…where I think the film has a hard time to keep the audience on board: The Protagonist running into himself and we already suspect it’s him - but the urgency of the matter escapes us as it escaped himself on his first trip.
It’s no doubt a visually pleasing, even clever film. But to me it stopped being engaging somewhere along the line because I think the inversion stands more in the way of keeping us on the seat’s edge. Without the inversion, however, it would remain a rather conventional thriller.
That scene in particular i think is Nolan trying to demonstrate that this isn’t time travel in the sense of Back To The Future, giving an example of what Neil was just explaining “What’s happened has happened.”
How that is demonstrated in subtler ways throughout is one of the things that makes it enjoyable to rewatch (Sir Michael actually making reference to what is the films final battle for instance)
I wouldn’t agree that it has less heart, with Kat’s heart breaking narrative in the film about guilt keeping her in a guided cage but primarily for the exact relationship you latched into. This would be the other thing that rewards rewatching as it moves the lead you follow from The Protagonist to Neil - there’s lots more instances of Neil actually taking care of The Protagonist right from the very start that you can only see having seen their final conversation.
Alas, I did not find Kat’s narrative heartbreaking, but perfunctory. But then neither Kat nor Sator made deep impressions on me as characters.
The relationship between The Protagonist and Neil had the depth, but Nolan seemed to both advance it and deny it. Pattinson as an aging blond boytoy was a wonderful idea brought to half-life. It seemed as if Nolan was scared of the homosocial/homoerotic ideas he set in motion (and which were much easier to give free reign to in DUNKIRK, since war movies are traditionally [and acceptably] understood as vehicles for the homosocial/homoerotic).
Exactly. The Protagonist’s concern for Kat seems unmotivated (unless her child is Neil who grows up to be The Protagonist’s bromance partner–or more). The inversion is nice, but the true story for me is the relationship between Neil and The Protagonist, which gets too obscured.
Good call on the ‘true’ story of TENET - there are several contenders and the core is not easily identified since some of the themes are running against each other or only implied.
The most obvious is the ‘revenge’ angle between Kat and Sator. It’s in fact taking The Night Manager’s couple and wind them forward four years - only you can hardly see any way they ever came close, let alone have a child. There’s plenty of potential in that story but we come to the very end where nothing surprising happens any longer. It’s no doubt a touching tale, it just sounds like we’ve heard it before.
Then there’s Sator, a cold and nasty character embittered by his terminal condition - and he likely wasn’t all too endearing to start with. A super-rich mover and shaker who wants to end the world. Yet he’s also petty, without charm or vision. He’s played as a monster, and played very well by Branagh. But somehow I miss the fascination of his villainy. I think Sator could profit from a leeeeetle less vampire accent and a bit more charm and insight in his voyage to the depths of ultimate nihilism.
Then there’s the ‘future’, basically an unspecified interval down the stream of time where circumstances are so dire they invent technology to allow literally to turn back the wheels of time. And for whatever reason someone, somebody, a faction or an entity (and possibly just the female scientist we see at the beginning) decide to use it not to fix but to break everything. And then not. This is a framework that’s only hinted at in some dialogue, perhaps the biggest suspend of disbelief we’ve got to muster when going through TENET. You could probably write books, treatises and start whole religions on this major freak idea we’re meant to buy. But it’s done in such a way we’re able to ignore it for the time being.
There’s Kat herself who exists in - at least - two versions after killing her husband. Some float the idea she’s the actual head of TENET while avoiding her ‘other’ self. And Kat could be Neil’s mother, a sideshow in which the entire TERMINATOR franchise would have ample room. But if so it would likely not be The Protagonist recruiting Neil but his own mother.
Finally Neil, knowing everything, and The Protagonist, knowing nothing (and our ignorance of the future is our strength), both of them sharing a significant backstory only Neil knows about. Here I’d not necessarily interpret their relationship as erotic rather than a mentor/pupil one - with Neil having the benefit of both roles The Protagonist will only have much later. It’s interesting to speculate about this particular relationship. But it also poses the question if/how one or both of them are sent back/forward significant periods of time, many years or decades even.
