.lla ta gnisufnoc teneT dnif t’ndid I
If you are inverted, entropy is “reversed” for you. A pile of rubble reassembles into a building. You can’t breath uninverted air because the chemical reaction would be reversed. Instead of increasing thermal energy around it, a fire decreases it.
I don’t know if it’s accurate from a theoretical physics standpoint. At the very least, they are conveniently selective with which physical laws they choose to invert.
Like I don’t know why getting shot with an “inverted” bullet is worse than a “verted” one. Or why inverting causes someone to heal faster.
I liked it, but I also agree with Omniscient’s criticisms (except for the sound, as I watched it at home, with subtitles). I also found it slightly predictable - I mean, of course he was fighting himself in that hallway, and of course that was her jumping off that yacht. It’s a time travel movie. If you can’t see someone’s face, it’s probably you.
I think Nolan is one of those directors, like Alfred Hitchcock, who needs movies stars for his films to work. He needs a big, attention-drawing, charismatic actors that come with a certain amount of audience goodwill in order to smooth over narrative shortcuts and his own emotional remove. The movie needed a Bale or a DiCaprio or a Jackman or a Chastain, and Washington just wasn’t up to it. He lacked the star quality the role needed. Think how much more compelling the film would have been if it had starred, say, Michael B. Jordan.
Yeah, and maybe that’s not because of the acting per se, but because big name actors would have pushed back a little on the script.
As the excellent movie breakdown channel Filmento observes, the characters in Tenet largely don’t seem to give a toss about anything that’s happening. They are just doing a job, and there is little sense of them being amazed, surprised, frightened or angry, say.
Obviously the characters are supposed to be “too cool for school”, but the simple fact is, if they aren’t invested in the story, the audience sure isn’t going to be.
A bigger name actor would probably have refused to play it that way, and had enough heft to be listened to.
Excellent points. Nolan comes across as someone with too much control of his own movies - he needs someone to push back against his high-concept tendencies.
Cool, I have a question.
How does moving back in time help?
What is always the point of time travel? To undo some mistake or outmaneuver some opponent.
Like all time travel films, it creates some interesting philosophical discussions. But at the end of the day, in spite of all their talk of “entropy” and “grandfather paradoxes”, Tenet very much follows a philosophy of “what happened happened” (predetermination paradox).
Which sort of defeats the whole reason for time travel if you can’t change anything. The the whole film just becomes one big 4D Rube Goldberg-esq puzzle box that ultimately doesn’t change anything.
Wait, can they? I meant specifically in this movie. What is the advantage of moving back in time…specifically in this movie?
Gosh, I don’t think it would have been any better. Washington was perfectly capable, he’s a very good actor and a charismatic guy. It’s not his fault his character wasn’t written well (or, honestly, at all.)
This 100%. He was literally called “Protagonist” and was given no personality or direction. Washington did a fine job. There was nothing there but a nameless, boring character.
Leo had it much better in Inception. Cobb had a full backstory, clear motivation, character arc, and…a name!
That’s the point, it’s not Washington’s fault but someone like Michael B Jordan might have had enough say to not go along with it because he is a more famous actor.
Well, that may be your position, but it’s not what Alessan said at all.
If you’re saying it would have been better because a bigger star could have convinced Christopher Nolan to change the script,
-
I don’t believe that at all; Nolan likes his movies done his way and he’s got the clout to have it the way he wants it, and
-
An actor’s job is to act. If the script is bad, and it was, that is not the actor’s fault and has nothing to do with their star power. Michael B. Jordan has never written a script I’m aware of; why would anyone think he could have improved that aspect of the movie.
Nolan’s better films really don’t depend on having star power, did they? “Memento” starred Guy Pierce, a capable actor but no A-lister. He followed that with “Insomnia,” which had HUGE star power but is now largely forgotten; it was a good movie but not great. After that was “Batman Begins,” which starred Christian Bale, who maybe is A-list now but he wasn’t at the time; he was a successful actor but not a superstar. From that point on most of his movies have A-listers in them, but some are great (Dark Knight) and some are pretty bad (Dark Knight Rises.) I actually think the best film he’s ever made is Dunkirk, which arguably had the LEAST star power of any post-Batman film until Tenet.
I think he would have. I found Washington bland in this movie, just like I found him bland in BlacKKKlansman, where he let Adam Driver walk away with the entire film. He comes across as a journeyman actor who can read his lines well enough but doesn’t bring any added value to his parts. Jordan, OTOH, has a certain unpredictable energy to him that would have made Pro Tagonist at least slightly more interesting, even without changing any of his dialog.
I think we’re using different definitions of “star power”. You’re referring to industry clout, and how much an actor can influence a production. I’m talking about something else. I’m talking about the mythological Hollywood star power, the term firm theorists use to describe “how much the camera loves an actor”. It’s similar to charisma or talent, but, as Terry Pratchett argued in Maskerade, much rarer. It’s the legendary showbiz “It”. Christian Bale had It before he was an A-lister, and Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy had It in Dunkirk, which is why their scenes were the most compelling. Washington doesn’t have It.
I was the one that initially suggested a different actor could have pushed back on the role a little.
I wasn’t claiming it as fact, just a suspicion. Because, while it’s true that actors are not screenwriters, it is also true that they frequently make suggestions about a character’s backstory, mannerisms and yes, sometimes even the script to some extent.
Here is an excerpt from an interview Christopher Nolan gave about Inception:
(emphasis added)
Slight tangent, but I never quite got the hate for DK Rises, maybe it was because expectations were so high following DK? I mean a bad (not awful) action movie would be something like Wonder Woman 1984, and when you put DK Rises next to a movie like that, it’s really no contest. DK Rises’ plot broadly makes sense, the characters are interesting and there are great set pieces. YMMV
That’s a good question. I’m trying to think of an actual instance where the use of time travel actually seemed to alter events.
The movie committed the cardinal sin of time travel stories, by not really answering the most important question regarding time travel - can you change the timeline, or not? It’s one reason why I had to give the film a negative BTI score.
Bill Murray learned alot in GroundHog day…
Well, his dad was a piano mover, so…
“Whatever you do, don’t come in contact with your former self…”
Doesn’t the Protagonist actually fight himself in the freeport?