the other, subjective variables. So to wrap up I'd like to say, I love the essay, fantastic work was done here from start to finish. I'd also like so say that while I do enjoy Nolan, I don't want any one to see this post as a defense of him. It isn't. I'd just like to enter into the conversation that certain other variables should be allowed in the critical thinking process of critique, for instance, the notion that an artist retains the right to objectively see and acknowledge a structural or technical redundancy or issue, and choose to ignore it for the favor of some other artistic choice. Then the debate can detour into whether that artistic choice merited the deviation or not, of course, but the possibility is always allowed. Thank you for indulging me lol.
Yeah there's definitely a certain grey area or subjectivity in even defining what "exposition" is. I think you make some pretty valid points here.
One of the things I think is interesting about film criticism and critique, is that two people might have the same conclusion- but disagree about certain aspects that lead to that conclusion, or details of the assessment.
Bruh. Please use paragraphs/line breaks. Huge blocks of text like that suck to read.
well said
The idea is you have to watch it again .... don't try to understand it , feel it ...
The symmetry in the scenes is visual. It doesn't also need to be referenced in such an unrealistic verbal way. This is already addressed in the video, keep up
There are also several instances when the characters decided to have a chat at to a random location that snapped me out of the experience to ask "why are they talking here?". E.g. the sailing scene where they can't barely hear each other, some viewing platform on top of a mountain where you have to climb to get to, in the middle of the street, on a bus, and on a ferry - the old lady is a rich arms dealer, the Protagonist and Neil have an small army in their organization, and they all are discussing their top secret plans while riding public transportation? LOL.
This bothered me as well.
They are supposed to be intelligence officers, but they speak so openly about plans that would have global consequences.
It's just weird and doesn't make any sense, especially not from professionals.
i was saying! on that bus id be one nosy bitch lmao
@@tellybegoin To be fair though, anyone near by wouldn't think much of what was being said.
It's a similar thing that causes social anxiety/self-consciousness. Thinking people actually care about your presence and what you're doing and how you look, and what you're saying.
Most people are in their own world, and even if you did say or do something embarrassing/damning, most people would forget all about what they saw/heard in less than 5 minutes, and won't give it a single further thought afterwards.
So I guess it's realistic If they are making a calculus that people aren't actually playing attention or that they care. Which would be a good calculus.
But it's still super unprofessional. And these people are supposedly charged with saving the entire world, lol.
@@DrunKao That's because most of us are talking about what we're having for dinner tomorrow, not HOW TO BOMB AN AIRPORT. Like you're ears aren't going to perk up hearing phrases like NUCLEAR POLICE and AMBUSH.
And I thought calling a joke "exposition" was bad. But "Why would they talk while they're going anywhere?" has to be the most inane nitpick I can imagine. As usual the popularity of a comment spoils my faith in humanity. This whole video is about how the film is trying to write a doctoral thesis to explain to the audience what's going on. No one in the general population of Estonia is getting any useful "Top Secret" information from their little tea parties, and the antagonists are people who can travel backwards through time, it stands to reason that if any of them are in a position to listen to your conversation it won't be because you did a little careless whisper on the L-train. Logically they don't even need to eavesdrop on you to know what you're going to do next. That's archaic to them.
Brace for impact. The Nolan fanboys will hate you for critiquing him but this issue in particular irks me to no end about his films. Even more so than the inaudible dialogue.
I can take it. I've already tussled with the Marvel folks.
Oh! You're ready for anything
Nolan fans are the worst.
They just made nolan soo overrated.
He is a good director but not great that many of his toxic fans thinks.
@@shubhagarwal9812 so you get to determine how good of a director he is for everybody?
@@ThomasFlight marvel is the worst
I agree, but can we please acknowledge that there has never been a more efficient, sharp, and standalone masterclass in script economy than the line "I ordered my hot sauce an hour ago"
In Shane Carruth's "Primer" one of the multitudinous Aarons at one point says something to the effect of "I haven't eaten since nine hours from now." That line and it's delivery simultaneously showing just how much Aaron and Abe's way of thinking has had to shift to work with time travel, revealing how blasé the whole thing has become for them both, and working as a moment of comic relief is script economy. Plus, unlike the dialogue in Tenet, you can actually hear it.
I'm not really a fan of Nolan but I think the "that would be bad" bit is just dry English humour. This is normal in Britain and Ireland. I attempted to make some jokes like this with some American friends and they responded to me sincerely.
Problem is Protag is American lol
@@kyyy8821 That's true, but I'm American and I interpreted it as a bland, dry joke.
Exactly, charisma is a characteristic of the protagonist
@@wave6604 i swear this guy has social issues
I watch so much British TV that it didn't even occur to me that other Americans would be tripped up by that line lol
They’re gonna hate you for saying that Nolan, like all directors, has flaws.
....Guys i think Nolan's actually just a dummy. Hes Michael Bay with a scarf, an overcoat and an expensive watch.
@@coopermiller3216 Yikes.
@@coopermiller3216 so films like the dark knight or interstellar are michael bay level films to you?
@@coopermiller3216 that’s an extremely pretentious and off-base thing to say. Nolan is not an excellent filmmaker but he doesn’t even have similar qualities to Michael bay. Not even on a visual level
I mean, there is Scorsese.
Nolan doing Tenet was like: Fuck it, im going to make the most Christopher Nolan movie possible.
I like it tho. Also i saw it with subs so that helped.
Same I saw the opening scene and was like okay let's rewind and start it off again with subs.
Everyone: Rotates the camera
Nolan: Rotates everything except the camera
Exactly
“Annihilation would be bad” at 7:40 is 100% a joke, you’re looking to literally into it
I agree, but you gotta admit the delivery is very bad.
