Introduction
Mission: Impossible II (2000) is a film about violence and rivalry, the good and the evil, and the competition between two men. The director John Woo is known for a transactional context in his movies since his cinematic output began with Hong Kong works and was transmitted into Hollywood action films. The analyzed motion picture explains the purpose of violence in works of this genre through the perspectives of manhood and masculinity. Behind the chaotic representation of actions, the filmmaker reveals a complex theme of hegemonic masculinity through the subtopics of a man’s heroism and nobility, rivalry, and male relationship with the help of different elements of the mise-en-scene.
Two Cultures in One Setting
The themes of masculinity and male bonding are important for Woo because they help unite two different cultures. The traditional Chinese values emphasize loyalty, compassion, fidelity, and righteousness, while classic Hollywood films involve active and goal-oriented heroes (Wang 5). The movie is a combination of two genres: action and adventure. The protagonist Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has a mission: to find and destroy a biological weapon – a disease known as ‘Chimera.’ The adventure side of the film is a long quest to conquer in order to complete this mission. The action aspect is to defeat the villain Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), who had stolen this weapon. John Woo’s films represent the combination of the East and West elements, complementing each other and distinguishing his works from other similar movies in the genre of action.
Since Woo began to create films for Hong Kong cinematography, he preserved some features of Chinese culture in his Hollywood works. According to Szeto, Woo reveals the themes and motifs of heroism “in a transactional context, targeting polities such as hegemonic masculinity, family, and nation” (72). In the analyzed movie, the author combined ultra-violence and aesthetic beauty, choreographed bullets and slow-motion fireballs, high angles, and extreme long shots to reveal the subjects of masculinity, rivalry, and male relationships. The action of the play rotates around the struggle between two men, one representing unmitigated evil and one of absolute good. The director tried to add ritual meaning to his work, separating human sin from grace associated with a hero and an antihero. Ethan is an embodiment of a noble, heroic, and beautiful man, while Sean is associated with greed, brutality, and horror. All actions in the film occur around these two male characters, thus emphasizing the role of men in society.
The Role of Mise-en-Scene
The opening scene establishes a noble and heroic image of the protagonist through the mise-en-scene. Thus, the setting is a hazardous place presented by a man climbing rocks on high cliffs and using no safety nets. Ethan is the only person visible in the shot, denoting that he will be the main hero who will need to complete the mission. Natural lighting creates a sense of reality and makes viewers worry about the protagonist’s life while watching his risky motions. Ethan’s nobility and bravery can be seen in the establishing shots. The long shot demonstrates how he interacts calmly with the cliff, enjoying this hazardous activity. A high-angle image signifies the character’s vulnerability and danger, depicting him as a small creature in a huge universe ready to swallow him. Medium shots and close-ups of the hero’s hands and eyes allow the viewers to see his strength and confidence, enhancing his hegemonic masculinity. Each element of the mise-en-scene indicates that Ethan is a strong and noble man, ready to complete even an impossible mission.
Male Relationships
The subtopic of rivalry revealed through the images of Ethan and Sean helps better comprehend male relationships in the film. Woo uses an opposition between two male characters to “redefine the good and evil sides of masculinity” and emphasize the competition between them (Ortega 197). They feud over the same woman, the secret virus, and the right to survive. For example, the scene where Sean and Ethan hold one another at gunpoint, trying to reach the top-secret virus lying on the floor between them, denotes the hidden characteristics of the men. Here, the viewers realize that Nyah has once betrayed Sean, but she is forced to return when Ethan asks her to help him.
In this scene, when Ethan and Sean fight against each other for the hypo, one can see the attitude of the villain toward his girlfriend. He treats her as a toy, a monkey who will not loosen a branch until she grips another limb. Thus, Sean sends Nyah (Thandie Newton) to pick up the hypo, risking her life to achieve his greedy goal. In contrast, Noah does not shoot because he loves Nyah and does not elevate his mission over nobility and love. In this scene, the playwright motivates the situation, making it well integrated into the film narrative (Higgins 80). This moment makes viewers feel drawn to Ethan more than ever and antagonizes Sean.
