3 Things Writers Can Learn From Mission: Impossible III
This breakdown includes spoilers for Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Mission: Impossible III may be the most underrated movie in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Overshadowed by Brad Bird’s Ghost Protocol and the phenomenal Christopher McQuarrie films that followed, M:I 3 is easily forgotten and rarely brought up in conversation. But while it’s clear that Ghost Protocol saved the franchise and set the new norm, JJ Abrams’ 2006 action flick did a lot of legwork toward the franchise’s future. It was the perfect entry to bridge the gap between the disappointing M:I 2 and the much better-received Ghost Protocol. But how does the film measure up in terms of writing? Critical characters such as Benji and Julia were both introduced here and Luther was given plenty of fun moments that developed his character for future installments. Ethan Hunt himself gets a ton of character development as he struggles with stakes that are more external. By having his wife on the line, M:I 3 raises the stakes to a personal level. I want to analyze this film from a writing perspective to see just how it delivers the most personal story of the Mission: Impossible franchise.
1. Having a Tense Opening
The first thing that writers can learn is having a tense opening. The opening scene after the title card does a lot to begin the movie, including setting up Ethan’s lip-reading abilities, showing the everyday life of a spy and how he lives in deception and establishing Ethan’s relationship with Julia. But if the movie had begun with this scene, it would have been an incredibly weak start. The reason is that there’s no conflict here. Even beyond that, this is a spy movie. People want spy stuff. There’s none of that here. And yet, it works because the film has given an incredibly engaging hook. By placing the scene where Davian threatens Julia at the beginning, the scene immediately following—and by extension, the rest of the movie—is ripe with tension. Because we know how these two characters end up, there’s a looming sense of dread that keeps us engaged. Similar to what I mentioned in my last video, the tactic employed here is akin to Alfred Hitchcock’s bomb theory. By telling the audience where the story will go, there’s a feeling of suspense and urgency. This pays off in three moments during the film. The first of which is Davian’s introduction. We see him for the first time during Ethan’s briefing, but thanks to the opening scene, we already know exactly who he is and what he’s capable of. The second payoff is when Davian threatens Julia on the airplane. Because we know what’s coming, we know that Davian’s threat isn’t a bluff. We’re aware that he’s fully capable of keeping his word and that, no matter what Ethan does, he’ll get the person Ethan loves most at the barrel of his gun. While this is all well and good for creating suspense, it would all fall flat if Julia actually died here. That’s another important part of Hitchcock’s bomb theory; the bomb must never go off. If the audience is left in suspense wondering what will happen only for the bomb to go off exactly as predicted, they’ll be left feeling cheated. Instead, what Mission: Impossible III does is make it look like the bomb has gone off until Musgrave reveals that Julia is alive. This reveal is much more powerful thanks to the opening scene. If we hadn’t been given the hook at the start, then the shock that Julia was alive would have been short-lived. It would have felt like a cheap trick—a fake-out death to serve a moment of shock. Instead, it delivers a moment of immense relief to the audience, who from the start of the movie had been wondering how Ethan was going to save Julia.
2. The Protagonist's Relationship to the Antagonist
The second thing that writers can learn from this film is the protagonist’s relationship to the antagonist. Davian is a great villain mostly because of his intimidating nature and his dynamic with Ethan. He’s the perfect antagonist to challenge Ethan and his principles because they stand on opposite ends of the moral spectrum. The way Ethan and Davian come to form a personal vendetta against each other just goes to show that the protagonist’s relationship to the antagonist is just as important as any other relationship in the story. Davian is menacing, intelligent and is able to stay collected while Ethan is on the precipice of losing control of his emotions. The next film, Ghost Protocol, unfortunately neglects its villains, but this film is elevated dramatically by Davian’s presence. While Davian doesn’t end up being the main antagonist at the end, he still carries the movie from start to finish. The fact that, as soon as he’s captured, an army of mercenaries shows up to free him tells the audience so much about how much power he has. I’m going to talk about the interrogation scene again because it’s one of the best of the movie. It shows just how much control Davian has over his present moment. Even though he’s the one in the chair, he has all of the power. When Ethan demands to know where the Rabbit’s Foot is, Davian isn’t having any of it. He angers Ethan enough to have Ethan threaten to throw him out of the plane, but Davian doesn’t care. He knows that Ethan won’t do it, and it works in his favour as he learns a lot about his enemy. This film has a stellar connection between its protagonist and antagonist, and when you add the third most important character to the film, you get a finale that’s much smaller in scale than any other in the franchise, yet is just as tense and compelling. In the climax of this movie, Ethan isn’t fighting to save the world. He’s fighting to save his wife, and yet it’s just as suspenseful as any other finale because of the dynamic between these three characters.
