” Wait, but there, were they in the past or in the future? And the hero suddenly arranged all this from the future? How do balls that go upside down already work? Does the main character have a name? »
Many questions arise at the end of principle, Christopher Nolan’s last (somewhat unnecessarily) complex film. But in my feminist head, the one that stands out is “ Damn, WHY does Nolan keep trying to write female characters?! “.
Isn’t it time to stop the slaughter?
Kat, the wife of principleand domestic violence
Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) is the female lead of principle, which has two others: the scientist Laura (Clémence Poésy) and the arms dealer Priya (Dimple Kapadia). It’s Kat who takes the boss in the plot, and gives the protagonist a reason to take risks.
Problem : she’s a female character… mediocre. To feel good.
Writing about a woman who is a victim of domestic violence and locked in a relationship with influence, Nolan has the merit of dealing with a very real subject; the trouble is that he does it with thicker chords than the “Russian” accent of Kenneth Branagh (Sator, the villain of the film and Kat’s toxic husband).
Alice Rahmoun, co-founder of 1001 heroinesa platform aimed at highlighting women in culture, explains a to miss :
It’s important to show domestic violence in a very mainstream film…it still has to be realistic.
Well, the perpetrator of this violence is the film’s antagonist. To be identified as such, he must be dangerous in all areas of his life, even with his wife. Finally, this domestic violence serves to characterize the man like “really, really bad”, and not to give depth to the female character…
Furthermore, Sator is absolutely extraordinary, in the first sense of the word: he is a supervillain skilled in time travel, ready to sacrifice all of humanity. He in no way represents “real life” domestic violence.
Andrei Sator hits Kat: “ If I can’t have you, no one will If the answer lacks subtlety, the logic matches that which animates many perpetrators of domestic violence, except that it is generally unconscious – that is what makes it so terrifying…
As Alice Rahmoun observes, it’s good to see such an important theme represented in a work that reaches a very large audience. It’s not a question of denying Christopher Nolan’s probably laudable intentions, but it’s clear that the result is somewhat flawed by its lack of finesse.
And what about the moment Kat kills her husband… A feminist victory for a battered victim regaining control of her life? It could have been a possible reading, despite a tiny detail: the woman’s mission was precisely to KEEP Sator alive until she was told otherwise. breaking it down, Kat literally endangers all of humanity.
I’m not saying this is the message Christopher Nolan wanted to convey, but to portray a woman who risks the end of the world because she can’t contain her emotions is a bit too much of a cliché according to which our moods ( or even our hormones) (or even our periods) dictate our behavior, far from the legendary MALE RATIONALITY.
Mother Courage seen by Christopher Nolan
In 2010, the site specialized in cinema slashfilm retransmitted a reading of the female characters in Nolan’s films based on the “virgin and whore” dichotomy..
[Selon cette lecture], Nolan “fridges” his female characters, meaning he kills them “just to give the male hero a reason to suffer.” Women who are not killed, however, are often divided into “madonnas and whores”: he “separates women into the ultra ‘pure’ madonnas who can never be tainted by sexual intimacy, and the dirty whores who could never be wives or mothers.
There are few literal mothers in Christopher Nolan; even if he himself is a father, Kat is one of her rare forays into motherhood. And it is, at least, a half-hearted attempt.
A parent’s love for their child is a fascinating subject that the director has already brilliantly portrayed Interstellar (how can we forget the tears of the hero played by Matthew McConaughey when he watches the videos sent by his daughter?). With principlethe exercise is far from being as effective.
Kat’s obsession with her son becomes ridiculous; in my cinema, the audience groaned with exasperated laughter when, learning that all of humanity is doomed, he spells out ” Including my son “. Well yes, including your son, zozo, we’re talking about EVERYONE, get a little navel off… The actress’s acting is not necessarily up for discussion, it’s the joke that falls like a hair on the soup.
Another problem, we see Kat interacting with her son too little to deeply believe in the bond that unites them, and which leads her to remain in a toxic relationship in order not to lose him. But this, it’s a problem that plagues the entire film : None of the characters are deep enough for us to really empathize, and the emotional issues are overlooked at best.