Zintag true but that’s not Nolan’s fault lmao
The director is the one in charge of the overall movie. If an actor's delivery is bad then the director should tell them what they want or pick a different take with a better delivery. The fact is, he chose that one for his movie. His responsibility
He called it his attempt at humour
I don't see it as a joke, i see it as a failed attempt to make him seen like a badass
That "annihilation" line was definitely a joke, that's how the protagonist talks throughout the whole movie.
The problem is that Nolan is less funny than a drywall
I thought it was funny too... it shows the character's cockyness and confidence...I think the video maker is too busy critiquing rather than accepting.
@@kwalitykontrol he's a spy.
lol just proves that the performance was not convincing.
@@kwalitykontrol well, the protagonist isn’t just any spy, yes in the beginning of the film he is in the CIA, but the way he acts throughout that whole opera house scene he didn’t seem like WTF is going on and seeing that reverse bullet for the first time too, he showed confusion but it just wasn’t that much shown expressively 🤷
Like, even when that scientist was explaining how these things can be time manipulated he barely showed an expression of freaking out
Tenet definitely had some issues but after understand it more and more I love it more. It’s such a unique idea and just the fact that they were able to pull it off visually is crazy.
I agree, I definitely noticed during the movie that they were just saying things to explain it to the audience but that didn’t make me like the movie any less. And after I heard ab the Neil is Max idea it made me think ab all the little things in the movie and I was just laughing because it made sense. I stopped watching Tv and rarely watch movies because they are so predictable. Tenet and most of his other movies make my think and surprise me which I love.
The action is unique, but the story is not. It was already done (much better, in my opinion) with a major character arc in Doctor Who (which may be a rip from something else of which I'm not aware).
Unique? The grand conclusion is that the hero created the solution in the future... so, about the same as interstellar. It's as classic as it gets. Only the visuals are here to salvage it, but if you switch off all sense of logic to what is presented to you. One of the biggest disappointment I got to experience in cinema.
@@maxleveladventures What major character arc?
@@leonmayne797 River Song
Ariadne as the audience surrogate is a great way to give exposition without feeling clunky. You’re absolutely right that when characters are discussing things that they should already know, I immediately notice it and it takes me right out of the movie.
That's why I loved Dunkirk so much. Simple and straightforward, allowed Nolan to just make bombastic cinema without worrying about a dense narrative
Agreed.
Agreed also. Just watched it again today and it's masterful in how the tension builds constantly throughout.
Worst war film ever made.
That’s the genera. Show me any espionage movie and it’ll have a lot of exposition.
@@Lsucasas wtf is genera?
Great video, I personally disagree with JDW “That would be bad right?” line though. I always took it as a joke and it did make me chuckle. His character throughout the movie is always a bit of a smartass and cracking wise, I felt like his response to “annihilation” was perfectly in character for him. He was making light of the serious situation he’s in.
The main character was insufferable, the whole movie was built around making him look cool. He was so cool he couldn't be bothered to act, every other actor was doing his job except him cause he was supposed to be too cool to express any human emotion. The actor had no charisma whatsoever and the plot didn't make any sense at all, if I was Robert Pattinson I would have killed the blonde bitch just to make the main character stop compromising the entire operation cause he was simping for her
@@LarryHazard That's your opinion. Seemed to fit his character just fine and reminded me of other spy movie protagonists. Confidence even if perceived by you as too much and unfounded may be a necessary component for a person like him to found Tenet in the future.
@@exilius333 nah it's just bad acting from a nobody actor. Idris Elba would have made more sense. Nolan just wanted to self insert with another gamma male
Yeah. I didn't mind the movie but I concur that linbe of dialogue is what you can expect from that cocky character and not trying to be expositional at all.
Smartass? Cracking wise? "The Protagonist" has basically no personality at all.
Great job with the video! Thank you for clarifying something I felt but couldn't put the exact words on 👍
Ironically that's what Nolan was going for.
Watch tenet for free on any device - ww4.0123movie.net/movie/tenet-101355.html
Ps: sometimes you might get pop up ads and if you do just exit out of em and hit play again.
My thoughts exactly
Totally agree with this...
This is the exact reason i didnt enjoy or feel immersed watching inception.. Thank you for this video
Liar clout chaser
Great exposition in cinema:
Dr. Emmett Brown = His lines are basically 90% explanations, yet he's still regarded as a very entertaining character.
12 Angry Men = Tell, don't show. You can listen to the dialogue w/ your eyes closed and understand most of the story, but watch the film w/ the sound off and you'll be lost.
USS Indianapolis speech in Jaws = Iconic scene despite not even bothering w/ a flashback.
Fight Club = Narration galore that conveys lots of personality.
Cinema is also an auditory medium, hence the key is execution rather than the approach.
If cinema is also an auditory medium then how do you explain silent films?
@@Alice-me2qk There's a saying that silent films were never actually silent. Are you not aware that they were accompanied by music? They even displayed text narration & dialogue.
I agree. Great point.
Someone needs to tell him the movie isn’t called TENENT.
YUP!
And the sign said the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.
What is called then?
@@reaniegane Exactly as it's spelled: TEN-NET. There is no second N.
@@andmicbro1 sound of violence: Batman th-cam.com/video/ayE6IKs25J8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=HowItShouldHaveEnded
This video is an example of interesting exposition.
Yes! I almost used video essay of an example of "good exposition." One thing I think is interesting though, is that, even within a video essay where it's all kind of exposition there's "direct exposition" and there's still an element of "show don't tell." For example in my videos could just say everything, but I often try to use examples from the films that directly illustrate the point I'm making so that the audience can "see for themselves" what I'm talking about. I don't always do this well, but when I do, I think it's more enjoyable for the viewer.
