The impossible plan

A SCENIC VIEW

Ving Rhames (from left), Jean Reno, Emmanuelle Beart and Tom Cruise in "Mission: Impossible."

Ving Rhames (from left), Jean Reno, Emmanuelle Beart and Tom Cruise in "Mission: Impossible."

To say Ethan Hunt of “Mission: Impossible” is a resourceful man is like saying water is wet. A spy is nothing if not quick, cunning and pro-active, and the A-types like Ethan are so appealing when at their best – doing their dangerous dirty work for queen and country, or in Ethan’s case, for president and country. In anticipation of the July 31 release of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation," I'm reflecting on one of my favorite scenes from the "Mission: Impossible" franchise.

What I like best about Hunt is how methodical he is. So many people are mesmerized by the action sequences, which are spectacular, but I care more about the cerebral aspects of “the game.” That is why the first “Mission: Impossible” (1996), directed by Brian DePalma, is my favorite. It is the most thoughtful film of the franchise, filled with the most mind games and compelling characters like Max, played with relish by Vanessa Redgrave, and rogue operative Krieger, played by Jean Reno. Some fans and critics complained that it was overly complicated, but it’s a criticism that seems silly nearly 20 years later when you compare its plot with other action thrillers. I would also argue that it has rather plausible scenarios for a spy film apart from that ridiculous, but riveting final action sequence with the helicopter in the train tunnel.

The most thrilling aspect of these kinds of films is the execution of “the great plan” – and this film’s scenes of discussing and executing a master plan rival any ever shot in terms of bravado and suspense. It begins with Ethan pitching his plan to the people he needs to execute it.

“Relax Luther - it’s much worse than you think.”
— Ethan Hunt in "Mission: Impossible"

Ethan has been disavowed from his spy agency, the IMF, because they believe he is a mole who has betrayed the agency, which is revealed in a great scene early in the film between Ethan and the head of the IMF played by Henry Czerny (“Kittredge, you’ve never seen me very upset.”). Claire, one of Ethan’s original team members played by Emmanuelle Béart, has joined him in recruiting a new team – just two more people – to pull a job that will enable Ethan to negotiate with the true mole and ideally bring him or her to justice.

Because they were operating outside of the IMF, Ethan and Claire had to pick people who are also disavowed – ex-operatives from the agency. They went with slick computer hacker Luther Stickell, played by Ving Rhames, and Krieger, the gruff, all-around handy guy who can get things and fly helicopters into tight places.

The quintessential scene in the movie is the vault scene – when Ethan is dangling in mid-air in a strategically secured vault at CIA headquarters trying to obtain the top secret file he needs to get out of the trouble he is in and potentially save the lives of all IMF undercover agents (by putting them at risk). But my favorite scene is the one that precedes the CIA headquarters shenanigans – the scene when Ethan describes their objective in his efforts to convince Luther and Krieger to do the job. It is a simple objective that requires a clever and meticulous plan to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds – that’s the formula. And you have to have a character like Ethan Hunt played by the pre-eminent superstar of his generation Tom Cruise to exude the confidence, charisma and, of course, skill to make the audience root for them to get the job done.

It is tightly shot in a train compartment with Ethan and Claire sitting across from Luther and Krieger as Ethan drops one devastating piece of news after another – we have to break into CIA headquarters, the vault we have to enter has temperature and pressure sensors and requires a code key we won’t have … It’s thrilling to hear him list everything they are up against as matter-of-factly as if he was describing how to change a tire and to see the expressions and utterances of shock and disbelief on Luther and Krieger’s faces as if they were watching a train wreck.

Yet with all the confidence of an A-type who knows he has planned everything to perfection, as well as wonderfully wry humor employed for good measure, Ethan convinces the guys to come along for the ride and assures them of their eventual success. When he says, “We’re going to do it,” at the end of the scene, he leaves no room for doubt. And when the “Mission: Impossible” theme kicks in right after his line and the scene shifts to Langley, Va., the excitement is all about seeing how they’re going to do it – not if. 

Fran Lebowitz on laziness

Originally posted on my Documentary page in May 2013. Reposted in honor of Fran Lebowitz's birthday (Oct. 27). 

I watched a documentary tonight about Fran Lebowitz called "Public Speaking" (2010). Martin Scorsese directed it. I had never heard of her before I read a review of this documentary in The New York Times earlier today. She's a modern day intellectual. I use the expression "modern day" because it's an archaic concept these days -- being an intellectual and that's all. It's typically tied to being a writer, and she is a writer. But she has not been prolific, and she hasn't written anything substantial in a long time. She basically just goes around speaking. She's a "wit," like Dorothy Parker, to whom she is often compared. It was a fascinating documentary, and she is or was friends with several people who inspire me, like Toni Morrison and James Baldwin. Anyway, she talked at one point about how lazy she's been -- that no one has been as lazy as she has as an artist. She mentioned how it was 1978 and then all of a sudden it was 2007, and she thought, "Gosh, I better get to work." I could identify with that. But what I really identified with was her reply when asked why she had procrastinated so long. She said that she had trouble with authority, including her own. It was good to hear that I'm not the only one who struggles with such inertia. I suppose it's not uncommon, though.

