Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   General Movie Discussion (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996). (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=62034)

ironpony 08-03-20 06:00 AM
Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
In the movie there is part of the plot I don't understand.

WARNING: "SPOILER" spoilers below
Jim Phelps fakes his own death by pretending to shoot himself and then covering himself in blood to seen on camera, then pretends to foall into the river.

However, if he faked his death, then why did he turn around to see if someone is behind him before. He actually turns around and looks legitimately scared when he says into his radio that someone is following him. Why would he turn around and look actually scared, if it was all a lie done by him?

Takoma11 08-03-20 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2113942)
In the movie there is part of the plot I don't understand.

WARNING: "SPOILER" spoilers below
Jim Phelps fakes his own death by pretending to shoot himself and then covering himself in blood to seen on camera, then pretends to foall into the river.

However, if he faked his death, then why did he turn around to see if someone is behind him before. He actually turns around and looks legitimately scared when he says into his radio that someone is following him. Why would he turn around and look actually scared, if it was all a lie done by him?
WARNING: spoilers below
I think it's reasonable to assume that he's fully acting the part as much as he can, just in case someone is watching or there is surveillance that he doesn't know about. Talking into the radio is important because he is setting the stage for his deception. After all, if the plan doesn't go perfect and other team members survive, he doesn't want to tip his hand.

Yoda 08-03-20 11:47 AM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
Why assume that isn't part of the act? And even if it isn't, why not assume that a secret agent about to fake his own death might have reason to look around, concerned he was being seen? Totally perplexed that this is even a question.

Takoma11 08-03-20 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2113992)
Why assume that isn't part of the act? And even if it isn't, why not assume that a secret agent about to fake his own death might have reason to look around, concerned he was being seen? Totally perplexed that this is even a question.
To be fair, sometimes in films we are shown something as an audience that is intended purely to mislead us. A character (seemingly on their own) will behave in a way that we later learn doesn't make sense.

For example, I watched a film where you later learned that someone was faking blindness. But we were shown at least two scenes where it made ZERO SENSE for the person to have been acting blind.

But in Mission Impossible, I think it's reasonable to say that any spy would act their part and never make the assumption that no one is watching. I don't think that the movie is "cheating" by showing this behavior.

The Rodent 08-03-20 12:21 PM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
Yeah I always took it as Jim fully acting the part. If you're gonna fake your death, do it properly.
Also, with him looking around, he's also checking that there's no witnesses to his fakery.

I remember though when I saw the movie as a kid, the revealing scene of Jim, and what he did, was simply a re-enactment in Ethan's mind.
During that scene, we see Ethan imagining Jim crawling out of the canal and hitting the button to blow up the car... then we see Ethan imagining another scenario of Claire pressing the detonator.
Jim might not have actually done it in the way that is shown, but something close to what we're shown. What we're seeing is Ethan's imagined version of what Jim did.

All conjecture... but yeah, acting scared, looking round... picking up his pace... it's all part of an act to fake his own death.

Yoda 08-03-20 12:31 PM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
Like, man, I look around me before crossing the street or if I hear a meaningless noise behind me. This dude's a spy in the middle of faking his own death as part of a conspiracy.

This is just more of the "question reflex" we've come to know and...know.

AgrippinaX 08-03-20 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2114007)
To be fair, sometimes in films we are shown something as an audience that is intended purely to mislead us. A character (seemingly on their own) will behave in a way that we later learn doesn't make sense.
But surely that’s often bad plotting/world-building? I could see how it works the other way around (i.e. behaviour makes sense later) but unless it’s something to do with someone going mad (I’m thinking Brilliant Mind), how could behaviours not making sense post factum work?

I’m personally not fond of most examples of ‘misleading the audience’; it often feels like cheating - take the worst case like Haute Tension, which is kind of parodied in Adaptation - ‘There’s a sequence where the cop chases a suspect and they’re the same guy’. That’s what happens at the end when we’re misled at the beginning. To me it very often feels like messed-up plotting, though maybe that’s a strong opinion.