Which brings us to the next point.
Kat of principlea screenwriting tool rather than a woman of flesh and blood
principle finds its climax, in terms of suspense, when the protagonist decides to risk his entire mission to go back in time with Kat, wounded by a “reverse” bullet, in order to save her. A very dangerous enterprise, which finds its roots in the love he feels for her – not necessarily in the romantic sense of the term, but in any case in the sense of a human bond strong enough to transcend the goal, which is also all about saving the world .
Worry ? This link is never really visible. The chemistry between the characters just doesn’t work ; the two friends interact too little for us to believe in this love that should justify such risk-taking. Alice Rahmoun, da 1001 heroinesanalyze this narrative pattern for madmoiZelle:
Why does the protagonist save Kat? In my opinion, Nolan plays here on a form of ambiguity, a timid subversion of codes.
His hero is not a James Bond who sleeps with every woman he meets in his path, of course. Also, he doesn’t have a sexual relationship with Kat, even once she’s done her mission. But it is no less a very classic diagram of a knight rescuing a damsel in distress.
The female lead spends a good portion of the film injured and stuck on a stretcher. She remains passive overall, she lets herself be led by the “good guys” or abused by the “bad guy”. When she acts, it’s when she “runs out of control” and kills her husband, endangering the hero’s mission…
The other women of principlemissed opportunities?
As mentioned above, Kat isn’t the only female character in principle, which has two more. They have the merit of filling traditionally non-feminine roles: one is a leading scientist, the other an arms dealer – Nolan even offers himself a weave player, since she uses her husband as cover while she is the one pulling the strings.
However, in Alice Rahmoun’s eyes, these female characters fall short of their potential.
As in many Nolan films, the three women in Tenet are alone: they never meet, they never speak to each other, they are isolated, distant from each other. They have no contact with each other and sometimes seem to have no contact with the outside world. Their only bond is through the protagonist.
I expected Laura, the scientist, to play a “madam science” role, head of gadgets, but in the end she directs the hero on his quest, then remains locked up within her own four walls while Neil (Robert Pattinson) stays the protagonist right-handed man.
As for the arms dealer, while the character itself is interesting, it falls a little flat: it also seems to serve only to advance him, and in an ending weave storm, we realize that it is the protagonist who, from the future, uses her. She had worked for him from the start! Too bad for a woman presented as free and independent of men…
Nolan and the women, a long shipwreck
principle it’s just the latest example of a screwed up female character written by Christopher Nolan.
Very few of his films feature “successful” (writing-wise) women; too often they are tools, fulfilling their role to advance the hero – necessarily male – and then disappearing, sometimes literally.
I remember thinking that to myself when I walked away Dunkirk : “ At least, given the historical period (WWII), Nolan didn’t force himself to include footwritten girls, and so much the better! “. Why force yourself to do something when you obviously can’t?
Cinema will be better the day when Christopher Nolan will focus on his strong point: romantic relationships between men.
Christopher Nolan and his bromance Beautiful
Who is THE character who weaves the strongest emotional bond with the protagonist of principle ? Who seems ready for anything for him, shows him verbal and non-verbal affection? Who, walking towards his death, delivers the film’s only truly touching moment?
Neil, the character played by Robert Pattinson.
And this isn’t the first time Christopher Nolan has done it: in StartThere bromance teasing between the characters of Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy) had given rise to many fanfiction warm as oiled.
Male duets are a recurring subject in Nolan’s work, both characterized by manly friendship (principle, Start) or a rivalry mixed with charm (Prestige, insomnia). His men vibrate for other menlove them, hate them, worship them, envy them with an intensity rarely granted to the heterosexual couples he writes.
Why do my own as the protagonist of principle Is he willing to risk everything for Kat when it’s clear he’d rather be willing to go through hell for Neil? Heteronormativity is a thing of the past: it’s time for Nolan to reckon with his strengths and devote himself entirely to stories of love, hate, friendship, filiation between boys.
His films already fail the Bechdel test, so you might as well go all out!
Do you like our articles? You will love our newsletters! Sign up for free on this page.
Source: Madmoizelle
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