@@ThomasFlight So you're saying you can do it in your videos coz 'it's more enjoyable for the viewer." But when Nolan does it, it ruins the viewing experience, makes sense.
@@adityashrimali8561 ????????????
Hahaha ❤️
@@notimeforyoutubelol :-)
I think it's clear the annilhation comment is a joke
On paper, but the delivery doesn't make it so obvious.
The main actor has the same expression on his face almost the entire movie. Really bad acting on his part and bad actor directing from Nolan's.
@@finnd3mpster203 It's called "deadpan". Not out of character at all.
@@vegeta4693214 Lack of intense facial expressions doesn't equal bad acting. Some people in real life, even emotional ones, are like that.
@@Pandamasque Takeshi Kitano is the best example
Inception had an emotional connect, while Tenet seemed cold , even the actors hardly anyone seem to captivate you unlike the cast in Inception.
That’s what’s missing. No point in caring about all the confusing shit if there’s nothing emotional to hold on too.
In every other Nolan movie, you could answer this question: what is the main character dealing with personally apart from the plot? In Tenet, there is no answer. Thus, no personal connection to the main / audience POV character for the viewer.
No character besides Pattinsons had any depth, or emotional worth... Washington felt so bland, and emotionless. I almost thought after watching it if it was Nolans intention to make us not care about anyone. Also hard to understand what anyone says the entire film. gibberish, and talking to fast... just watch the intro to this video alone.. Did he intend on that? Cause if not, arguably my favorite director of all time has seriously fallen off. Here's to hoping Openhiemer is better than Tenet.
TOTALLY OPPOSITE FOR ME
It sounds like, if people don't get a romantic connect or a parent child connection in a movie, then people can't understand how there are any emotional connections or motivations at all. People can't fathom that the Protagonist is Tenet, empathized with Kat and her child and that was his emotional motivation (as well as not wanting the world to end, seems like enough motivation for me, but I guess I am weird). But because Kat and the Protagonist, never fucked or expressed romantic feelings then people are like "why would he care about this women and her child?" I think that says more about the audience watching the movie then it says about the movie.
“That’s bad, right?” is *obviously* dry humor.
Yeah fr
Very obvious.
He does say he recognizes it could have been humor, but a bad attempt at it. Even that in that moment
Dry humor that is clearly just there for exposition though...
If you accept it's just humor then you have to admit it's lazy low-tier "understatement in the face of doom" humor, and the film could do without it
EXPOSITION. That should be Nolan's next movie.
That would be a documentary 🤣
Please don't leak my scripts.
@Meta Man Is this a copypasta like the Rick & Morty one? 😅 Tenet will stay with me for a long time, sure, but not in the way Inception does. I'll mostly use it for jokes and making fun of someone.
The Protagonist saying "That would be bad right?" came off as a joke to me which I think that's what it was
The jump cuts in the temporal pincer was so disorientating
I couldn't even tell who they were battling at Stalsk-12, they weren't visually distinct from the protagonists (and that was already confusing with the red team/blue team dynamic). Could have been an amazing scene but it just left me bewildered.
The temporal pincer is the whole movie which also has at least 2 other temporal pincers inside it
@@CTKearns legit didnt see a single enemy that wasnt a red or blue guy. Methinks fuckery is afoot
Oh boy, this is gonna be a long ass comment.
Firstly, I'm grateful for you sharing your opinions and think you did a great job laying them out! There's a literally device called a tricolon that involves a thrice repetition or listing all relative to the same underlying topic.
Here is one in the form of a quote, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." -Benjamin Franklin
Each sentence refers to information and builds upon the last.
"Veni. Vidi. Vici." Here, each one builds upon a narrative. I came. I saw. I conquered.
This is key to appreciating Tenet as it dictates how the story is told. I'll do my best to incorporate examples of this as I continue.
*UNDERSTANDING & EXPOSITION:*
You picked 3 poor movies as examples. Interstellar, Inception, and Tenet. All of which are complex in their nature. Humans learn through repetition and do so faster with multiple sensory inputs, hence the exposition AND the visual.
There is so much going on in these 3 movies that the extra details add up in rewatches for a more holistic understanding and better appreciation. That's where the concepts become cemented in your mind and the extra details are opened up to your consciousness as you can focus all around the scene rather than what's in the limelight.
Just because you, the characters, and I might understand the situation, it doesn't mean the person watching next to us will. Nolan compensates for that.
These repeated expositions allow what's essentially an instinctual understanding of what goes on. He breaks suspension of disbelief then remakes it in the following scenes.
Nolan himself says this in 9:09 of the video
*EMOTION:*
In regards to emotion in Tenet, you have 3 people who represent various emotions. Neil, being happiness. Kat, being that of love. And Sator, as anger.
Neil repeatedly shows how happy he is to be with The Protagonist throughout the film. And he goes through great lengths to keep him safe because of this. Hell, even from his intro you can see there are times he can barely contain himself. Props to R.P. for such excellent delivery.
Kat's actions are driven by her love of her son. She was given an out but chose to stay. Yes she grew calloused, however, her motivations remained the same. Her "why" is the love of her son. Even in the end when she calls herself a vengeful bitch, it's because Sator made her feel twisted about her love and commitment by offering the deal where she never sees their son again.
Sator is the embodiment of anger. He feels it's unfair that he's dying and lashes out. If he can't live a fulfilling life no one can. If he can't have Kat, no one can. You can call this envy too but the scene where he calls himself a tiger to be admired until you feel it's rage, and that makes his primary emotion lean more towards anger or wrath.
