Of Action Films Who Respect Their Audience

            The Mission Impossible series has seemed to lend itself to those directors in a state of transition. With the exception of the first Brian DePalma directed vehicle, the series has seen John Woo use the second film as part of his transition from Hong Kong to Hollywood, and the third film saw J.J. Abrams make his transition from television to the big screen. It is fitting then that the fourth film in the series, subtitled Ghost Protocol, sees the entrance of Brad Bird, previously a director of animated films, into the world of live action. The film displays a maturity of form which might come as a surprise for a first time director in this field, but which should be to no surprise at all to those familiar with his work at Pixar.

            Despite the degradation in reputation that the tentpole blockbuster has undergone in recent years, Ghost Protocol is a film which respects its audience’s intelligence. Several capers are usually in play simultaneously, and the film has a habit of building up the tension in one of them, and then cutting away to a bit of parallel action during the other moment’s climax. Unlike the Transformers of the world, the film does not necessarily delight in showing us every detail of its action sequences, instead relying on the rhythms of the film itself to carry the audience along. Events sometimes happen on the edges of things, and the film has enough faith in his audience that it doesn’t feel the need to belabor these points.

            At one point, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has arrived at the party of powerful media mogul, whilst being tailed by a Russian agent. After the plot goes through its requisite machinations, the characters decide to make their escape. Hunt, who has been slinking around in the shadows on a terrace above the party, radios in his plans and makes his move to exit the frame. Down below, in the unfocused crowd of the party, another figure quickly exits the frame as well. While another film might feel the need to cut between the Russian and Hunt in sort of shot/reverse shot pattern (cutting to the shot of Hunt about to leave/cut to the Russian looking at him/cut to Hunt leaving/cut to Russian leaving), Bird has enough faith in the film to let everything play out uninterrupted, trusting that the audience can figure things out.

            The elegiac scenes set in Seattle near film’s end also play out in a similar way. As Hunt and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) reveal their secrets to each other, a series of shots from Hunt’s point of view goes unacknowledged until their very end (at which point any audience member should have figured things out) by anyone besides the audience. Renner’s character does not have to acknowledge and explicate what is going on, like he would in many films. Like much else in Ghost Protocol, from exposition, to editing, to action scenes, the film appears almost freed from providing an explanatory purpose for its events, the audience being respected enough to provide that themselves.

            This allows the world of the film to simply exist instead of having to be built, and while some of the exposition’s briskness might come from an assumed familiarity on the part of the series towards its viewers, the overall tone of the film suggests otherwise. The events that occur throughout are a means to their own end, and not to any others. The visceral joy of action and motion is what the film is concerned with, and there are few screen spectacles of the last year that are on par with it. Being freed from some of the structures of storytelling does not destroy the narrative, as the characters’ motivations come off as surprisingly effective. Bird shows that he can transition well to the live action world, and hopefully his future career will be able to reach the visual heights of this initial work.

Picture courtesy of  http://www.film.com/photos/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol/attachment/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-2#fbid=yAtvT6lsRux