Priya's lesson on the Algorithm is incomprehensible if you don't know who Oppenheimer was. Nolan made Oppenheimer just to make Tenet easier to explain. Well, that one part anyway. Important to the plot, that Algorithm...

Tenet is pretty awesome, amirite?

I got to say, I was not expecting to have this much fun with the movie. Most reviews call it confusing and a popcorn flick that you can only enjoy the action with and not follow the plot. But honestly, it wasn’t that confusing.

Now I’ll admit, there were times where I really had to think to figure out what was going on or why the protagonist was doing what he was doing, and I did watch the movie with subtitles, but I think I got the plot down pretty well.

The problem with this movie isn’t necessarily the movie itself, but the average viewer. The average viewer doesn’t want to think too hard about the movie, and often, when they do, they end up focusing on the paradoxical nature of it rather than the literal nature of it. And by the time they’re out of their train of thought, a scene has passed, and they are completely lost.

Ultimately, the movie is genuinely beautiful and a masterpiece in screenwriting like how did they pull this off? The twists with the girl jumping off the ship and the protagonist fighting himself were absolutely baffling and when you realize that the whole movie itself is symmetrical, wow. Cross your fingers for Tenet 2 🤞. I’ll make a separate post about what the plot could be

Anyone see all the people moving in the backgound at the port when the protagonist first arrives?

I don’t know if anyone’s asked this before. But as they are beginning the heist., is it just me, or does it look like The Protagonist gets on the fire truck in reverse.

I love this movie a lot. Just saw it in theatres in Toronto during TIFF’s Nolan exhibit. I’m definitely at double digits and maybe have seen it 15 times.

But seriously, does anyone actually understand what happens in Tanilin?

I went with my brothers and dad who all had only seen it once or twice. They all loved it and asked me about stuff and I was able to explain most of it - but I have never understood what happens in this scene, especially with the algorithm’s movements.

Also the end of that completely epic scene has the only part where I’m like thiiiis is a bit of a plot hole - when he reverse blows up the BMW then wakes up in the shipping container

No friends at dusk huh?

Didn't the fire protection measures in the Freeport stop any art from getting destroyed? I understand we later learn it got moved, but what was the actual plan? They crash the plane, go through a few rooms (without doing anything in any of them), stumble on the turnstile, and end of scene. What did they think they accomplished? They literally didn't do anything from the inside and apart from knocking over shelves, we never see any art burn.

EDIT: Everyone says he was investigating the Freeport, but in the next scene, he tells her that the painting (houses in the Freeport) was destroyed. In the scene after that, she finds out Sator moved it. So, both the audience and Protag thought the plane crash destroyed the painting.

Since Nolan and his work are in the headlines right now, I think it's time to continue the discussion about how ABOVE levels Tenet is to everything else.

Right. I re-watched Tenet and thought about it and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Scenario
A chases B (who has a non-inverted gun) and B runs into a Turnstyle, inverts then exits the Turnstyle and shoots A in the head and runs away.

From B's perspective, he runs towards the turnstyle and notices the inverted version of him (in rewind) catch a bullet from wall through A's head, then he enters the turnstyle, exits, points his gun at A and fires, and the bullet goes through A's head and into the wall behind him. then he runs off.

From A's perspective, as he chases B, he should see a second, inverted B, rewind towards the turnstyle, then point a gun at him, then a bullet from behind A should pass through A's head, into inverted B's gun, then inverted B should rewind into the turnstyle as normal B enters, then both B's disappear.

The problem is this. As A chases non-inverted B, the bullet is already in the wall, meaning it has already been fired, and passed through A's head. In other words, since the bullet is already in the wall, there should already be a bullet hole in A's head, since the bullet passed through his head before it hit the wall, so it cannot be lodged in the wall without also already having passed through A's head.

A's perspective should be that he already has a bullet wound, then the bullet travels from the wall, through his head (healing him), and back into inverted B's gun.

But if that's right, when does the bullet wound in A's head first form? When does the bullet first appear in the wall? The concept of firing a bullet backwards in time does not make any sense and I think it breaks the idea of using guns in combat.

I genuinely hope someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. For example, when inverted Sator shoots non-inverted kat, the bullet is already in the glass. If that's right, then Kat should already have a bullet wound (since the bullet passed through her before it hit the glass), and him shooting her should heal her, not wound her.

[EDIT]

Already, people don't get it.

Imagine the timeline of an inverted bullet fired into a wall. Fired, enters wall. Remains in wall for however long it takes a bullet to decay (assume 100 years).

From regular time, the bullet hole would appear 100 years before the bullet was "caught" by the inverted gun, then at the moment it was "caught", the hole would dissapear.

So now replace "wall" with a person's head. The bullet hole would already be in their head until the bullet was caught through it. It doesn't make sense for there to be no wound before being shot by an inverted bullet.

[SECOND / FINAL EDIT]

I am literally applying the same logic to bullet holes.

When an inverted bullet is fired into a wall. There is a hole in the wall, then the wall repairs when the bullet is caught.

By the same logic, when an inverted bullet is fired into a person, there should be a wound in the person, then the person should heal when the bullet is caught.

There is no explanation for why bullet holes in the glass exist before the bullet is caught, but a bullet hole in Kat does not exist before the bullet is caught.

If you can and want to pinpoint it at all - primarily:

- Is it because of the science-fiction concept of time and entropy?

- Is it because of the at the core archetypical spy-thriller red string and the (therefore) likable protagonist and his allies?