*WHY THE PROTAGONIST CARES:*
At the beginning of the film we see The Protagonist (TP) fail his mission and as a result his team died. When he wakes up out of the coma he very quickly asks if they are okay. When told he was the only one to make it out, he cries. Right there he's cemented as an empath. Even before this, he saves the innocent people at the opera when he didn't have to.
How many times have you gone through life wishing you could do things differently in the past or because of it? TP feels that and does his utmost to help Kat BECAUSE he is able to. TPs motivation is his sense of duty and the fact he cares deeply about others. The end of the movie has Neil smiling (again reinforcing he represents happiness) as he says farewell knowing he's going to die. Again you see TP tear up.
TP is consistently stoic when it comes to himself and emotional when it comes to others. The rage towards Sator when he shoots Kat. The love for her that isn't meant to be. And the happiness he feels when with Neil. His general emotional reservation highlights and has the inverse effect on others.
16:39 you say that there isn't a visual clue for when TP "realises" everyone worked for him but you showed the scene seconds before when that very thing is explained by Neil. That the whole operation was HIS. And when he's in the car explaining this to Priya, again, he's consistently stoic. He doesn't need to explain where he found out that information because he's there to tie up loose ends. If anything, it's him being snarky again.
When it comes to U.S. Special Operators, this is a pretty common and necessary trait due to their work being clandestine. I've had the privilege of working with them in my own career and have seen this throughout. TP is extremely well written and does require a bit of outside knowledge to fully appreciate.
Great movies always open up dialogue just like this and I'd love to hear any critiques on what I've put forth.
(Edits made are for readability/typos)
Damn that's too deep, but seriously reading your comment made me appreciate the movie even more.
It's just that audience r too much into cliched and predictable storytelling that they underestimate films like this, I mean all critiques use same lens and keep comparing. Problem is, tenet is ahead of it's time.
From character development to exposition, they all have same POV but unwilling to look into the mechanics of the film. People need exposure to such class of films rather being stuck with superheroes and supernatural world
If I must add, Kat's 'awkward' line "...Including my son?..." gets a lot of flak from reviewers when in they haven't considered two factors. First being her still delirious/semi conscious from being shot hence that was the first thing she says despite even the world is in danger; and the second one building to that which is the most important thing for her is her son. I have a third point to that, only if we account the theory that Neil is her son, because after her line Neil proceeds to take care of her which is timely and secretively a powerful scene to show their love for each other as mother and child.
As for the the Protagonist, it is refreshing to see a merry/ quirky lead compared to the more serious, emotionally burdened leads from Interstellar and Inception.
Lastly people should judge the movie not how they experienced it poorly but in its supposed form--Tenet and Interstellar getting criticisms on sound mixing is the same as whining not understanding Canterbury Tales because its old/ middle English. While its frustrating, it is unfair to lash on the movie entirely.
THANK YOU! Someone with a brain. I watched this and was like "this guy is just bitching to bitch" nolan literally does this so you can know wtf is going on and focus on the other details. thats why I always pick up on so much more on the second watching of his films.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Film was a piece of shit.
@@filthyheathen Yes we like to watch sh*t like Memento, inception and tenet as well. Any concerns? Sadly we aren't as sophisticated as you😕😢
Incredible video, big fan of Tenet but I totally recognize its “nolanisms” and problems
South Park already explained it and they did it so well that Tenet almost seems like it was using the South Park parody to fuel the dumpster fire
@Meta Man it's weird because none of his films have ever done that for me. I leave thinking "wow that was beautiful and pedantic". That's it. And I don't think I'm stupid, but maybe I am. Haha I did enjoy and get a lot out of inception. But interstellar came off as convoluted and complicated for the sake of being complicated. As if that makes it smart. And then the boring, flat storyline was painted over with visually stunning iconography. I feel like he thinks the more complicated, the smarter it is, and I disagree. It seems based on your comment, youd take Nolan's viewpoint Which is fine but Idk I just see him as subpar overall, but his style just doesnt fit mine in terms of writing so it makes sense. I dont think he deserves to be torn down but I also dont think hes mastered anything but beautiful cinematography (and it's a crutch for him)
Nolan’s “Tenant”:
Landlord: You’re a week overdue
*BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa*
Overdue or underdue? You know the home is inverted.
And the landlord is a quadruple agent working for a communist revolution, somehow.
It's scary to me because the first time I watched it, I was like "this is a great movie but I don't like it because its just exposition and action. An action scene happens and the next scene they explain." And I also loved the fact that the woman Kat was envious of because "she had freedom" was in fact future her who had just obtained her freedom by kill Sator. And he brings up all of this lmao
The only thing that got me slightly emotional in Tenet wasn't even due to Nolan, it was the musical theme for Cat. Honestly, Ludwig Gorranson's score is easily the best part of the movie for me. Kinda shows that when Nolan just lets the filmmaking happen, just lets the audience take clues from the way the film its made rather than just jamming words in there, there are some genuinely great moments.
This is spot on. I completely agree that Nolan's exposition crutch is forgivable in past films because it is outweighed by other positives, especially compelling motivated characters. Tenet just left me cold. And worst of all the exposition didn't work! I still didn't understand the plot. And since I have no character I care about I don't even have any compulsion to solve the riddle that is the movie's plot.
Yep, this is exactly how I felt too. Lost interest in solving the puzzle because the characters were all flat. Its like a jigsaw with all white pieces.
A
@@jabronijackpot perfectly said!
Have you heard ab the Neil is Max theory? It made me rethink the movie and like it more. Basically Neil is the main character but we see the movie through “the protagonist” POV.
@@willhoward3178 If you need to fanfic the movie to hell and back to reach the level of caring about the characters the movie has failed.
I think that line was very important, "Don't try to understand... feel it."