So at the surface TENET is an action-y spy thriller with undertones of philosophy and Kafka. We see only part of it, as in many films. At times I’m wondering if we see the most interesting parts of it.
That is how I felt. I recognized the story, and think that Nolan, rather than exploring it, used its familiarity as shorthand to indicate “touching story–feel moved.” It felt stale (apologies Orion), and the flatness of Branagh’s performance did not help. He wasn’t bad, but he could inject only so much life into a character sketch (and neither he nor Nolan are practitioners of camp, so that route was closed off).
That puzzled me as well. There is a reference to “generations” down the line, but nobody seems old enough to fit that time scheme. It was a minor point, so I did not obsess over it, but it was one more little thing to add to several other little things.
Another one of those little things, but by that time, I was no longer engaged.
I think it can be understood that way as well, but the warmth and feeling in Pattinson’s face/voice as he orders the Diet Coke causes me to see much more than mentor/pupil. But then, I am gay, and my antennae are sensitive to such scenes. Again, I have this sense of underdevelopment–as if more thought had been given to the turnstiles than the characters.
You said earlier:
I think you are right. There is at least one other film (which, for the life of me, I cannot recall at the moment) where the narrative is fractured, and once I put it together, I felt that the telling was daring, but the actual story and characters were neither new nor special.
…the fantastical element here something strange happens: none of the characters would necessarily act differently. We could easily align most of the plot in a linear sequence of a conventional action thriller (where the plot twist before the third act is then some betrayal so The Protagonist has to undo his earlier actions).
Even Neil knowing The Protagonist could be arranged by spynesia (that often found loss of recollection and memory during intelligence operations caused by lack of common-sensygen). Some MACGUFFINPROTOCOL would serve to kick off everything and the only loss would be the philosophical-speculative dimension and the few CGI effects.
Compare to this Alfredson’s TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY where, by changing the characters, the same plot leads to a film that is nothing like the book any more.
Then again, with TENET the fantastical element is intrinsic to the overall nature of the film itself. It’s an Armageddon/save-the-world tale that, in its summary, cannot be reduced to a smaller scale - no more than Moonraker with its rocket base and attack on London can be reduced to Drax cheating at cards.
You don’t need to apologise. A film can’t force a specific emotion from its audience - there would never be a bad film if that was a thing that could be done. I responded to the narratives that were told, you didn’t, that is neither good or bad. It just is.
I don’t agree with the “if we remove this it’s just…” arguement, because…well duh. You remove the poker sequence from Casino Royale and it would have nothing in common with the book, you remove the love story from Cassablanca and it’s just a bunch middle aged men talking about some random thing that’s happening in the world.
Remove Crab key and Dr No is a fairly middling police procedural…Remove the diamond laser from DAF and it’s just a middle aged man aging badly and trying to relive his youth…remove the grand slam at Fort Knox and it’s US news coverage of the last 4 years…
I think we can all agree on this: TENET is an ambitious film, with a complex idea at its center, not inviting traditional identification through an emotionally laden narrative, so fast paced that its riddles only reveal themselves after multiple viewing. It must at least impress that this kind of film was actually made and promoted to blockbuster status through a major studio, and this even during a pandemic.
Wasn’t a criticism of the film, it’s quite clearly a choice as Connery didn’t age as badly as his Bond did (look at him in Zardoz filmed the same year where Connery is clearly in much better shape than DAF tries to make him look) my point was that if you remove Blofeld’s plot from the story it would make it a very different film with the lament for what was in a world that has clearly changed, taking the bulk of the narrative focus, in which there is a recurring theme of people lying about what they want to show the world, from people being buried despite being very much alive to phoney diamonds and false identities.
