MovieChat Forums > Tenet (2020) Discussion > There’s no way inverted and non-inverted...

There’s no way inverted and non-inverted people can interact with each other

posted 4 years ago by SlackerInc (1121)
31 replies | jump to latest

I really don’t believe it’s the kind of thing you could figure out by watching the movie ten times or looking at diagrams or animations, or even by picking Christopher Nolan‘s brain. It just flat out does not compute.

The way inverted and non-inverted people and objects physically interact strikes me as nonsensical in general, although it took me a while to figure out how to verbally articulate exactly why. Just try to explain how the fight in the hallway can occur, with grappling, pushing, and punching. (If you don’t see the problem with that, imagine a blue team and red team engaging in a round of tug-of-war. It’s impossible.)

Another specific scene near the end that I can point to for anyone who claims the interactions make sense:

So from the POV of the inverted Neil, who is initially seen lying dead before being unshot and rising to let the Protagonist in, how did he experience this? What, he goes and waits for the Protagonist to back out of the open gate...and then locks it behind him? Seriously? There’s a reason the unlocking is shown so briefly, because Nolan knows that is some major “fridge logic”, as Hitchcock called it. There are countless such scenes in the film.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

yeah, the whole concept falls apart if you think about it logically.

Wow -- bullets that fly out of the wall and hit you, then go back in the gun! Watch out for those!

As opposed to regular bullets, which jump out of the gun, hit you, and land in the wall. Those are fine.

Actually, the bullets in the wall are less of a threat. Just don't stand in front of any bullet holes.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 4 years ago

Haha, true.

[–] KingBob (3260) 19 days ago

Just don’t think about it, just roll with it. That’s literally what the movie tells us.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 4 years ago

I'm not going to make any argument that inversion could exist in the real world in the way Nolan is trying to invent. But I do think he's done a good job in making it as believable as possible within the limitations of our understanding (with trickery of editing of course).

But I do think you're misunderstanding a bit, particularly the example you gave.

What, he goes and waits for the Protagonist to back out of the open gate...and then locks it behind him? Seriously?

I'm not entirely sure of the exact moment/timing you mean when you say he "locks it behind him", so I'll just try and describe the sequence of events there and hopefully they'll cover the moment that you're calling out.

Inverted Neil jogs to gate, unlocks gate, opens gate, holds gate open, then closes gate while he protects Protag from the gunshot. Closing the gate probably locks the gate again (just a guess from the locking mechanism).

If it helps, remember that inverted individuals experience things in reverse relative to those that aren't.
If I experience A, B, then C, then an inverted person in that scene will experience C, then B, then A.

So think of it the way the Protag experiences it.
Protag sees locked/closed gate, is protected from gunshot, gate is held open while he fights, gate is closed (this is the moment where the inverted Neil unlocks the gate from his own perspective), inverted man jogs away.

So for Protag, the unlocking takes place after the gunshot.

For inverted Neil, the unlocking takes place before the gunshot, which makes sense, because gunshot ends Neil's life.
Inverted Neil does close the door while he blocks the gunshot but there is never a moment where Neil intentionally locks the gate behind someone.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 2 years ago

I never got a notification about this, just happened to see it.

Your explanation doesn't quite work. You say inverted Neil blocks the bullet, protecting the Protagonist, but how can he do that (or even get shot) when to him the bullet moves in reverse? How would he ever see "uh oh, the Protagonist is about to get shot, I better protect him" when the Protagonist and henchman are operating in reverse from his perspective?

I have freeze-framed this and tried to picture it backward, but it's all edited together very quickly with the scene on the boat intercut in a pretty obvious attempt to misdirect the audience away from really processing what happens.

[–] Melton (5530) a month ago

Maybe Neil just opens the gate then hovers around the Protag as a human shield in case he gets shot (and he does, immediately)

[–] SlackerInc (1121) a month ago

Still doesn't address the problem of the bullet traveling in reverse.

[–] Melton (5530) a month ago

Why not?

[–] SlackerInc (1121) a month ago

How can he "block" a bullet from hitting someone (in regular forward speed) if for him, the bullet starts out already having hit them? Think about it.

[–] Melton (5530) a month ago

For Neil, who is inverted, the bullet explodes his head at the end of his activity.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) a month ago

Which doesn't make sense. The whole concept is fundamentally a nonstarter.

[–] Melton (5530) a month ago

Why not?

[–] SlackerInc (1121) a month ago

I've explained this over and over. But in short: according to the rules as described, to hit/push someone, you'd...have to move your hand close to them and pull it away quickly? (Even that doesn't really work.) Even to run or walk wouldn't work, if you are reversed, because that requires leverage and friction that doesn't work the same way in reverse.

Certainly the fight we saw between the Protagonist and his own reversed self is impossible.

Basically, you can name any action someone might take to try to have an effect on someone who is reversed from them, and I can describe why it doesn't make sense.

It's a cool concept if you don't really think about it. If you do think about it, it's just nonsensical. (Sorry to be a killjoy.)

[–] Melton (5530) a month ago

You haven’t killed any joy so no need to apologise, just sounds like you haven’t wrapped your head around the concept and it’s upsetting you.

