[SPOILER] Discussion/Speculation Thread

Christopher Nolan's time inverting spy film that follows a protagonist fighting for the survival of the entire world.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cilogy
Posts: 26396
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:
Contact Cilogy
So

like ...
Max is Neil, right?
User avatar
MuffinMcFluffin
Posts: 1310
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Cilogy wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 12:07 pm
 So

like ...
Max is Neil, right?
Yes. Many people here will say no, but I simply have the right to believe they're wrong, and that's what I'm going with.
User avatar
ChristNolan
Posts: 7347
Joined: January 2014
No.
User avatar
Cilogy
Posts: 26396
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:
Contact Cilogy
I think it's interesting that Nolan didn't explicitly say so. That seems like something he would reveal at the end in some montage with a monologue in the background.

Like when he said "I think this is the end of a beautiful friendship", I half expected to see flashbacks of the kid meeting the protagonist.
User avatar
Durden
Posts: 10609
Joined: March 2012
Location: The Rose City
would have loved to seen the orange keychain hanging on Max's backpack in last scene with Kat
User avatar
MuffinMcFluffin
Posts: 1310
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Cilogy wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 1:43 pm
 I think it's interesting that Nolan didn't explicitly say so. That seems like something he would reveal at the end in some montage with a monologue in the background.

Like when he said "I think this is the end of a beautiful friendship", I half expected to see flashbacks of the kid meeting the protagonist.
It was an interesting decision, and one I questioned on here as well. I guess it's just one of those things he leaves out, such as whether Cobb was dreaming. The difference is he didn't clue in enough to let casual and regular moviegoers know about it, but sometimes that's nice.

What Nolan recently said in an interview is that there is an answer to that question, and if the information that the movie relays is accurate to one way or the other, so if it is not contradictory then it's certainly a possibility. None of that is verbatim, haha. He said this before with Cobb dreaming as well.

There are just so many things to list that have been listed before by myself and others that hint toward it (and I can list them again if you'd like), but a new one for me is this:
  • Neil meets Protag at the Bombay Yacht Club. I realize he might not have chosen the destination, but it's a little Easter egg throwing in the idea that... well... Max spent a lot of time on Sator's yacht.
Most people's "against" claims usually begins and ends with the idea that he'd have to invert for ten years or so. While true, for one it would be worth it to save the world (what's happened, happened), and for another he doesn't have to do it all at once. I'm led to believe he normally inverts while sleeping, and perhaps his waking hours could be organic.

Durden wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 1:47 pm
would have loved to seen the orange keychain hanging on Max's backpack in last scene with Kat
That would've been all-time!
User avatar
hotsauce32
Posts: 865
Joined: January 2012
Durden wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 1:47 pm
would have loved to seen the orange keychain hanging on Max's backpack in last scene with Kat
God I wish Nolan had put that in.
If N=M, or at least if it was a thing that Nolan wanted suggest, this would've been ideal. Maybe not the same color, but a similar tag (thread + coin), to evoke some ambiguity. We get that wide shot of Kat and Max walking away. Cut back to Protagonist in the car squinting as if he recognizes something. A closer shot of Kat and Max. A similar-looking tag swings on Max's backpack as they walk away. Cut to credits as the movie ends.
But as the movie currently stands, if Nolan's intent was to suggest N=M, I don't think it is telegraphed well at all. Most of the things that people try together as evidence are reaches/coincidences, imo.

The only thing that I personally think hints at it, is Neil's asking the Protagonist about checking up on Kat at the end of the movie, and the playful way he says "Even from afar?"
User avatar
MuffinMcFluffin
Posts: 1310
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
hotsauce32 wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 2:07 pm
Durden wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 1:47 pm
would have loved to seen the orange keychain hanging on Max's backpack in last scene with Kat
God I wish Nolan had put that in.
If N=M, or at least if it was a thing that Nolan wanted suggest, this would've been ideal. Maybe not the same color, but a similar tag (thread + coin), to evoke some ambiguity. We get that wide shot of Kat and Max walking away. Cut back to Protagonist in the car squinting as if he recognizes something. A closer shot of Kat and Max. A similar-looking tag swings on Max's backpack as they walk away. Cut to credits as the movie ends.
But as the movie currently stands, if Nolan's intent was to suggest N=M, I don't think it is telegraphed well at all. Most of the things that people try together as evidence are reaches/coincidences, imo.

The only thing that I personally think hints at it, is Neil's asking the Protagonist about checking up on Kat at the end of the movie, and the playful way he says "Even from afar?"
Even if some are reaches, they all form this one connective tissue that strongly suggests this.

Here are some from my list:

  • Nolan has mentioned in an interview that Neil is not the character's real name.
  • MAXIMILIEN -- NEIL (there are so few English names that do this discretely as well)
  • Longer blonde hair parted the same way, blue eyes.
  • English accent.
  • Masters degree in Physics.
  • Speaks Estonian.
  • Max visits Pompeii, which is where the Sator Square was found in real life.
  • "Would you take a child hostage? A woman?"
  • Knows much about Protag and is one step ahead every step of the way.
  • Cares for Kat after injury, like a good son would.
  • Knowledge of personal date from Kat's past, of which Max was around.
  • Performs an indebted sacrifice to Protag with his own life.
  • Kat asks Neil who he is, something which he can't answer so he dances around it by talking to her about physics and entropy (two big things he has been a part of). Also, any time Neil is around she only refers to Max as "my son."
  • "See you at the beginning." Next (and final) scene shows Protag watching Kat & Max.
  • "My greatest sin was to bring a son into a world I knew was ending... do you think God will forgive me?" followed by shot of Neil driving in a truck trying to save the world from ending.
  • After they save the world, Neil asks Protag if he's going back to London to check on Kat. Protag says it's too dangerous, even from afar. Then Neil goes to Ives getting ready to invert and open the door, etc. He has a spiel about "reality," leaves, and then the final scene happens in London where Protag ties up loose ends protecting Kat, almost as if he was influenced by what he stated.
  • The end monologue is done by Neil.