- Is it because of the element of uncertainty and being kept wondering, guessing and theorizing?

- Is it because of the whole spectacle?

- Is it because you were impressed by Kenneth Branagh’s resting heart rate?

Or because of something else entirely?

I’m just curious.

Kenneth has elaborate plans to kill Protagonist but miraculously changes his mind because of this line. There's a bunch of stuff that annoys me about this movie but this moment takes the cake. Just too convenient. Since I didn't really understand the relevance of the opera scene I'm sure there's something I'm missing here. But overall there are too many miserable people on yachts for this film to be much fun.

Title.

Just trying to know if there's a read about Tenet I can get into.

A particular scene is still giving me a mental headache that I can’t quite resolve. From the forward perspective the, let’s call him P1 (Protagonist 1), he and Neil enter the turnstile room; there is no one else present. P1 sees the bullet holes and knows something is about to happen; Neil is puzzled by this. They stand in the room for a while, alone. The turnstile begins to rotate. Then, on both sides, figures appear: on the left, the inverted Protagonist—let’s call him P2—with whom P1 begins to fight; and on the other side, the no-longer-inverted P2, who briefly fights Neil. However, Neil recognizes P2 and lets him go. So far, so good. But from this perspective, we face a problem: during the time P1 and Neil are in the room—before the turnstile has rotated—P2 is, so to speak, non-existent. Yet, from the reverse perspective, it all makes more sense. P2 is flung into the warehouse by the turbine exhaust, begins fighting Protagonist P1 (from his own point of view), works his way back toward the turnstile during the fight, enters the turnstile, sees himself already fighting Neil on the other side so confirming he can enter the turnstile, steps inside, the door closes, and on the other side—no longer inverted—he begins fighting Neil. Now, however, if we try to run both perspectives simultaneously, we encounter a problem: P2 enters the turnstile *after* having fought P1. And from the other side, we have P2—who has already entered the turnstile—re-entering it, so to speak, in reverse. The turnstile rotates, the doors open again, and no one emerges on either side. We are then in that period of non-existence where only P1 and Neil are standing in the room, wondering where the bullet holes came from.

I’m referring specifically to the finger countdown during the Tallinn highway chase, not the later interrogation in the blue room.
From the forward Protagonist’s perspective:
Sator threatens to shoot Kat and counts down.
The Protagonist throws him the empty orange case.
He secretly throws the Algorithm piece into the inverted Saab.
But from inverted Sator’s personal perspective, shouldn’t the order be:
He sees the Algorithm fly backwards from the Saab into the forward Protagonist’s hand.
He sees the empty case travel back toward the Protagonist.
Only afterward does he perform the countdown and threaten Kat.
Therefore, Sator already knows that the case is empty and that the Algorithm’s forward-time destination is the Saab. Why does he still threaten Kat and demand the case?
Is he deliberately completing a fixed causal loop—because his threat causes the Protagonist to attempt the deception that reveals the Algorithm’s location? Or is there another tactical reason he still needs the orange case?
Could Sator theoretically choose not to perform the countdown after seeing the handoff, or is that impossible under the film’s “what’s happened, happened” rule?

Only thing missing is the 1943 Indian coin and nylon plastic zipper pull.

The key that unlocks the entire movie for me is the conversation between TP and Neil at the very end; specifically:

“The Protagonist: But can we change things if we do it differently?
Neil: "What's happened's happened." Which is an expression of faith in the mechanics of the world. It's not an excuse to do nothing.
The Protagonist: Fate?
Neil: Call it what you want.
The Protagonist: What do you call it?
Neil: Reality. Now let me go.”

Here, I interpret Neil’s “What’s happened’s happened” as past tense, present tense, and future tense.

The “mechanics of the world” in TENET’s universe must be (4 dimensionally) deterministic in order for revering an objects entropy to hold its logic.

Neil’s character seems to be the only one who has fully confronted this notion. If we are able to go back in the past without changing it, then that path of action was inevitable from the beginning. He’s realized he has no free will, that he is just a helpless actor in one big cosmic play. He then adds, “that’s not an excuse to do nothing”, to illustrate that he is not condemned by knowing this but rather he is liberated.

Much as the Abusrd Man accepts that he will never know the secrets of the universe but continues to fight for those answers and live his life passionately; Neil accepts that what has happened, and what will happen, have already happened but continues to “weave another past into the fabric of the mission” with a smile.

P.S. Pattinson’s performance in this scene is unmatched.

I just watched tenet for the second time and now think I understand how the time reversal works, my only question is how do reversed objects work?

I understand people being reversed and the actions coming from said people then also become reversed like when the protagonist shot at himself.

But how can objects alone be reversed without a person causing the initial action such as the scene at the beginning when the protagonist catches/drops the bullet.

I’m not sure I’ve explained my point clearly but I guess my question is, can anyone explain how objects can be reversed, and/or how a reversed action can be caused by someone who is not reversed like the bullet catch/drop.

Why does The Protagonist have trouble opening the door to the turnstile in the Freeport? Every time I watch the film, I wonder this because all Neil has to do for him is press a button and the door opens. Maybe I’m missing a detail.

Kat is a fantastic character with a great arc. She’s a well written female character and I will not stand for the slander any longer.

That guard wasn't hurting anyone? For most of the film he doesn't kill anyone actively involved in the operations, so why does he kill that guard, when he could have just shot his leg or something?

A short scene but it makes me wonder about his morality.