Writing that down, I think Eon had a very specific target in mind following the negative response OHMSS received for its changes to the series…
Agreed. They did not want to continue on the path laid out by OHMSS, but also were uncertain what the next steps should be. They reunited the GOLDFINGER gang (and even thought of having Auric Goldfinger’s brother as he villain), but there was enough doubt to allow something creative and different emerge. Eon’s quandary opened a space where the tried-and-true and the new-and-untested could exist side-by-side for a brief time. Additional help came by way of David Picker (an under-appreciated hero in the saga of the Bond franchise), who insisted on Sean Connery returning to the role (and had the wherewithal to offer the right enticements), and also suggested Tom Mankiewicz to revise the script.
Serendipity also played a part: Guy Hamilton and Mankiewicz hitting it off so well, and Hamilton’s cynical eye being perfect for the mostly American setting (and the 2:35 aspect ratio). Ken Adam, Ted Moore, and John Barry were all at their best.
Andrew Sarris used to have a column in The Village Voice where he commented on (with Tom Allen’s great assistance) the notable revivals for the week, as well as one movie showing on television. I have always remembered the entry for DAF, where Sarris (actually Allen) wrote how Connery in DAF evolved into a risque uncle from the ruthless Lothario of the earlier films. Why that blurb should have stuck in my mind from when I was a teenager, I have no idea, but stick it did.
I think Connery’s DAF performance is Connery’s creation; Hamilton is on record as saying that you don’t tell Sean Connery how to play James Bond. Part of the appeal of DAF for me is this new Connery Bond, who is not as misogynist or sexist as his predecessor. Middle age becomes him.
n.b. I have never been able to find online that Sarris blurb, but Sarris’ original review has been digitized. Here is the link to it:
I do not find him so. The predatory aspect of the earlier Connery Bonds is missing for me. DAF Bond does not rape anyone as he does in GOLDFINGER, and he never lies atop any woman. Plenty invites herself into his suite, and TIffany is in bed waiting for him. Does he instigate any of the kisses in the film?
As for Bambi and Thumper–they have the best of him until they are all in the pool, and plot mechanics dictate that he defeat them to conclude the episode and move the film forward. I would nominate it as the most blatant fight reversal in the series.
As for the ending–no Bond-as-victor claiming his reward of the Bond girl. Just Bond and Tiffany standing next to each other at the ship’s railing, gazing up at the 1971 version of a WMD. Not even a peck on the cheek, much less Bond in the sexual saddle.
As for the women in the film. They display some autonomy, even as they are also put on display as eye candy. The film is deliciously schizoid, as if it cannot make up its mind what attitude it wants to take.
Well said and pointed out. I do think though that Connery is much more obvious in his language and just assumes that he will get every woman, without actually having to prove it. Then again, he does not seem to be too much determined to do anything in this movie. He just glides through it. Which is a pleasure to watch, no doubt. Maybe DAF shows a predator who has reached a status of having his prey surrender to him, just because they know this is how it ends up anyway.
He strangles someone in the pre-credits, without apparent regret, and as for lying atop anyone, in that bloated state it could have led to yet more asphyxiation.
Hahahaha brilliant! That’s it @MrKiddWint. When I was a boy I absolutely loved Diamonds Are Forever, I turned away from it in my teens for more worthy"fayre. Was a guilty pleasure the older I got, and now in middle age ( 45 is middle age right ) it’s taking over all other Bonds in my affections. @Orion you too may succumb to its charms.
Again, wasn’t criticising it as it is very much an intentional choice* - possibly as a critique of those who criticised OHMSS for not being Connery’s films as the film does keep repeating the notion that the world has changed, and anyone who claims it hasn’t is lying. I was making a point that removing an element from a film completely changes the film you’re watching; if the Blofeld plot is removed, it is no longer an adventure, but a harsh social critique of the dangers of nostalgic thinking as the subtext commentary becomes the lead narrative.
*to give context as to how much of a choice that was, this is what Connery actually looked like just before filming DAF
fayre. Was a guilty pleasure the older I got, and now in middle age ( 45 is middle age right ) it’s taking over all other Bonds in my affections. 