I also mentioned the Bombay Yacht Club one in an earlier post.

Let me go over the last one in greater detail (tagged for length):
Below is the ending monologue I'm referring to.

NEIL (V.O.): We’re the people saving the world from what might have been. The world will never know what could’ve happened, and even if they did they wouldn’t care. Because no one cares about the bomb that didn’t go off, just the one that did. But it’s the bomb that didn’t go off—the danger no one knew was real—that’s the bomb with the real power to change the world.

[The Protagonist watches Kat and Max walk away. Max offers Kat his hand and we — FADE OUT. CREDITS.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, let's start with a less obvious question: Why is Neil the one saying this? He's not the main character, his character has passed, and he is not involved in the scene. It would be one thing if this was a rehashed line/motif from earlier (kind of like in The Prestige when they talk about "The man in the box," or in Memento when Leonard talks about the world not disappearing when he closes his eyes), but I don't believe that it is. He wasn't a narrator of sorts at any point in this film, either.

And as I just said, this isn't a rehashed statement. It's something brand new. This is the film's closure, and ever since The Prestige Nolan has been really intent on having wrap-up beats with heavy emphasis on score and voiceovers (of living characters, mind you) (I realize that Inception doesn't have a voiceover, but really wraps things up with "Time" playing and every character being seen multiple times over as the job was completed). This scene just plays so small in comparison. Heck, save a couple of cuts here and there, this final scene isn't even in IMAX. Clearly Nolan had intent with what he was doing here that focused on something which felt so radically different from the scenes before it and even his films before it.

Neil's voiceover isn't some moral told in this movie about have-nots and things that go unseen. This isn't The Adjustment Bureau, The Recruit, Mission: Impossible – Fallout, or heck this isn't even The Other Guys. The Dark Knight Rises goes so far as to speak about elemental symbol over man constantly in the film more than this does. So why was this the final quote? Sure, what they're saying is true... so what? It feels too generic, and could have gone unsaid. It must mean more.

Maybe, just maybe it's about the idea that Protag will be Kat and Max's guardian angel who they can always count on and never have to see. That is of course a consideration. But then again... why is Neil saying it? Why isn't it a Protag voiceover, or Kat even? It would be interesting to get a final narration from her as if the shift is about her story onward; see I Am Legend as an example of this in action, among many other films.

I theorize the course of action taking place is it's the bomb that didn't go off which allows Max to grow, under his mother's love and his guardian's protection, and become the man speaking about this very thing into our ears down the line. If his final shots are a symbol of anything, this could be exactly that. Max doesn't get enough limelight in this story, and arguably he should since it's Kat's main motivation for life to even go on and be an emotional tie for the audience. I think this final shot is indicative of Nolan's emphasis on Max and his play with the idea that, also possibly, might just be misdirection for us to speculate on exactly this.
I consider a lot of this to be pretty damning, personally. There is a limit to the number of coincidences that can occur, and that name one is a huge one if you look at the teeny, tiny list of names that can do what that did discreetly.
User avatar
Cilogy
Posts: 26396
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:
Contact Cilogy
hotsauce32 wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 2:07 pm
 But as the movie currently stands, if Nolan's intent was to suggest N=M, I don't think it is telegraphed well at all. Most of the things that people try together as evidence are reaches/coincidences, imo.

The only thing that I personally think hints at it, is Neil's asking the Protagonist about checking up on Kat at the end of the movie, and the playful way he says "Even from afar?"
Does it have to be telegraphed?
User avatar
hotsauce32
Posts: 865
Joined: January 2012
Cilogy wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 2:58 pm
hotsauce32 wrote: ↑
December 22nd, 2020, 2:07 pm
 But as the movie currently stands, if Nolan's intent was to suggest N=M, I don't think it is telegraphed well at all. Most of the things that people try together as evidence are reaches/coincidences, imo.

The only thing that I personally think hints at it, is Neil's asking the Protagonist about checking up on Kat at the end of the movie, and the playful way he says "Even from afar?"
Does it have to be telegraphed?
I suppose "telegraphed" was the wrong word. Maybe just not effectively communicated on the screen.

MuffinMcFluffin lists some good points above, but I still view a lot of those as either coincidences, or mashing together jigsaw puzzle pieces that don't exactly fit.

Personally, I'd love for the theory to be true. It gives more emotional weight to the ending. But again, N=M doesn't explicitly stand out to me, and I'm fresh off of my 6th viewing last night. Was watching with someone else (their first viewing), and they didn't have an inkling of the thought of N=M until I prompted the discussion.

Maybe I'm just used to Nolan's prior narrative choices. Like discussed before, something like an ambiguous, similar-looking tag hanging off of Max's backpack at the end would've been what I expected Nolan to do to really push that theory in the minds of the viewer. And it would've been an easy choice for Nolan to make, as Max is a student with like 95% of his screentime in front of the school, so he always has his backpack on.

Sort of like the spinning top at the end of Inception. An ambiguity that he forces the audience to question. But if it was Nolan's intent for the theory to be out there, I don't think the seeds of "Wait, is N=M?" were really planted well enough.

Who knows, maybe it's just Nolan deciding to do things differently, and wanting this to be way more vague than he would've done in the past.

Unrelated random thought after watching the movie again last night. In Interstellar, future mankind is trying to save past mankind. In Tenet, future mankind is trying to destroy past mankind.
Post Reply

Return to “Tenet”