For example, I watched a film where you later learned that someone was faking blindness. But we were shown at least two scenes where it made ZERO SENSE for the person to have been acting blind.
Can you tell me what film this is - PM or spoiler-tag?

ynwtf 08-03-20 12:46 PM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
off topic, but @Takoma11 and @AgrippinaX

I enjoy reading both of your comments in general. Referencing examples to support your views on whatever topics you both reply to is refreshing and encourages me to both be a bit more respectful when I reply (or at least to try, though that rarely happens), and to seek out movies that I might not have watched otherwise, if only to experience whatever scene you cite. I am glad you both are posting and I hope you both stick around for a long time. That's not to take away from this thread at all. I've been meaning to comment for a while, just I happen to catch you both here, now, in the same thread so figured I might as well derail for a moment. That's also not to take away from other, more senior, users' posts!! I hope it goes without saying that I respect that as well. But as relatively newer accounts, I wanted to offer this sort of compliment.

Thanks, and keep it up.

Takoma11 08-03-20 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2114012)
But surely that’s often bad plotting/world-building? I could see how it works the other way around (i.e. behaviour makes sense later) but unless it’s something to do with someone going mad (I’m thinking Brilliant Mind), how could behaviours not making sense post factum work?
Oh, it's definitely bad plotting. Sometimes films will do this and just rely on the audience not remembering those little moments. I'm not saying it's okay to do, I'm just saying that sometimes movies will intentionally put in misleading moments, especially to hide a twist.

Heck, there's a film where a killer is clearly seen (wearing a mask) and it's super obvious that he has blue eyes. In fact, the eyes are distinctly those of an actor in the film. But later the killer is revealed to be a different character (with brown eyes!). I was confused and did research and learned that in order to "keep the killer a secret" they actually had the other actor play the killer in several scenes. To me, this is garbage. And they never explained the eye color discrepancy (and frankly the body-build discrepancy). Not even a line about contact lenses or something.

I’m personally not fond of most examples of ‘misleading the audience’; it often feels like cheating - take the worst case like Haute Tension, which is kind of parodied in Adaptation - ‘There’s a sequence where the cop chases a suspect and they’re the same guy’. That’s what happens at the end when we’re misled at the beginning. To me it very often feels like messed-up plotting, though maybe that’s a strong opinion.
In defense of Haute Tension,
WARNING: spoilers below
the film is highly subjective to the point of view of the main character, and she is clearly suffering from some serious delusions. So while I was kind of mad about the end of the film (and think that one or two parts actually don't make sense), I give it a slight pass because clearly her view of events is from this fractured perspective.



Can you tell me what film this is - PM or spoiler-tag?
I might have mentioned it here before. The film is called
WARNING: spoilers below
In Darkness. A blind woman "witnesses" a murder and then the killer comes after her. There's a sequence where she's sitting and she drops something on the floor that would give her away to some dangerous people. No one is looking at her. She blindly gropes for the object when she could have just looked down. When you later find out that she's faking, this scene takes on a lot of absurdity. Her back was to the other people, so even if they looked at her, they wouldn't know that she was glancing at the floor. The film does this to build tension (and I'd suspected she might not be blind, but this scene made me be like "She must be blind! Otherwise she's a moron!"), but it's a total cheat.

There are other scenes (like when she's alone in her apartment bathroom) that are similar. In those you could argue that she's making herself keep up the illusion so that she won't mess up when she is in front of people. I could give it a mild pass. But the sequence with the dropped object is inexcusable.

