Christopher Nolan is known for for headscratchers. He takes pride in using a blockbuster formula to dream a little bigger, darling. It is no surprise then that his latest is his headscratch-iest. Playing with elements that he has built his career on - time mechanics, huge set pieces, the spectacle of cinema - Nolan has again produced something unique, something truly original. But does originality equate to quality? This is Tenet.
Tenet is, for all intents and purpose, an espionage thriller. Its comparison to a Bond film has not been understated, and it is a fair likeness. But where Bond has fancy gizmos and gadgets, Tenet has fancy time mechanics which opens the door for all sorts of creativity and breathtaking visuals never before seen in cinema. It's no doubt that Tenet is a spectacle piece, an audio-visual experience made to appeal to its audience on a sensory level and then, secondly, to their intellect. There's been cries that it's complexity for the sake of complexity, a vehicle for Nolan to display his superior intellect, but that is a severe misread of the film. Are the ideas on display here complicated - yes. But more importantly they serve the story, or rather, the experience. Any sort of time discrepancy has to be complicated - there are paradoxes galore - and the film makes clear that understanding all the detail is a wasted effort. This is not because Nolan is clever and the audience isn't, but because to focus on the detail detracts from the big picture event; it takes you away from the experience
That being said, the criticism isn't unwarranted. The screenplay is too dense and the sound mixing too score-heavy (as good as the score is) so it feels like the audience are constantly missing something because they can't keep up with the quick dialogue or can't hear it in the first instance. If these concepts and conversations aren't important, then they need to go. Tenet either needs an extra half an hour to build on these themes, or it needs to chop them. It's clear that the edit has forced the issue, but perhaps this could've been solved earlier with a tighter handle on the screenplay. It's not a confusing plot, but it is unnecessarily overloaded. One sailing scene, for instance, seems almost entirely superfluous aside from the fact that one minor incident in it drives what follows. In an already tightly squeezed narrative this scene (and really this scene is the only major offender) feels like a waste of precious time.
As already mentioned, Tenet is designed to be an experience yet still begs its audience to stay switched on and focused throughout, rewarding those who do but harshly casting aside those who don't. It can be frustrating, being unclear on what exactly is happening, but Nolan wants the audience to work and persevere. If he is guilty of something, it's for challenging the notion that blockbusters are easy-watches; films where you can disengage and just sit back, passively absorbing content that is designed appeal to all. No one claims Tarkovsky made bad films because you have to work to understand them, yet this is a criticism leveled at Tenet. Do not mistake me here, Tarkovsky and Nolan are very different filmmakers, but it should be clear that complexity or working your audience is not inherently a negative trait. It may be divisive, but not entirely detrimental.
The complicated ideas on display here are primarily a vehicle for the breathtaking visuals and action set-pieces. Nolan and his team know how to shoot action. The hand-to-hand combat is visceral and hard-hitting, with the punches being felt through the screen - a kitchen brawl makes creative use of a cheese grater which would even make Gordon Ramsey wince - and the large scale set-pieces are astonishing. Making full use of the time mechanics on display (see temporal pincer movements and cars flipping backwards), Nolan stretches the possibility of cinematic action, typically using practical effects wherever possible to ground the chaos in reality. We may be tempted to ask 'how?', Nolan encourages instead to utter 'wow!'.
This isn't Nolan's best movie, mainly for the reasons already discussed, but it is a demonstration of what could be possible in cinema. Bolstered by great performances from a suave John David Washington, an energetic and enigmatic Robert Pattinson, and a brilliant Elizabeth Debicki (whose Kat, however, is under-developed and under-utilised here. She's not alone, but most notable. Another fault of a brutal edit and a tight screenplay). It's charming, it's witty, and it's visually stunning. Challenging the norm set out by countless Marvel productions and other copycat blockbusters, Tenet is a breathtaking piece of cinema that will push people and prove divisive. But who would want to be safe when you can be sensational.