A male relationship is important in all of Woo’s films, and Mission: Impossible II is not an exception. The director portrays a “twisted friendship/brotherhood relationship” between the male characters in the motion picture (Wang 5). Despite the rivalry between the protagonist and antagonist, they have many similarities, thus immutably linking to each other. For instance, they interact in a homosocial world where rivals share women, who further betray the imprudent (Arjet 2). The competition unites the men through the violence they use against each other. Moreover, their violence makes it possible to replace a good guy with a bad guy, and no one will notice it. For example, in the scene where Dr. Nekhorvich is on board with his friend, supposed to be Ethan, the character peels off his smiling face, turning out to be the villain. This scene demonstrates that both characters can act similarly, and strangers will not notice the difference.
One more moment when characters change their faces is when Ethan is trying to steal the samples of Chimera and its antidote. However, in this episode, Ethan disguises his face, pretending to be Sean’s best friend and right-hand man, Hugh Stamp (Richard Roxburgh). Ethan observes Sean killing Hugh, thus demonstrating that he is not better than his enemy. At the same time, a close-up shot of Sean’s face helps viewers better comprehend the man’s feelings when he unmasks his dead pal. Despite his vicious nature, Sean has a strong sense of fidelity and friendship, and this feature makes him similar to Ethan. In such a way, the director tried to emphasize the significance of the traditional Chinese values for all men, either good or evil. The only thing that affects the characters’ behavior is their inner essence: a hero is motivated by a good mission, while a villain wants money and glory.
Violence as a Sign of Hegemonic Masculinity
Violence is another important element in the movie, and Woo depicts it in a highly aestheticized way. Slow-motion shots represent fights in a breathtaking manner, encouraging viewers to get across the themes of friendship, loyalty, and hegemonic masculinity through violence. For example, in the scene where Ethan and Sean ride motorcycles and then continue their battle on land, the director uses many slow-motion shots to emphasize violence. This visual effect helps create a sense of inherent morality in the protagonist’s actions and underlines his heroism in the end. Moreover, Woo’s visual representation of ferocity is what differentiates his films from other similar Hollywood movies. In Western cinematography, Woo’s works are labeled as “heroic bloodshed,” emphasizing the role of violence in male relationships (Ortega 202). In a sexist society, cruelty enlivens the type of relations between two men, making them either contest against each other or unite and fight against their enemies.
Conclusion
Having analyzed the film Mission: Impossible II, directed by John Woo, one can conclude that its main subject is hegemonic masculinity and male relationship. The director uses different elements of the mise-en-scene to reveal this theme and make the viewers comprehend it through rivalry and violence. Woo preserves his Hong-Kong all-male world in this Hollywood movie, adjusting it to American viewers with the help of fierce slow-motion actions and adventures on the screen. Different camera angles, natural lighting, close-ups, and other constituents of the mise-en-scene create a unified image of the good and the evil, friendship and rivalry, hero and antihero. An effective combination of different cultures in one setting makes the movie unique and special, reflecting the above-mentioned issues through diverse perspectives.
Works Cited
Arjet, Robert. “Mission: Impossible II.” Journal of Religion and Film, vol. 4, no. 2, 2000, pp. 1-3.
Higgins, Scott. “Suspenseful Situations: Melodramatic Narrative and the Contemporary Action Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, 2008, pp. 74-96.
Ortega, Vicente Rodriguez. “Homoeroticism Contained: Gender and Sexual Translation in John Woo’s Migration to Hollywood.” Gender Meets Genre in Postwar Cinemas, edited by Christine Gledhill, University of Illinois Press, 2012, pp. 191-202.
Szeto, Kin-Yan. “Facing Off East and West in the Cinema of John Woo.” The Marital Arts Cinema of the Chinese Diaspora. Southern Illinois University Press, 2011, pp. 71-97.
Wang, Mengshu. “The Construction of Justice in John Woo’s Films: Culturally Specific or Ethically Universal?” The Asian Conference on Media & Mass Communication, 2016. Web.