AgrippinaX 08-03-20 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by ynwtf (Post 2114018)
off topic, but @Takoma11 and @AgrippinaX

I enjoy reading both of your comments in general. Referencing examples to support your views on whatever topics you both reply to is refreshing and encourages me to both be a bit more respectful when I reply (or at least to try, though that rarely happens), and to seek out movies that I might not have watched otherwise, if only to experience whatever scene you cite. I am glad you both are posting and I hope you both stick around for a long time. That's not to take away from this thread at all. I've been meaning to comment for a while, just I happen to catch you both here, now, in the same thread so figured I might as well derail for a moment. That's also not to take away from other, more senior, users' posts!! I hope it goes without saying that I respect that as well. But as relatively newer accounts, I wanted to offer this sort of compliment.

Thanks, and keep it up.
Thanks @ynwtf, on my part it’s because I write for a living, not that everyone has to reference everything. But I think it’s helpful, makes it easier for others to seek something out if they want to watch it based on the discussion.

I always enjoy talking to you @Takoma11.

Takoma11 08-03-20 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by ynwtf (Post 2114018)
off topic, but @Takoma11 and @AgrippinaX

I enjoy reading both of your comments in general. Referencing examples to support your views on whatever topics you both reply to is refreshing and encourages me to both be a bit more respectful when I reply (or at least to try, though that rarely happens), and to seek out movies that I might not have watched otherwise, if only to experience whatever scene you cite. I am glad you both are posting and I hope you both stick around for a long time. That's not to take away from this thread at all. I've been meaning to comment for a while, just I happen to catch you both here, now, in the same thread so figured I might as well derail for a moment. That's also not to take away from other, more senior, users' posts!! I hope it goes without saying that I respect that as well. But as relatively newer accounts, I wanted to offer this sort of compliment.

Thanks, and keep it up.
Thanks, friend! I really appreciate the kind welcome from several posters and some of the good conversations we've already had.

Takoma11 08-03-20 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2114020)
I always enjoy talking to you @Takoma11.
https://media.giphy.com/media/BH6hsg6SpqEg0/giphy.gif

AgrippinaX 08-03-20 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2114019)
Heck, there's a film where a killer is clearly seen (wearing a mask) and it's super obvious that he has blue eyes. In fact, the eyes are distinctly those of an actor in the film. But later the killer is revealed to be a different character (with brown eyes!). I was confused and did research and learned that in order to "keep the killer a secret" they actually had the other actor play the killer in several scenes. To me, this is garbage. And they never explained the eye color discrepancy (and frankly the body-build discrepancy). Not even a line about contact lenses or something.
This is crazy. But then there’s the already-notorious and charming Netflix creation The Open House where the audience literally. Doesn’t. Get. To know. Who the killer is.

Ever.

In defense of Haute Tension,
WARNING: spoilers below
the film is highly subjective to the point of view of the main character, and she is clearly suffering from some serious delusions. So while I was kind of mad about the end of the film (and think that one or two parts actually don't make sense), I give it a slight pass because clearly her view of events is from this fractured perspective.
Fair enough. I get the ‘subjective POV’ defence. But there’s a scene where the male truck-driver killer (whatever he is, Cecile’s mental avatar?)
WARNING: spoilers below
does something unsavoury to a victim’s head, while Cecile and the other girl played by Maiwenn (sorry, been a decade since I last saw it) are in a completely different place. This is in the beginning, quite hard to justify as she must have committed the murder and done the unsavoury thing with the head herself...


I do agree that I guess one suspends disbelief.

I might have mentioned it here before. The film is called
WARNING: spoilers below
In Darkness. A blind woman "witnesses" a murder and then the killer comes after her. There's a sequence where she's sitting and she drops something on the floor that would give her away to some dangerous people. No one is looking at her. She blindly gropes for the object when she could have just looked down. When you later find out that she's faking, this scene takes on a lot of absurdity. Her back was to the other people, so even if they looked at her, they wouldn't know that she was glancing at the floor. The film does this to build tension (and I'd suspected she might not be blind, but this scene made me be like "She must be blind! Otherwise she's a moron!"), but it's a total cheat.