You seem to be describing the actions of reversed people from a non-reversed perspective 🤷🏻‍♂️

All Neil had to do was hover in front of TP like a human shield and take the bullet.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 25 days ago

No, because think about it: from his reversed perspective, the bullet would go from already being in his body, back into the gun. How is he supposed to "hover" with an already lethal bullet wound?

[–] Melton (5530) 25 days ago

That’s from your perspective, not his.

[–] DavidM (908) a month ago

No, he is right, it's impossible an inverted and non inverted subjects interact, like in the Freeport fight, because simply when the non inverted person is about to hit and punch the inverted person this must have already received this impact, and the other way around, so it's simply a paradox.

In the case of Neil dying inverted, it can have sense just in the case that the non-inverted bullet shot by Volkov "unpierce" Neil's head and gets struck in his helmet, then Neil goes back and the bullet falls to the ground, so, in the inverted perspective of Neil, he was coming to the underground room, the bullet rises from the ground to his helmet, and then, just before (or after, in normal perspective) Volkov shots, Neil puts his head in front of him, so the bullet comes back to the gun, piercing Neil head and killing him in inverted way, although that is just a theory because the movie doesn't show it clearly.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 25 days ago

It doesn't show a lot of things clearly, because they just won't make sense. The way you described, with an exit wound and having the bullet go in reverse, is a little easier to swallow; but what about a bullet that can't go all the way through and just gets stuck in the head? You'd have to go in there with a bullet in your brain and then have it jump out of your head and back into the gun. Or what about someone with a knife? Etc. (I'm not really arguing with you, because clearly you see the problems better than others do.)

[–] DavidM (908) 25 days ago

No, the theory is the non-inverted bullet pierces the head of dead inverted Neil in the moment he rises from the dead from the regular perspective of time, unpiercing his head, but gets stuck in the helmet. Then, in regular time, Neil goes backward and the bullet falls to the ground.

About the non-lethal injuries, the movie shows in Freeport that non inverted TP stabs inverted TP with a knife, sending the injury to inverted TP past, so when they are in the cargo going back in time he starts feeling the injury, which gets bigger until non inverted TP, from the inverted perspective of time, unstabs him and makes the injury dissapear. That was a non serious injury so it goes to the past of the inverted subject, but the movie shows that lethal or at least more serious injuries always goes to the future of the subject, like the death of inverted Neil or when inverted Sator shots non inverted Kat with a inverted bullet in Tallin.

Nolan made up a crazy and counterintuitive new kind of time travel, but to his credit he did a good job showing the rules of it, although I think it needed a sequel to further explore this universe, something sadly I think will never happen, so I am afraid we will never see this time inversion again.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 20 days ago

I completely disagree with the idea that he did a good job showing the rules of it. If you think your first two paragraphs make a lick of sense, I don't know what to tell you.

[–] DavidM (908) 20 days ago

They have sense, but you have to understand first the rules of temporal inversion. As they say in the movie, you have to stop thinking in linear terms. if you want to understand the inversion of Tenet I recommend you very much this Youtube channel that explains every scene with 3D graphics:

https://www.youtube.com/@WelbyCoffeeSpill

Also, I made my own video video summarizing all the movie, hope you like it too hehe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRwuBWjmMEY&t=1s&ab_channel=FOTOGRAMASOCULTOS

[–] Melton (5530) 20 days ago

Yep, makes sense to me.

[–] DavidM (908) 20 days ago

Thanks, although I agree with him that a fight between an inverted and non-inverted subjects is beyond any logic, a total paradox. I even read Nolan's script, but it doesn't add much clarity hehe

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 19 days ago

I think Nolan is pretty conscious of not wanting viewers to think about it too hard. It's "fridge logic" at best.

[–] DavidM (908) 18 days ago

Have you seen the videos of that channel? You will see that not at all, he thought about the rules of time inversion veeeery well.

[–] SlackerInc (1121) 15 days ago

Good luck finding a physicist who would agree.

[–] DavidM (908) 14 days ago

¿? Who cares what science says, as a work of fiction it has to be coherent with the rules of the fantasy world it creates, and Nolan made a great and beautiful work creating that world, even if it's certainly impossible that an inverted subject interacts with a non inverted one. But in the depresdive current state of Hollywood, s blockbuster like this is a true gift.

[–] 123Guy (7838) 20 days ago

Some of the best fiction doesn't make sense, and I'm fine with that, as long as it is interesting and entertaining.

I'm glad this flawed movie exists at all. It's a fun, twisted ride. So, twisted, some people can't even seem to conceive it at all, and couldn't follow it. Nolan pushed and cross the line of understandability, now he knows where he CAN'T go with an audience. :D

[–] DavidM (908) 20 days ago

Totally agree. It's a flawed movie, but I'm glad it exists, just for the fact it creates a new kind of time travel I couldn't even conceive in my mind.

[–] 123Guy (7838) 20 days ago

Yeah! Was finally something new time travel wise. love that

[–] 123Guy (7838) 20 days ago