3. Make the Stakes Personal
The third thing that writers can learn here is to make the stakes personal. By having the stakes be personal, the audience is more invested in the protagonist’s journey and struggles, which makes every emotional beat ten times as effective. In this movie, Ethan is much more vulnerable, unstable and emotional. The opening scene does so much work in establishing his relationship with Julia, which is the most important relationship in the movie. From this scene and the one with Musgrave at the seven eleven, we get to know Ethan’s priorities and see that he cares about more than just his mission. If Ethan was accepting Musgrave’s mission simply because he’s a spy and wants to do his job, the audience would be unable to relate to him and there wouldn’t be much investment in his journey. But the only thing that can get him back into the field is the fear that his student, Lindsay Farris, is in danger. This emotional tension, while not perfectly normal to everyday life, is easier for the audience to relate to. It also makes it more devastating when she dies, especially with the added flashback scene where we see Ethan training Lindsay and how much he cared about her. On top of that, Lindsay’s death makes Ethan afraid of losing Julia, too. By showing the audience what Davian is capable of, it gets them—and Ethan—on the edge of their seats as we see just what Ethan stands to lose. This is apparent in the scene when he returns from the mission saddened. It’s a small scene and doesn’t forward the plot in any way, but it’s essential in building Ethan’s character. Without this scene, we wouldn’t see Ethan’s reaction to Lindsay’s death. He’s returned home to his fiancée, but we can see that he’s not as happy as he was earlier. This shows that his spy life is affecting his personal life, foreshadowing how the two worlds will soon collide.
But this is small potatoes compared to what happens later. Davian’s interrogation scene in the airplane is an incredible scene, and one of the many things it accomplishes is establish the stakes. Davian immediately threatens Julia’s life, meaning that the consequences of failure are higher than in any previous film. By that, I don’t mean external, plot-related stakes, but personal stakes. Because we can relate to Ethan worrying about someone he loves, personal stakes are significantly more powerful than plot-related stakes. This is how the writers of M:I 3 combine both the story and the plot into a cohesive narrative. Seeing Ethan desperate, willing to do whatever it takes to save Julia, is much more emotionally relatable and gets the audience invested in the story. And, of course, when the audience is invested in the story, every emotional punch is ten times harder.
I also want to talk briefly about the MacGuffin of the movie: the rabbit’s foot. I think that part of the reason for it not having an explanation is because of its insignificance to the story. The object itself is certainly valuable, but what it is doesn’t matter. Whether it’s a biological weapon or the source code for an all-powerful artificial intelligence program, it doesn’t affect Ethan and Julia’s story. The writers knew that the core of this film was their relationship and that the rabbit’s foot had no purpose beyond forwarding the plot. While J.J. Abrams’ mystery box MacGuffin not being explained annoys some people, I’ve never had a problem with it because it’s not what matters in this movie.
This is how Mission: Impossible III goes from just another bland action flick into a thrilling, character-driven and emotionally charged roller coaster. You can do the same in your writing by having a tense opening, giving priority to the relationship between your protagonist and your antagonist and making the stakes personal.
Comments