There are other scenes (like when she's alone in her apartment bathroom) that are similar. In those you could argue that she's making herself keep up the illusion so that she won't mess up when she is in front of people. I could give it a mild pass. But the sequence with the dropped object is inexcusable.
I’m so going to watch this.

ironpony 08-03-20 02:55 PM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
Oh okay, so he's putting on the act just in case he is being watched. But if he is being watched, whoever is watching him, will see that she fakes shoot himself. So what's the point of putting on the act when being watched, if that person is going still see that it's all faked anyway?

Yoda 08-03-20 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2114074)
Oh okay, so he's putting on the act just in case he is being watched. But if he is being watched, whoever is watching him, will see that she fakes shoot himself. So what's the point of putting on the act when being watched, if that person is going still see that it's all faked anyway?
Uh, if he sees he's being watched he...won't...shoot himself right then?

Come on man.

ironpony 08-03-20 03:07 PM
Re: Question about the plot to Mission: Impossible (1996).
 
Well what I mean is no one is watching him really though, so why bother to turn around, pretending to look all scared, when no one can see him? If he thinks someone may be watching and he is doing it just in case, then why go through with the fake death at all, since if someone is watching, they will see that it is faked anyway?

Takoma11 08-03-20 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2114058)
This is crazy. But then there’s the already-notorious and charming Netflix creation Open House where the audience literally. Doesn’t. Get. To know. Who the killer is.

Ever.
The killer in Open House
WARNING: spoilers below
(who I guess is just a random dude who does this to people?)
is disappointing/annoying, but it's not actually a plot hole. To me that's a little lazy, but it's not quite as bad as intentionally misleading the audience.

Fair enough. I get the ‘subjective POV’ defence. But there’s a scene where the male truck-driver killer (whatever he is, Cecile’s mental avatar?)
WARNING: spoilers below
does something unsavoury to a victim’s head, while Cecile and the other girl played by Maiwenn (sorry, been a decade since I last saw it) are in a completely different place. This is in the beginning, quite hard to justify as she must have committed the murder and done the unsavoury thing with the head herself...
I think that there are one of two explanations. I don't LOVE either of them, but I think it can make sense if:

WARNING: spoilers below

1) The part with the van is just in her head. She's actually in the car with her friend, but fantasizing about what she's going to do.

2) (This is the one I'm partial to) She's actually not in the car. She's imagining herself in the car, but she's actually in the van. She's followed her friend home in the van. Among other things, this explains how the van actually got there.


I’m so going to watch this.
It's not horrible. It's just aggressively . . . average.

AgrippinaX 08-03-20 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2113942)
In the movie there is part of the plot I don't understand.

WARNING: "SPOILER" spoilers below
Jim Phelps fakes his own death by pretending to shoot himself and then covering himself in blood to seen on camera, then pretends to foall into the river.

However, if he faked his death, then why did he turn around to see if someone is behind him before. He actually turns around and looks legitimately scared when he says into his radio that someone is following him. Why would he turn around and look actually scared, if it was all a lie done by him?
I’m so confused by this. Maybe he’s good at ‘acting’ and looks scared deliberately... it’s a bit like Gone Girl where
WARNING: spoilers below
she moves the cameras around the house and makes it look like Desi raped her using red wine etc.
Maybe it’s image/perception manipulation. Maybe he thought if he looked scared, his suicide would look more authentic. I’m getting more confused as I type.

ynwtf 08-03-20 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2114078)
Uh, if he sees he's being watched he...won't...shoot himself right then?

Come on man.
slipping ever closer to the Daaah'k Sy-eeed(uh)!




you really don't have to acknowledge this post. I recognize my low bar in humor lately, and I'm OK with that.

Yoda 08-03-20 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2114085)
Well what I mean is no one is watching him really though, so why bother to turn around
Because he doesn't know until he looks?

I have no idea what's confusing about this. I really don't. At this point the questions feel like pure compulsion. I'm closing this thread.


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums