Hey Guys. Long timer lurker here. Saw the film on Wednesday and have been constantly thinking about it as well as reading a lot of reviews here and there.
Without going into the film itself I think the problems most people have with Tenet can be chalked down to 2 points:
1: Point of View
Most people when watching a film tend to rely on god mode, as in you tend to know more about what is happening in a film or to be able to grasp the “bugger picture” than the film’s characters themselves. And in many ways this is one of the most important aspects when it comes to engaging the viewers.
However in Tenet we are only allowed to follow John David’s protagonist POV, were not given more info than he does. In doing so we were placed directly into chaos/confusion and are unable to make sense of what’s happening around us, just as how JDW himself had experienced it.
It’s jarring as our brains are wired to analyse images and sounds we see in a “logical”, “cognitive” way and Tenet is doing everything it can to stop you from going into this process the first time you watch it. And for most audience this inability to process things logically and/or to be in god mode will make them unable to enjoy the film.
Spoiler
And this subjective way of focusing on a single POV without providing the objective bigger “picture” almost reminded me of Rashomon’ plot devices in some way.
Momento is probably the closest film of Nolan to lack the god mode ability however it has one thing that Tenet doesn’t.( see point 2)
2: Film Structure
The reason why 3 part structures of film making works is because it’s been tried and tested countless times and I don’t think most people, including me went into the Tenet expecting the film to lack this structure itself.
Sure we know that obviously with a Nolan film it’ll have non-linear timelines etc but every film of his (bar Dunkirk) has had 3 part structure firmly in place.
As previously mentioned despite Momento lacking the god mode POV as well as non-linear story telling, it still has the 3 part structure in place. We were able to understand the characters origins/setup, conflict/confrontation and resolution well enough, regardless whether if the film ran backwards or not.
Dunkirk which happened to share many similarities with Tenet also worked well despite only having the climax/resolution part because of its premise (i.e. you’re in a middle of war and you’re going home). So it hardly mattered for Dunkirk to have a setup/confrontation as the film was trying to place the viewers’ mindset in an actual war.
Tenet however, only shows you the beginning and end of a “traditional” film and we as audiences are expected to fill in that gap with what little clues that were left throughout the film and most of the time will have to imagine it for ourselves. Thus it’s not surprising that viewers are frustrated because the middle part is where we build that emotional core to characters and also see them develop.
And if you only get to see the effect of cause/effect relationship it’s hard to warp your head around it when so much of the info (Spoiler:
are missing.
To conclude I believe it was done deliberately and intentionally on Nolan’s part as since Dunkirk he’s been focused on the “experiencing the film” aspect as opposed to making a film in the traditional sense.
It’ll be hard to argue whether if this “
avant-garde” way of story telling is the correct way of showcase this film.
Him doing something never seen before (whether it’s the structure or action or simply ideas) has seemed to become his only obsession.
In some ways I think this film is ahead of its time and perhaps few years down the line it’ll be regarded and appreciated more.
For now I can’t really judge how good it even how bad this film is....and hopefully once I see it again sometime next week I will have a clearer understanding of this crazy think-piece.