Completely agree on 90 percent of this video's break down... besides the exposition in the tesseract scene. I think it added layered context and nuance to the scene without taking any of the emotion away at all
You nailed why TENET's ending just doesn't work for me and why the movie in general had no real impact. it just... happened.
you spelled ''i am too dumb to understand this movie'' wrong
@wharsmetoothpicson ++
thats the point.. it happened.. nothing are actually accomplished because it is already done..
@wharsmetoothpicson he didnt tho. the kid is him.
@@atomicambition4435 I understood this movie, saw it twice, I think it earns its 7.6 on imdb, but I have to agree with the OP, it just happened. Inception, Interstellar, Prestige, Memento stuck in my mind forever but I watched this twice in a week and barely remember it. I know what happened intellectually but it just didn’t stick with me as a story at all. Robert Pattinson is one of my favorite actors, too, and Nolan is a top 3 director for me, so I really wanted to like this, I just didn’t.
All this discussion about Tenet keeps bringing me back to Arrival - an incredibly smart movie that also managed to be emotionally resonant.
Exactly. I thought the same. It's the same non-linear, time bending high concept movie but with an emotional core. It's Tenet done better and without guns or chases.
@@aashiv93 As far as I remember Arrival, this is just not true. It had a little twist at the ending including non-linearity of time but it was quite easily understood and not complex at all.
Don‘t understand me wrong here. I loved Arrival and everything made perfect sense. It just is not complex, which obviously it does not have to be.
I never understood the love for Arrival because I always felt like it ended too soon. Also it’s incredibly similar to “Contact” movie. Similar idea that aliens give some signal to humans or language. On contact they actually show more after they receive the signal.
Arrival kept coming to my mind as well. That movie was artistically crafted and trusted that the audience would both be awed and curious to keep trying to understand the themes of the film long after the film was over, knowing it’s okay to not fully grasp it initially. Arrival showed this trust in the audience by using virtually no exposition in places where they could instead paint over those ideas visually.
@@hagindor Yeah, I don't mean to say that Arrival's scifi plot was as complex as Tenet's. Arrival had a complex over-arching plot with fairly simple specifics while Tenet's over-arching plot and the specifics were both complex.
Which ultimately bogged down Tenet because the movie was more interested in making us understand the plot rather than care for the characters. It's plot over characters.
Arrival, on the other hand, was perfectly measured in its proportions of brainy plot and fleshed out characters. Tenet's final twist doesn't hold a candle to Arrival's.
I'll eternally be in Nolan's debt for giving us the coolest Nikola Tesla ever to play the role with David Bowie in, _The Prestige._
I just saw Oppenheimer for the second time and his exposition issues are there, too. There’s a scene where RDJ’s character, Strauss, informs Oppy that one of the scientists at Los Alamos was a spy. Here’s what he says:
NAME OF CHARACTER, “the British scientist that you hired for the project”, was a spy for the Soviets.
Oppy wouldn’t need the quoted description of who he is. You wouldn’t need to hear if you were being told about a friend of yours. All you’d need was the name, but since the movie did fuck all to make that person a character worth remembering, they HAVE to tell us who he was more specifically so we’d know, AND they did a flashback to the character so we’d know exactly who was being talked about. And you can’t use the excuse of having so many characters. Lord of the Rings is overflowing with people but I knew who everyone was by film one because of the care put into the character work.
@ 14:30 - The Protagonist's motivation for saving Kat's life is established well. The first time he saw Kat, sitting in his car far away, he watched her kiss her kid goodbye. He knew she had a young son to raise and yet he told Sator to bring in Kat for the plutonium exchange. Sator used her as a hostage and shot her. He felt bad for involving an innocent normie in his deadly mission without her consent. After he woke up from being frozen, he told Kat, _"I'm sorry I involved you."_
He's an empathetic and selfless hero.
Later on, when he told her to be the "backstop" to make sure Sator doesn't kill himself too early, he gave her a choice. He told her, _"I'd like to say, that you don't have to do this."_ He explained the consequences of Sator dying too early, she understood the gravity of the situation and got involved voluntarily this time around.
Sure, he told Neil that he'd be willing take a woman hostage if he had to, but that doesn't mean he'd just let an innocent normie die after he used her for his mission without even asking her. He's not that heartless.
Also, Neil's question was framed vaguely, he just said "a woman." Well, it depends on the particular woman and the context, doesn't it? He was comfortable with killing a woman like Priya to "tie up the loose ends" for the mission because she was an arms dealer. We know how he feels about arms dealers. Earlier he told Priya's husband, _"You're an arms dealer, friend. This may be the easiest trigger I've ever had to pull."_ Priya also broke her promise to not kill Kat so that just made it even easier for him.
Also people seem to forget he goes off mission and risks his life at the very beginning of the movie to save the cheap seats. He will do what he feels his right. This supports him looking out for Kat even further.
"Not our mission."
"It's mine now."
Stop simping for Nolan
@@Ebi.Adonkie I ain't, he ain't the greatest but for the tone of the film it wasn't out of character to do what he did. The band wagon goes both ways. Some people think they're smart by hating, some people think they're smart by simping. Or we could all be objective, but this is the internet, like that would ever happen.
But you had to explain all that. You had to exposit it. And so did the film. I think that's the point.
This really explains why ppl say that nolans movies feel cold or detaced
Haven’t finished the video yet, but I think the “unnecessary words” (paradox, frozen cloud) can be seen as confirmation device for the audience. Yes some audience might not need confirmation to know what they’re seeing, but for some it’s nice to hear the character say the word that’s on their mind.
Exactly
There was so much exposition, it was hard to keep track on the rules and the story. This is 2 hours and 30 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.
One hour passes in a Nolan movie, seven years pass on Earth.
