James Bond and Mission Impossible: an exhaustive comparison

What makes a perfect action film?

The Great Train Robbery (1903) is considered to be the first action film of all time by many historians. The objects in ‘action’ were subsequently swords and knives, and action as a genre was associated much more closely with ‘adventure’.

By the early 1960s however, Sean Connery, by starring in Dr. No (a film adaptation of the 1958 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming) had entrenched in the minds of the modern audiences our contemporary understanding of action-espionage; a dapper secret agent dealing in danger and disappearances, a masculine icon, a notorious womanizer.

The decades since have warranted venerable changes in the writing and execution of such film- this modernization is apparent in the James Bond franchise, beginning with 2002’s Die Another Day and extending to the latest installment of No Time To Die. The changes are essentially imperceptible, as they have taken place in tandem with the changing times- the new audiences see them simply as ‘normal’. The way the films deal with their attitude towards women poses a particularly evident example of the changing attitude towards discrimination through the decades. The films have been so bold as to point out their own imperfections, sometimes as a way even of forwarding character development, such as when Bond’s boss M rebuked his sexist tendencies as early as 1995’s GoldenEye.

“I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War.”

This is the paradox of the Bond franchise: it must move with the times, for if it doesn’t it will become a period piece; at the same time if it moves too much it risks being deviated from the very spirit that draws it- the revered British Empire and the chain of command that runs it.

The directors and producers of the franchise, therefore, toe a delicate line- it is the magnificence, massive scale, and borderline impossibility of the events of the Bond films that lures millions of spectators to the cinema. This, for the audience, is essentially a trade-off in terms of the movie-going experience- they admit that these events are brilliant, and incredible, but have to acknowledge that they are basically not real. The films are good because they aren’t real.

Although several decades later, this ultimately led to the dawn of a new category of action-espionage: one that was not restrained by an obligation to give deference to proto-filmmaking symbols and figures. There emerged, led by none other than Tom Cruise himself; the Mission: Impossible franchise.

This franchise marked in the history of Hollywood action films a turning point, a withdrawal from the image of a peerless spy guided only by the aim to serve the Crown- a revolution of sorts. The new protagonist, much like the people watching the film, is motivated by emotions, values and sometimes even petty grudges. He is not entirely like the common folk, because he is every bit of the crude mastermind that was James Bond- but he is a three-dimensional character who feels sentiments and allows these sentiments to influence his decisions and actions.

This in turn makes him infamously unpredictable to both the character and viewers, adding an aspect to his personality that increases the depth of the plots and the engagement of the audience. Tom Cruise (playing Ethan Hunt) is a torchbearer of this genre, as much the character as the character is him. As a co-producer and director on the last few installments, he allows his views and tendencies, honed by decades in the industry, to leak into the man he plays- thus making Ethan Hunt a product of what a spy is and what a spy is expected to be.

Another unique feature of the Mission Impossible franchise is that it is not afraid to be bold and do something termed ‘impossible’. Every single stunt in the latest films Rogue Nation and Fallout has been practically performed without green screens. Tom Cruise’s imagination knows no bounds- from leaping off roofs and hills, hanging onto flying planes, crashing cars Paris and helicopter hijinks you wouldn’t have seen in anyone else’s wildest dreams, to designing unique camera systems to shoot high speed bike chases. His tenacity is, in a way, a blessing to lovers of the genre- Cruise is in a niche position where he has the resources and connections to make such stunts reality, as well as the drive to make films like no one else is making them today.

The public has clearly displayed its preference in the form of box office earnings over the years- the James Bond franchise has grossed $7 billion in over the span of half a century and 25 films. Mission Impossible has made $4 billion in half that time over just 6 films.

The reason for this, besides the aforementioned expansion of character, can also be attributed to the consequent believability of the set-pieces and action sequences in the franchise. There are no futuristic gadgets that can solve problems instantaneously, and this paired with the lack of visual effects is enough to convince the audience that somewhere, somehow an Ethan Hunt may be jumping off a building right now. In addition, the Mission films are obviously more liberal in their approach to female characters and their motivations.

Therein lies the deduction- James Bond is classic in a way that Mission Impossible is not- and for the same reason Mission can afford to be improbable where Bond is impossible. Is it not incorrect to state that modern cinema needs both- a balance between the old and new is preferable and essential. An extremely technologically advanced film will be fantasy rather than action, and one using spears and canons will be a historical account.

Often, classics such as Bond serve as inspiration in the minds of creators of more contemporary pieces, including Mission. The opera scene in 2008’s Quantum of Solace is visibly discernable as the direct inspiration for the Vienna sequence of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation. Watching one of these scenes reminds the viewer instantly of the other; at the same time, the two pieces are radically different in terms of both plot development and course of events.

To conclude, comparing Bond and Mission is like contrasting ballet and hip-hop: personal preferences aside, they are so absolutely different that one cannot reasonably be termed better than another.