Sight, sound and fury

 When trying to say a lot turns into very little

With yet another lockdown seeming to loom just over the horizon, i've had a lot of time to think. My hours at the cinema where I work have had to be trimmed down like so much gristle because old Bo-Jo has had to restrict our operating hours. And even when we have been open, footfall has been down massively due to A) Public fear of infection and B) The lack of movies coming out. Mulan was moved to Disney+ exclusively, and was critically panned. After We Collided has done okay, but is just some raunchy fanfic adaptation. Break The Silence is a BTS tour movie which i'm too scared to say anything about. And Tenet? Well Tenet is just too damn complicated (and has such poorly mixed audio) that people aren't watching it anymore. And all i've heard about Tenet from friends and colleagues is that inversion and temporal pincer movements are way to confusing. So here is my question to you, dear reader. Why the hell do directors try to be so damn smart and why does it blow up in their face so often?

The main issue with Tenet can best be described as Nolan trying to be quantum physicist crossed with Ian Fleming and only really succeeding at the latter. Time Travel is really damn difficult to write at the best of times but it can be done. Back to the Future does it really well as Marty McFly creates his own Grandfather Paradox and then has to undo it to ensure timeline continuity, and it works because the future he returns to is different than the one he left rather than everything working out the same. But Nolan is a very smart boy who invents his own method of time travel that makes no damn sense despite how many times he tries to explain it. People can travel back in time in the traditional sense of being moved from one point in time to another, but they can also be inverted so that they are traveling backwards through time relative to everything else. And things can be inverted as well, such as bullets which somehow makes them more dangerous than a normal bullet. And this is explained over and over and over again by people using the same words over and over and over again. And i'm still not sure if i've explained it properly.

Tenet breaks one of the first rules of storytelling in doing this, the old standby of “Show don't tell”. Whilst having people fight in reverse and doing it all in camera is impressive, explaining it after every scene just ruins it. Having complicated concepts and executions in your story is fantastic, but don't forget to shut your damn mouth. Nolan's own Interstellar has some really advanced science as part of its story, but it doesn't feel the need explain why the Endurance spins to provide a form artificial gravity every time you see it spin. And it tackles the idea of relative time dilation in a way that ties it in with the plot and Cooper and Murphy's relationship.

I could now start railing against Exposition, but i'd be lying if said I didn't have a soft spot or it sometimes. I lot of movies I like, or down right adore, spend so much time prattling on and on about all the rules of technology or techniques to the point of absurdity. It goes beyond exposition into filler material that is thinly disguised as plot dialogue. An odd hallmark of this practice is Vampire movies, especially ones that concoct their own Vampire rules. When I was subjected to original Twilight (an event that scars me to this day), I was struck by how much time Robert Pattinson spent explain that Vampires can go outside during the day if it's overcast. I hate that rule with a burning passion but it is worked into the plot loosely by it being tied into our bland protagonists getting to know each other. So it is forgivable, barely.

Something that is not forgivable is being edgy and dressing it up as being clever or symbolic. Slowed down fairground/happy pop music in the demon's lair to symbolise corruption? Edgy and over used. Blood and guts torture porn devoid of any broader meaning? Lazy. Some variant of The Most Dangerous Game” with some blatant political underpinning a la The Hunt? And is it directed by Eli Roth? Then ring-a-ding-ding you've got some edge trying to be clever. Gore and edge can have meaning, any one who's survived a viewing of Come and See can tell you that. But horror for the sake of causing a reaction is not exactly deep. I should stress that being scary for the sake of scary is totally fine and I downright encourage it. I know a lot of people who love horror films because they love being spooked or grossed out, and they would probably have some very strong, very angry words for me if I said “Horror bad, is big dumb-dumb.” And while I see no value in giving myself nightmares for weeks on end, if that's what you want, then go forth and get scared.

But this still leaves us with the question of why do some Directors try to be so damn smart? Well the answer is rather unsatisfying, but oddly heartwarming I think. Simply put, they're passionate. They want to put their souls, their interests, their beliefs up on the screen in the way they feel it is best represented. Even a film that seems super shallow in it's symbolism and ideas has a Director behind it that wanted you to see it. If an attempt was made that was ultimately fruitless, that still means something. Even films with poor symbolism and confusing narrative are better and more earnest that films that are devoid of it, made to make a profit and nothing more. Some what if Tenet's story is confusing and poorly done? No one can accuse Nolan of not trying. A confusing and slightly stupid movie that tries is better than a movie that doesn't try at all.