LESSONS FROM THE SCREENPLAY

COLLATERAL: THE MIDPOINT COLLISION

At first glance, Michael Mann’s 2004 thriller Collateral might seem like just another run-of-
the-mill action movie. But in between its action sequences lies a well-crafted story of
personal transformation over the course of a single, terrifying evening.
A cab driver, Max, is taken hostage by a hitman and forced to drive him around Los
Angeles as he eliminates the targets on his list. This set up puts the protagonist and the
antagonist in constant, direct conflict, allowing each of them to learn from each other.
And while you might not think that a ruthless murderer would be the best influence, as
screenwriter Stuart Beattie says: “The killer’s gotta have a point of view. That was always
the idea behind him, that he actually had some, you know, some solid viewpoints.”
So today I want to examine why it's important that an antagonist represent everything the
protagonist lacks. To look at how characters filled with contradiction can feel more true-
to-life… And show why one of the most important moments of character change
doesn’t come at the end of the story, but directly in the middle.
Let’s take a look at Collateral.
Living in society is hard. We all have important goals we want to achieve, yet are often
afraid to take the necessary steps to attain them. This tension is also found in great
characters.
As John Yorke writes in his book, Into the Woods: A Five-Act Journey Into Story…
“This conflict between who a character is, and who they want to be, is real life’s gift to
drama. Writers have always known that when their characters act in a manner they
profess to disapprove of.
When they lie, when they self-sabotage and generally act contrary to their conscious
proclamations and beliefs, they are far more interesting, far more exciting to write, and
feel far more true to life.”
In Collateral, this contradiction is immediately apparent in the protagonist, Max. Max is
not your typical cabbie. In his first scene, we see the juxtaposition between him and the
other cabbies. “Some unshaven, swapping stories, counting cash, one stands on the
passenger seat to shout over the roof to his pal, spills his coffee, couldn't care less... Not Max.
His cab is fly. Among cabbies he is GQ.”
We soon learn that this is because Max doesn’t think of himself as a cab driver.
MAX: ...limo company I'm putting together. Island Limousines. An
Island on whells. It's going to be like an island on wheels.
It's going to be a cool groove, like a club experience. When you
get to the airport, you're not going to want to get out of my
limo. So I do this part-time until I get my Benzes off leases,
staff up, get the right client list, you know, things like that.

This is Max’s facade. He wants to be thought of as someone who runs a successful, A-list
limo company, so he presents himself as being just around the corner from making it a
reality. After all, the cab driving is just temporary.
MAX: “I'm not in this for the long-haul. I'm just fillin' in.
It's just temporary while I'm getting some things shaped up.
This is just temporary"
VINCENT: “How long you been driving?”
MAX: “Twelve years.”
VINCENT: “Hardly temporary…”

Here we see Max’s contradiction fully rendered. He wants to own a successful limousine
company more than anything, yet he’s been driving a cab and making excuses for twelve
years. This is his character’s flaw/weakness, and we soon see that his lack of self-
confidence and inability to take risks are holding his inner self back.
In his book, John Yorke creates a simple visualization to help demonstrate the relationship
between the facade and the inner self over the course of the story. The protagonist begins
clinging to a facade, the idea of themselves that they want others to see. But hidden away
is their inner self, the part of them they must learn to embrace to become who they need
to be.
So what drives the character to change?
VINCENT: “What’s your name?”
MAX: “Max.”
VINCENT: “Max? I’m Vincent.”

Coming into conflict with the antagonist. A person uniquely suited to push the protagonist
in exactly the right direction. And as John Yorke writes…
“The antagonist they fear, then – the ‘monster’ they must overcome - is the embodiment of
the very thing lacking in themselves.”
The function of the antagonist is to strip away the facade of the protagonist and force the
inner self to rise up. Enter Vincent. A well-dressed man of action who plays by his own
rules, he is the anti-Max in almost every way.
When Max picks up Vincent and agrees to be his taxi for the evening, he has no idea what
he has really signed up for. And while this is clearly the worst night of Max’s life, it’s also,
in many ways, the best. Since Vincent is everything that Max isn’t, he directly and
indirectly forces Max to stand up for himself and do things he never thought he
could.
For example, early on, cops stop the cab while there is a dead man in the trunk. But Max
isn’t able to. He’s still clinging to his facade and suppressing his inner self. Luckily, the cops
get called away before Vincent has to kill them. Later, Max’s boss call over the radio. To get
him to stop calling, Vincent poses as an official, and encourages Max to stand up to him.
VINCENT: “You tell him to stick this cab up his fat ass.”
MAX: “I can’t do that. That’s my boss.”
VINCENT: “So?”
MAX: “I need my job.”
VINCENT: “No, you don’t.”

This chips away at Max’s facade, and forces the inner self to begin to emerge.
MAX: “And next time you pull any shit, I’m… I’m gonna stick this
yellow cab up your fat ass.”

Over time, Max even starts to stand up to Vincent.

MAX: “Come on, Vincent, give the dude a pass.”
VINCENT: “I’m working here.”
MAX: “No, listen. You the one sitting here talking about
improvisation. You like the guy, you like how he plays. Let’s
just play a little jazz. Come on.”
VINCENT: “Improv? That’s funny, coming from you.”

And when they visit Max’s mom in the hospital, the depth of Max’s facade is
embarrassingly exposed.
MOM: “Limousine companies.”
VINCENT: “Is that right?”
MOM: “He drives famous people around.”
VINCENT: “Famous people. Limousine companies. Now that’s quite
an achievement.”

At the end of the scene, Max steals Vincent’s briefcase, a demonstration of his inner self
growing in strength. During the entire first half of the screenplay Vincent is destroying
Max’s facade and teasing out his inner self. And if we look at the the progression of these
two lines, there is a clear trajectory.
The facade is chipped away at and the inner self is forced to rise until something happens
—they collide at the midpoint of the story.
John Yorke says of the midpoint:
“As a story progresses and need supplants want, the traits that help a character sustain
their outer appearance are slowly transformed by the ‘better’ angels within. Need
becomes conscious at the inciting incident, is embraced at the end of the second act, and at
the midpoint triumphs for the first time. The subconscious has been dredged and brought
to the surface to take over.”

The midpoint of Collateral is shortly after Max destroys Vincent’s files. He needs the list of
names to finish the job, so he sends Max in to talk to the dangerous drug lord, Felix.
VINCENT: “You go in there, say you’re me. Score the backups.
They’ll be on flash drive or CD.”
MAX: “If I don’t pull it off, then…”
VINCENT: “They will kill you.”
MAX: “I can’t do this. I can’t.”

This scene begins almost exactly halfway through the film’s runtime. And in this case, the
screenplay creates a literal example of the metaphorical change happening in the story
structure. To overcome his character’s weakness, Max has needed to be more like
Vincent—the embodiment of everything he’s not.
Now, his inner self and his facade collide, as he is asked to become Vincent.
MAX: “Say it’s Vincent. I’m Vincent.“

Inside the club, Max is threatened by Felix, and it’s clear that the old Max is not cutting it.
So just before the jig is up and Max is killed, his inner self truly takes over and for the first
time we really see what he’s capable of.
MAX: “I think you should tell the guy behind me to put that gun
down.”
FELIX: “What did you say?”
MAX: “I said, I think you should tell the guy behind me to put
his gun away before I take it and beat his bitch ass to death
with it.”

Soon, Vincent’s words are even coming out of Max’s mouth.

VINCENT: “Improvise. Adapt to the environment. Darwin. Shit
happens. I Ching. Whatever, man. We gotta roll with it.”
MAX (SCENE WITH FELIX): “Gotta roll with it. Adapt. Darwin. I
Ching.”

Max successfully acquires the list and makes it out alive. The midpoint represents an
important change for the protagonist. As John Yorke writes…
“A new ‘truth’ dawns on our hero for the first time; the protagonist has captured the
treasure or found the ‘elixir’ to heal their flaw.”
But the story, obviously, isn’t over. And he goes on to write…
“At this stage in the story they don’t quite know how to handle it correctly. The ‘journey
back’ is therefore built on how the hero reacts to possessing the ‘elixir’ and whether they
will learn to master it in a wise and useful way.”
The first half of the film was getting Max to recognize he can overcome his weaknesses.
The question for the second half of the film is...will he?
Collateral demonstrates how an antagonist can be designed to bring out the best version
of the protagonist. It shows that a character who expresses the contradictory nature of
human beings not only feels more realistic and relatable, but also lends itself to dramatic
story structure.
And it highlights the importance of the midpoint, the moment when the hero’s inner self
truly emerges for the first time. In the case of Max, he must learn to use this newfound
strength to try to survive the rest of this fateful night, which will leave one of the
characters alive, and the other nothing more than collateral.
Another thing I love about Collateral is that the antagonist goes on a character arc that is
similar to the protagonist's. The same way Vincent tears at Max’s facade, so does Max tear
at Vincent’s.

COLLATERAL – AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION

It’s unusual in a film that we’d spend almost as much time with the antagonist as with the
protagonist, and it’s even more unusual for the two of them to be together nearly the
entire time.
It follows, then, that Collateral’s antagonist would actually share many of the same beats as
a traditional protagonist.
In fact, breaking down Max and Vincent’s journeys and exploring how the choices they
make affect each other teaches us something very interesting. Let’s take a look:
FACADE
MAX - Max sees himself as an entrepreneur and a successful business owner. In his mind,
he already owns a limousine company and has it all together.
VINCENT - Vincent presents himself as a cold-hearted killer who believes death is just a
part of life. There’s no difference between genocide in Africa or holding a gun to someone’s
head and pulling the trigger.
WEAKNESS / FLAW
MAX - Max tells himself driving a cab is temporary. Rather than take action to move his life
forward, it’s easier to tell yourself change is just around the corner.
VINCENT - Just as with Max, Vincent is afraid to let his true self come forward, suppressing
his compassion and hiding behind his facade.
INNER SELF
MAX - Max is strong, smart, and able to adapt when the situation demands it. Somewhere
deep down is the man he believes himself to be.
VINCENT - Vincent is compassionate and even protective when he meets someone he
likes. He genuinely wants to make a connection with someone and seems to find this in
Max.
INCITING INCIDENT
MAX - Vincent asks Max to take him on as an all-night fare; despite this being against
regulations, Max says yes. When Vincent’s first victim falls on Max’s cab, Max is then forced
at gunpoint to take Vincent to the locations of his last four victims. By briefly stepping
outside his comfort zone, Max is propelled into a terrifying ordeal, but it’s through this
experience that he will learn how to escape his comfort zone completely.
VINCENT - This moment—the body falling on Max's cab—is also Vincent's inciting
incident. Now that Max knows what he’s up to, Vincent will either have to kill him or figure
out another solution.
INNER SELF RISING
MAX - Rather than just accepting his fate, Max begins exploring ways to change his
situation. He tries to escape, argues a case for Vincent to spare Daniel the jazz club owner,
and finally destroys Vincent’s data knowing full well Vincent may kill him in return.
VINCENT - As Vincent grows attached to Max, we begin to see his compassion surface. He
shows genuine empathy for Max’s mother and on multiple occasions, chooses not to kill
Max when it would almost certainly be the smart move (from Vincent’s assumed
viewpoint, at least).
MIDPOINT
MAX - In his meeting with Felix, Max lets his strong, defiant self truly emerge for the first
time. When placed in a life or death situation, Max learns how to adapt and survive.
VINCENT - After showing a genuine adoration for Daniel’s music and life experience,
Vincent laments having to kill him. Rather than letting his better angels take hold,
however, Vincent chooses to carry out his task. Where Max has learned to change for the
better, Vincent has not.
 REVELATION
MAX - When Vincent kills Detective Fanning, both Max and the audience realize there is no
one coming to Max’s rescue. He’ll have to get out of this on his own.
VINCENT - When Max challenges Vincent’s viewpoint, calling him “low, my brother, way
low,” Vincent retaliates, but we see severe doubt in his eyes. Max is asking why Vincent is
the way he is, and Vincent realizes he doesn’t have an answer.
CRISIS
MAX - After finally escaping from Vincent, Max realizes Annie is Vincent’s final target. Max
must take action, rather than just going along for the ride and hoping to survive.
VINCENT - When Max crashes the cab and escapes, he strips Vincent of his transportation
and his unwilling accomplice. Vincent has lost control of the situation and is running out of
time.
CLIMAX
MAX - In a desperate shootout, Max puts himself in full view of Vincent, gets “lucky with
the lights” (a phrase Max says several times early in the film, modestly attributing his
speed to the traffic lights being kind to him), and is able to shoot his pursuer.
VINCENT - Vincent faces off against Max, but when he receives a fatal wound, he decides
to accept it. (NOTE: Modern screenwriters may bemoan this deus ex machina moment, but
if we consider Vincent’s narrative of a Greek tragedy, it’s a classic moment of the “gods”
stepping in to punish the sins of the tragic hero.)
RESOLUTION
MAX - A changed man, Max walks from the scene into a new day, with the woman he
finally managed to call by his side.
VINCENT - Vincent shows regret for his cold lifestyle and admits no one will mourn his
passing, albeit in not so many words.
 
By comparing Max and Vincent’s narrative arcs, we can see them each as the protagonist
of his own story.
Max is the protagonist of a modern drama, in which he is forced to change and by doing so,
is able to overcome his weakness and his adversary.
Vincent, however, is the protagonist of a classic tragedy. His tragic flaw triumphs over his
inner self, which renders him incapable of change and ultimately leads to his defeat at the
hands of his antagonist.
The midpoint, then, becomes the crucial moment where each character makes his choice.
Max allows his powerful inner self to come out in his meeting with Felix, whereas when
Vincent feels a connection with Daniel and considers letting him live, he buries his feelings,
instead letting his facade take control.
It’s one thing to create an antagonist who comes across as a three-dimensional human
being with clear and understandable motives, but to craft one with a complete narrative
arc whose journey is both reflective of and antithetical to that of the protagonist is an
impressive feat to say the least.

THE DARK KNIGHT: CREATING THE DEFINITIVE VILLAIN

The Joker is the perfect opponent for The Dark Knight.
Exceptionally Good At Attacking the Hero’s Weakness
Robert McKee's Story: “A protagonist and his story can only be as intellectually
fascinating and emotionally compelling as the forces of antagonism make them.”
So an antagonist must be powerful. The more powerful, the harder the struggle for our
hero. And the harder the struggle, the more compelling the story.
But that's a little vague. What does powerful mean in this context?
John Truby has a good piece of advice about how to make the antagonist powerful in a
specific way: “Create an opponent who is exceptionally good at attacking your hero’s
greatest weakness.”
The Joker is exceptionally good at attacking Batman’s greatest weaknesses. Much of
Batman’s power comes from his ability to intimidate. From his physical strength.
And The Joker delights in creating situations that nullify Batman’s strength. Like when he’s
captured Rachel and Harvey Dent.
BATMAN: “Where are they?!”
JOKER: “You have nothing. Nothing to threaten me with."
BATMAN: "Nothing to do with all your strength.”

The Joker turns Batman’s strength into a weakness. He can do this because he doesn’t fear
death, in fact he wants Batman to kill him.
JOKER: “C’mon I want you to do it. Hit me!”