The Protagonist literally has the same facial expression in every clip you just showed. One of my biggest issues with the movie
That was what I loved about the character, personally. He's a blank slate. He doesn't even have a name.
You must be a huge fan of The Matrix...
@VR Driver DiCaprio was average in Inception as well but yeah it was definitely better than JDW in this movie.
too black for me, that he is (as main character) lost in the dark of the dark movie. even imax didnt show much detail in shadows.
His acting was not great
I find the "Annihilation" less bothersome than the "My son" one, because even if the delivery fell flat, it's clear that it was an attempt of humor; the latter one was on the brink of acknowledging the audiences.
The "my son" line is the worst line in the whole movie. I just sneered and put the movie away till further notice. I've completed the movie. Glad I didn't watch it in the cinema. Imagine taking your girlfriend, she'll ask you so many questions you got no answer for
@@Ebi.Adonkie why would she be asking you?
@@hermirony123 Unfortunately, I think you've correctly identified the implication here.
@@jonh2853 sadly I think I may have. I was wondering if I was missing something. Perhaps all this thinking is too much for my tiny lady brain to handle :P
@@hermirony123 Now now, stop being hysterical. :)
"Ironically, despite the way nolan presents this film, he simply ran out of time"
Overall, I quite enjoy Tenet because it has certainly become so idiosyncratic that it is interesting in and of itself. The ridiculous volume and emotional greyness and the endless exposition make this a very textural movie and I think it is best experienced laid back, with the dialogue washing over you as though it's in a foreign language. I don't think it's anywhere near as "deep" as some claim; Nolan wears all his narrative complexities on his sleeve, and it gives the illusion of there being more beneath.
All his focus in the film Tenet was ensuring its continuity held up. The fact Kenneth B. learned how to speak Russian backwards. That Washington filmed both sides of himself fighting. Actors acting in reverse. Running film in reverse. It's a technical marvel.
The dialog is just there to affirm what's happening, it has a minimalist function for most of its use. And it works imo.
Yes doing something intentionally when it's not recommended doesn't always excuse it. But I don't think you can complain about not hearing dialogue and then complain that the dialogue was bad. Nolan knew you only needed to catch enough of what was said to follow along. Hence the score having the ability to overpower dialogue and not risk losing the audience as to what's happening.
@@1992WLK You guys are making excuses... it's easy to say "well it's not the point to care about characters, or dialogue cause that's not what Tenet is about"... but to you guys I say... why not? You could easily make the characters intriguing, have depth, have emotions... The dialogue, is horrendous, the performances, are boring, bland, and meaningless.. they speak gibberish, fast, can't hear them, just a bunch of non-sense... The whole film the audience is going "who, what, where, when, why, how?"
You say "the dialogue has a minimalist function" yet it's nothing but dialogue, and exposition for most of the film lol... it's crazy excuses that you think "he just put dialogue there for the audience to follow along" lol what? Especially when most say they can't follow lol. He got too deep, and lost control.. He was too focused on the logic, and laws of Tenet rather caring about characters, and dialogue, that's extremely apparent to me.
The audience needs to understand, and care first, and foremost... that other stuff comes later... With Nolan being my favorite director of all time, this was a massive disappointment... It's a great idea, and from a visual, technical standpoint it's incredible, but for a movie experience, I think it's pretty bad.
@@randomrecipes5007
"yet it's nothing but dialogue, and exposition for most of the film lol"
"The audience needs to understand, and care first, and foremost... that other stuff comes later..."
This.
Tenet already did a great job at visually showing the audience it's internal logic and rules. Then, why the heck did Nolan waste almost all dialogue quota to elaborate MORE of it and end up over-explaining? It's completely unnecessary. He should've allocated more of the characters' dialogues to character development, not convoluted physics mumbo-jumbo.
you enjoy watching moving things essentially? Lol these are just a bunch of words thrown together that at best seem barely coherent.
@@ashutoshsamantaray6596 I enjoyed watching a very specific moving thing, for (and in spite of) specific elements and choices Nolan made. I've seen the movie a few more times since writing that comment, and I have come to enjoy it a lot more having taken the time to switch on subtitles or intentionally unpack the narrative beats. So, I am receptive to the argument that Tenet's sound mixing takes away from the film's enjoyment, but there is a far more interesting conversation to be had here about the 'Nolan fan' and their typically pretentious, sometimes elitist, attitude towards filmmaking. I will absolutely put up my hand and admit that I wrote a pretentious comment that was overly dramatic. I am not receptive, however, to your reductionist and dismissive attitude which neither engages with anything in any substance, nor honestly expresses what you really feel, which is you didn't like that I wrote passionately about a movie I cared about.
Say what you want about exposition, but Robert Pattinson's scene when he's explaining stuff after being woken up is so hilarious to me. It spoke to my emotions and I don't know why.
the dark knight rises has the some of the single worst and laziest exposition dumps I’ve ever witnessed in a film. Where one character was literally explaining to cat woman what the “clean slate” system was even though she obviously already knows what it is.
That movie already got the credit of Nolan's weakest film (It was good though). It had so many problems. Why bother about it?
I guess you missed the "Sound too good to be true, right?" line. Him giving that detailed explanation wasn't just for us, it was for Dagget to bait her into believing he was lying. When you take that line out of context, it does sound clunky, but when you don't, it's actually believable.
true
That movie is not very good. Overwrought and pretentious.
@@drlca6601 I think I agree. I loved when it first came out but it hasn’t aged well, like you say it’s very pretentious, I find it quite clumsy at times too
From a critique stand point this is true for TENET. But these expositions really helped. When NEIL talks about his future in the final act, every word he said I felt. That's not annoying.
LOL! Why do I agree with you though? I already agreed with _him_ about that scene. To be fair that's probably just good acting you're responding to, Pattinson could have done that well enough without all of that.
The problem is the exposition is too much, even at some good moment and scene, we didn't get a time to pause, cause they just keep bombarding us with exposition
Take example of when cooper meet his daughter, or when the final moment of inception where you are leaving questioning, is it the dream or reality? That's the moment when we all pause and let the character have their live, so they can stop being an exposition machine for us
In Tenet, there is none!
But they were in an abnormal amount which personally made me not feel the movie at certain moments
This exposition problem really hit me in the scene when neil was about to fall asleep and the protagonist was asking him multiple questions. You analyzed this problem very effectively and concisely. Thank you!
I interpreted "Including my son" very differently when I saw the picture. I got the impression that the audience was already supposed to know that was her concern, and the line was directed toward the protagonist, because she didn't trust his priorities.
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 Well,the entire movie he keeps taking big stupid risks,just for her
The line was her way of making sure TP had that in his mind all the while
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 Nah bro
Lets rewind back to the start
He is a CIA operative who has doesnt get emotions or other things come in front of his goal
He is expendable,he literally took a suicide pill(which he didnt know was fake) instead of giving up on his collegeus
When Tenet organisation pick him up they say they chose him because of how loyal he was,he would die for achieving his goal
But as the story grew,you see him building a relationship with Neil,TP said he wouldnt kill him YET,he would rather wait till the mission ended and decide then
Also,when he saw Kat and her love for her child,while he was undercover in a car,and he said he would give her a get-out-of-jail card by stopping Sator AND freeing her
By the end both his motives collide
@@jjjjjjjjj3000 He also develops a strong bond with Neil
Yet that isnt given away in a lot of "exposition"
Think about it,TP saw how Neil saved him in the past,TWICE
Neil even says that they get along in the future,because they knew what he had done in the past
TP says he got recruited by himself
He says he recruited Neil
And this is time loop.Future
TP goes back in past,lays info for past TP,then past TP gets that info,saves the world,leaves it for another past TP
And you think,bloody hell,which TP came first?
When you really,hardly,think about it,you truly appreciate how special and how brilliant the concept is
You kight have heard about it commonly called "Time Loop" :)
If I must add, Kat's 'awkward' line "...Including my son?..." gets a lot of flak from reviewers when in they haven't considered two factors. First being her still delirious/semi conscious from being shot hence that was the first thing she says despite even the world is in danger; and the second one building to that which is the most important thing for her is her son. I have a third point to that, only if we account the theory that Neil is her son, because after her line Neil proceeds to take care of her which is timely and secretively a powerful scene to show their love for each other as mother and child.
That sums up what I learned doing improv: "when your character has an emotion, don't explain it! Show it!"
Im ur not wrong. What I felt after I watched the movie twice and read the script was that he didn't set up the conflict properly. Since the trailers helped us understand the bulk of inversion, what we needed was the conflict and the gravitas of the conflict. This resulted in the distant connect the movie had. Regardless, it's a great movie! Maybe not Nolan's best, but definitely a great watch!
Agreed. I never understood the "bad" guy's motivation or the motivations of his handlers from the future. The "Making of" special has an interview with Nolan where he compares the Tenet villain's drive to the Joker's "just want to watch the world burn" motivations... I did not get that sense from Branagh's character AT ALL. There seemed to be a hint of the promise of immortality in Branagh's final scene dialog, but the plot and its related McGuffin never delivered even a clue how or why that would be the case. Something, something, global warming... something, something, time annihilation.
I've seen lots of conversations with Nolan about the mechanics of his plot device, but never anything about the actual storyline plot. It's almost like explaining time inversion was the plot of the movie... really aggravating.
When I saw that "Annihilation" "That would be bad, right?" I thought it'd actually be funny if she said "For you"
Honestly you are reading way too literally sometimes. E.g. The "paradox" line is not exposition. It's just a quip he makes before he kills the guy. It's the Nolan equivalent of "Hasta la vista".
And the "annihilation" line is obviously a joke! It's dry Brit-like delivery, but a joke nonetheless. You want him to slap his thigh and wink to the camera???
'wink at the camera' is the only thing missing in this boring stupid movie I don't remember.
no its not a quip...if its meant to be, the delivery is wrong
@@tombombadil1351 Yes, it was delivered wrong, that's why it's confusing
Literally like "Posterity" in Tenet.
@@Ebi.Adonkie how is it confusing? Weak minded, if you think it was confusing
Coming back after watching Tenet for the first time. I'll agree that Nolan loves those exposition dumps, but this made me appreciate how many revelations weren't given any exposition or dialogue. Niel's sacrifice, the midpoint showcase of how inversion actually works, and all of the moments in the first half of the movie which we thought were strange suddenly making sense now that we are looking backwards. I wonder how much of the movie would be lost without the exposition in the beginning; itd be a fundamentally different movie. Definitely have to give Tenet a rewatch.
I feel like some the many problems presented here, has to be features. You're supposed to ask "What just happened?" When the credits roll. Either you can respond by
Feel it, do not seek to understand. Those people will probably walk out of the film with "I didn't understand it story/characters, therefor it's dumb." In a way, those people are correct the movie didn't do a good job for them.
For the other part, it's an excellent opportunity to delve into the theories about time. I never had this experience with Inception, in regards to dreams, but Intestellar did piqued my interest in black holes and multi dimensions. Inception did have paradoxes, but it was mostly wishy washy. The main pull behind Inception for me was the complex story, but as a consequence, it also limited my interest to the emotional aspect of the main characters. The scientific interest in dreams was void. *shrugs* as I said, Interstellar was in between.
With Tenent, I really enjoyed figuring out the complexity of all the action. It's awesome when you GET IT! When it all clicks together. Like a great symphony, and all the parts create beauty greater than the sum of their parts. I couldn't care about the story or characters. Mere distractions, and that's fine with me. I loved it for what it was.
In sum. Maybe that is just me, but what issues people had with Tenents, I almost see as features that steer me to wonder about time.
🔴⏯⏳⏪🔵
@@willek1335 The writing of Tenet Flows like a Song which you never forgets the lyric of, It is one of my favorite chris nolan movies. i love the feeling of just understanding it more and more. it is simple and complicating at the same time.
@@willek1335thank u my brother! Totally agree with you
I had no problem with the film and enjoyed it immensely--aside from the well-acknowledged and to-be-corrected sound problem. The emotional coolness of the film and the *exposition* actually seemed well-judged and appropriate as the realities that the main characters occupied (and even without the time reversal elements) seemed perilous and over-complex, necessitating extreme focus while maintaining situational awareness on their parts. Perhaps verbalizing--real world "exposition"--offers needed reassurances in complex, overwhelming, situations. I suspect people with some experience in the military, intelligence work, and certain police work would appreciate this film.. In situations where professionals are trying to, as they say, "stay frosty," emotions and reassurances are present but conveyed through subtitles, nuances, and light banter, sarcasm, and irony. Working in a world were time can flow forward and backward would be like walking through a minefield. The "movie" provided this particular audience member with that sensation. I welcomed the exposition as breaks in the somewhat relentless tension of a world where the basic rules of Reality no longer applied. Imagine the premise of this film appearing in a story full of ordinary people instead of a collection of characters whose jobs & lifestyles all seemed to involve walking through various minefields. You'd end up with an extremely different, and far more conventional, and far less novel and interesting, film.
I'm still working this out. I hope that made some sense.
theres a difference between emotional coolness and having a bunch of bad actors with 0 charisma who couldnt emote if they tried.
To-be-corrected? Man, I hope so.
I like the quality of your thoughts. I do think the acting was quite subpar which really hampered the believability of the portrayal of this dynamic you're referring to.
You make a good point about suppression of emotion in military/intelligence/police. But whether or not that's the reason, it's not a meaningful addition to the film. You might as well add 30 minutes of the characters filing paperwork since that's a part of the job. Films about frosty cops or soldiers resolve this by either showing the struggle of suppressing the emotion and the occasionally cracking under pressure, or by contrasting the cops with ordinary citizens to underscore the impact of events. Tenet could've used either one.
"Imagine the premise full of ordinary people...You'd end up with a far less novel and interesting film."
The problem is that the premise _is_ what makes the film novel and interesting. The characters add nothing, and more emotive ones would only improve the film.
You need to learn how to use em dashes, because this isn't it.
I couldn't hear shit in dis movie. But it looked great
I had zero emotional investment in Tenet's characters. I was so bored.
exactly I was like,
"what???!? the protagonist (washington) is into Kat now, for some reason? why? and why didn't they ever show that on screen?"
maybe some really important love- or sex-scenes were cut before release or something, I can't believe the writing was THAT bad
@@secretjazz93 Not all action movies has to do with that. They film it while coronavirus is still exist, i don't think the actors will agree about doing that scene on-screen
just started the video but I feel the expo in his movies are apart of the expeirence and add to the story in a great meaningful way because it's just so fascinating
Precisely, exposition is Nolan's thing and he's not bad at it. The problem I do have with Tenet is the lack of character emotional arc.
That's why Dunkirk is by far my favorite Nolan film. No dialogue, no exposition just visual storytelling. And since the time twist here is on a meta level no one is there to explain it.
While I love it, I do know a lot of people who did not like that movie at all. They felt like there was no point to the story and that it was boring. What I’m trying to say is that people will always try to find a reason to hate something, but that doesn’t make any of this videos points less valid.
Memento is his best imo
Its because theres no sci fi involved in dunkirk. If you make a sci fi movie which contain 'unproven' theories, you need many explanations
@@yoddythegreat unless you're a great filmmaker like Stanley Kubrick
I find even Oppenheimer suffers from the same problem.
"That's not our mission." "It's mine now." "Move away. You don't have to kill these people." this is why he went great length to save her. he saw her as innocent but he dragged her to all of this.
The annihilation line seems like a character trait to me, that’s the protagonists humor
Yeah, I think that was a pretty bad example in Thomas' part
Whose Thomas
@@rumaysa9649 the guy who made the video, Thomas Flight
I like the part how when john meets up with elizabeth first time she goes and tells him her life story.
Because he dismantled her right on the spot. She had no choice but to explain herself and how she was being blackmailed by her husband, she saw him as a way to recover her son.
I remember thinking how charming and odd it was that Sator was a health nut, obsessed with his Fitbit, then realizing even the character development is a plot device.
It seemed like these characters are just a d
‘Device’ to explain Nolan’s idea..
More like we're encouraged to view characters as proxies for Nolan & ourselves.
@@albhem_eh I feel like that's every filmmaker
@@anthonymartensen3164 let me rephrase.. I'd say Nolan himself can be thought of as the main character that's why the protagonist primary role.. what I'd like to think is nondescript enough to serve as a proxy for both us & in a symbolic way to Nolan, just like Inception.
Thats like in every one of his movies
Like how it always is. Even in the Dark Knight, the Batman and Joker et al were just there to further the plot and its ideas, not the other way around.
nolan writing be like:
woman: these bullets go back in time
protagonist: 😐
protagonist shoots: *bullet go back in time*
protagonist: 😐 wow they are going back in time
the end
This video finally scratched an itch in my brain. Cheers.
"This video is sponsored by Audible"
Oh the irony