Mission: Impossible (1996)
Directed by: Brian De
Palma.
Written by: David Koepp and Robert
Towne and Steven Zallian based on the television series created by Bruce Geller.
Starring: Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jon
Voight (Jim Phelps), Emmanuelle Béart (Claire), Henry Czerny (Kittridge), Jean
Reno (Krieger), Ving Rhames (Luther), Kristin Scott Thomas (Sarah Davies), Vanessa
Redgrave (Max), Ingeborga Dapkunaite (Hannah), Rolf Saxon (CIA Analyst William
Donloe), Karel Dobrý (Matthias), Emilio Estevez (Jack Harmon), Marcel Iures (Alexander
Golitsyn).
It was
fairly early in my re-watch of Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible that a
realization struck me as to how different blockbuster filmmaking has become in
the 22 years since the film was made. This had nothing to do with the so called
dated aspects of the film – but they are certainly noticeable when they break
out what is considered top of the line technology that looks positively
antiquated now, or the way they use this thing called “the internet”. It has
more to do with the style of the film altogether. No studio today would hire a
director as idiosyncratic in terms of style as Brian De Palma to make a film
this today. While my memory of the film is that it was an impersonal film for
De Palma – a paycheque film if you will – the reality is there are quite a few
stylistic hallmarks of De Palma on display in the film. I’m not going to argue
that the film is as personal to him as some of his others – it isn’t – but it’s
still a Brian De Palma film, just one that also meets the demands of the summer
blockbuster.
This is
noticeable fairly early in the film. After the first mission at a big party
goes horribly wrong – and Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) watches as his entire team is
killed, there is a meeting between him and Kittridge (Henry Czerny), in which
De Palma employs some bizarre angles to goose up their conversation. They are
disorienting and strange, adding visual interest to a scene that is just the
two of them talking, even as we know Hunt is planning something, and Czerny
doesn’t (those angles allow us to see exactly what he is doing under the table,
without the boring insert shot that would normally be required.
There are
two, even better, sequences where this is even clearer. The first is the most
famous scene of the film – Hunt breaking into a secure room at CIA headquarters
in Langley to steal the NOC list from a computer. This isn’t really an action
sequence per se – it’s much more of a heist sequence like the infamous one from
Riffifi – which outdoes even this most quiet sequence in that it has no
dialogue for a full half hour. This is why you hire De Palma for a movie like
this – as it is a visually complex scene, with many movie parts and logistical
challenges that have to pulled off effortlessly, and you have to build the
tension purely through those visuals – and CGI isn’t an option. It’s one of the
more complicated set pieces of De Palma’s career – and he pulls it off
effortlessly. Even better, although simpler, is a scene late in the film in
which a character (I won’t spoil) tells Hunt his version of events – but as we
listen to what is being said, we see what Hunt is thinking – as he puts
together the reality of what happened, and exposes the lies he is currently
being told. It’s a perverse reveal that Hitchcock would envy.
Those
scenes, in a way, stand out in the film because for the most part, no matter
how expertly executed the film is, it does meet your expectations for action
filmmaking from the 1990s. The action climax – involving a train, a helicopter
and a tunnel, has justly become famous (even if, watching in 2018, you can more
readily see the seams in the visual effects that you probably would have in
1996). Cruise is in full movie star mode here – and he does it quite well. Hunt
is missing a little bit of the cynical edge he would gradually get – but that’s
understandable, because here he’s an idealist who has yet to become
disillusioned – it will happen by the end though. It’s a little disappointing
how the rest of the cast is used though – as none really stand out. The most
egregious example is poor Emmanuelle Béart, who is supposed to be the wife of
Hunt’s mentor (played by Jon Voight) – although the 25 year age difference
between the two is apparent, and even if it was done to also make her a
believable love interest for Hunt, it’s still distracting (also distracting in
2018? The way Beart superficially resembles Voight’s daughter, Angelina Jolie).
In many ways, so much of the story hinges on her character, and yet the movie
gives her nothing to work with. Henry Czerny’s Kittridge, who the movie expends
so much energy convincing you is the bad guy you know he cannot possibly be the
bad guy, is also too one note. Jon Voight himself fairs better – although I do
think his big speech is way too obvious.
Still
though, I was surprised by how good I thought the majority of Mission
Impossible was. I had it in my mind that it was minor De Palma – a brainless
action film, but it’s a stylish, muscular entertainment that has more patience
than any film of its size today would even dream of having. It makes me a
little sad that De Palma almost immediately squandered whatever cache the film
gave him with Snake Eyes (which brilliant opening shot aside isn’t very good)
and Mission to Mars (which would be the worse film of De Palma’s resume if
Redacted didn’t exist). I sometimes think we can be too hard on modern
blockbusters – thinking that the die had been cast decades ago, and it’s just
following on its path. Seeing this film though, you realize just how far most
of them have fallen – how visually uninteresting they are - how they mistake
rapid fire editing, shaky cameras and CGI for style. De Palma knew better in
1996 – and I wish more blockbusters would follow his example.
No comments:
Post a Comment