The tenuous correlation of Poirot and Hitchcock

David Suchet as Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot for Masterpiece Mystery on PBS

David Suchet as Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot for Masterpiece Mystery on PBS

Mysteries are wonderful because it is fascinating to see how people solve them. To determine what happened at a given place and time when you were not at that place at that time just by using deductive powers and whatever clues remain is amazing. And we are mesmerized by the exercise when it comes to crime solving. Why else are there so many best-selling books, top-rated TV shows and blockbuster movies devoted to whodunits, police procedurals and other thrillers?

In the last 100 years, two purveyors of mystery entertainment have stood out above the rest. They occupy two different mediums – writing and cinema, although there is some overlap for the writer. It’s the prolific writer Agatha Christie and the acclaimed filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock.

Apart from using different artistic means to share their genius, they also had a different modus operandi when it came to their stories. Christie, for the most part, trafficked in whodunits. While Hitchcock mostly revealed his killers upfront and took viewers through the paces of wondering how (or if) the killer or killers would be caught.

Public television’s Masterpiece Mystery! recently concluded its Poirot series based on Agatha Christie’s famous Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. Christie wrote 33 novels and numerous short stories about the fastidious super sleuth, and the PBS Poirot series produced adaptations of all 33 novels and some of the short stories over the last 25 years. One actor portrayed Poirot throughout the entire series – David Suchet. As an avid fan of Christies’ books who has read all of the Poirot novels, I think Suchet has done an admirable job of bringing Poirot to life – all his mannerisms and idiosyncrasies (and there are many). There were times when I was disappointed by the screenwriters’ choices, certain significant deviations from the books. But as a film fan, I’m used to literary adaptations being altered for various reasons, and I still enjoy the PBS adaptations very much – especially because of Suchet’s wonderful interpretation of one of my absolute favorite literary characters.

Robert Cummings (from left), Ray Milland and Grace Kelly in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"

Robert Cummings (from left), Ray Milland and Grace Kelly in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"

But as much respect as I have for Suchet’s work portraying Poirot, my favorite Suchet performance was when he played a very different detective in a movie remake of a Hitchcock film. It was his performance as a police detective named Mohamed Karaman in the 1998 thriller “A Perfect Murder,” a surprisingly good remake of Hitchcock’s 1954 “Dial M for Murder.”  It was surprising because, as film fans know, good remakes are hard to come by.

“A Perfect Murder” stars Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculously wealthy and seemingly happy married couple. She is having a steamy affair with Viggo Mortensen, so she’s no angel. Yet we favor her over her clearly money-obsessed, ruthless Wall Street tycoon husband – maybe because he’s a conniving killer vs. her being a conniving adulteress. Plus it’s hard not to root for young, attractive lovers to prevail over the older, fuddy-duddy, murderous husband. It was the same in Hitchcock’s original. Even though we learn of the wife’s affair with a mild-mannered novelist in the opening scene – played by Grace Kelly and Robert Cummings, it’s hard to like husband Ray Milland as soon as he reveals his plan to kill his wife, Kelly, in the following half-hour.

Suchet in "A Perfect Murder"

Suchet in "A Perfect Murder"

But back to Suchet. He’s wonderful as the detective in “A Perfect Murder” because he gives a quiet, insightful performance. It’s very different from his turn as Poirot because it is understated. Poirot is lovably boastful with many ticks and quirks to his personality that can be ostentatious. Detective Kamaran is clearly thoughtful, but you see the wheels turning in his mind without him having to say much. And the understanding between him and Paltrow as the wife/potential victim/suspect is lovely. They bond over language of all things. She is a U.N. translator and linguist who speaks many languages, including the detective’s native language of Arabic (I believe the character is Algerian), and she is able to convey her genuine interest in the detective’s private life concerns when she asks him about his sick child in his own language. These seemingly small nuances establish a connection that is important for the story.

In “Dial M for Murder,” the detective is played by the great character actor John Williams, who won a Tony award for his performance in the original Broadway stage production. It was quite a different part than the one in “A Perfect Murder,” of course, but both he and Suchet did the role of the detective proud in their respective efforts. Coincidentally (or maybe not), Williams gives what seems to be a nod to the great fictional detective Poirot at the end of "Dial M for Murder" when he combs his rather large mustache, which happens to be styled rather similarly to Poirot's famous mustache. 

So perhaps that's a direct connection between Poirot and Hitchcock. In any case, I salute Suchet at the end of his career as Poirot on television, and I hope that he continues to work portraying other detectives and more on the big and small screen.