Because he knows Batman’s morality takes the form of one rule: he doesn’t kill people. So
the more chaos The Joker causes, and the more people he kills… The further he reveals
that Batman’s moral code can also be a weakness. Because the only way to truly stop
The Joker is to kill him, something Batman can never do.
But the Joker’s plan isn’t just to beat Batman, it’s to show Gotham his true colors. He does
this by pressuring the protagonist into difficult choices.
According to Robert McKee: “TRUE CHARACTER is revealed in the choices a human being
makes under pressure, …the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the
choice to the character’s essential nature.”
So in every story, the forces of antagonism must increasingly apply pressure to the
protagonist… Forcing them to make more and more difficult choices. Choices which
reveal their true nature.
As far as pressuring the protagonist into choices that test and reveal character, that is
quite literally The Joker's plan.
After 45 pages of pretty boring set-up, on page 46 the screenplay kicks into gear when
Batman is faced with the first in a series of conundrums.
JOKER: "You want order in Gotham?" Batman must take off his
mask, and turn himself in. Every day he doesn't, people will
die."

By refusing, at first, to give in to this terrorist demand, we the audience see that Batman
has what it takes to do what’s right. But The Joker proves to be unstoppable, always one
step ahead of Batman…
In a sequence Batman and Gordon investigating a crime scene, discovering fingerprints
that lead them to the apartment of the suspect — only to find that it’s all part of the
antagonist’s game. Even The Joker’s plan to purposefully be caught.
Throughout all this, the pressure on Batman increases as people keep dying. The people of
Gotham turn against Batman, until the pressure is too much and Batman’s true
character is revealed.
BRUCE: "Today I've found out what Batman can't do. He can't
endure this."

Batman decides to turn himself in. Harvey Dent claiming to be Batman and taking his place
is the only thing that stops him from doing so. The most revealing choice Batman makes is
when The Joker pressures him to choose between Harvey Dent and Rachel.
In choosing Rachel, Batman reveals what he’s unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good of
Gotham. The limit to his resolve. But with The Joker, things are never that simple.
Throughout the film, The Joker forces Batman into choices that reveal who and what he
cares about when the pressure is really on.
Batman is forced to face his true self.
Let’s look at our final point: Competing for the Same Goal as the Protagonist
How do you make sure your antagonist is the right one for your hero? After all, The Joker
may be the right antagonist for Batman, but completely inappropriate for a different
protagonist.
Let’s go back to John Truby: "It is only by competing for the same goal that the hero and the
opponent are forced to come into direct conflict and to do so again and again throughout the
story."
This concept helps distinguish your antagonist and make sure they are the right one for
your hero. So how are Batman and The Joker competing for the same goal?
Both of them have their own vision of what they want Gotham City to be. Batman is
fighting for hope, for a Gotham City without crime. For law and order. And The Joker…
JOKER: “Upset the established order and everything becomes
chaos.”

Batman versus The Joker. Law and order versus chaos.

In their final scene together, The Joker even has a line that makes it very clear that he
knows what their battle is all about.
JOKER: “You didn’t think I’d risk losing the battle for Gotham's
soul in a fist fight with you?"

They are both competing for the soul of Gotham, and only one of them can win.
I want to take a moment to underline this point further, because it shows that a relatively
measured but specific threat can be extremely compelling.
In the finale, the only lives in danger are a few hundred people on the ferries. Batman is
not racing against time to stop the villain’s random-machine-of-destruction. When the
villain’s plan is to destroy the whole world, on a meta level we the audience know that
can’t happen, because there’s probably going to be a sequel.
But The Joker could have blown up both ferries, and the film could have had an Empire
Strikes Back-esque ending. A powerful set-up for the next film.
Again, Batman and The Joker aren’t competing for the survival of humanity. They’re
competing for the soul of Gotham. The stakes are personal, first and foremost.
So now we’ve seen how The Joker is exceptionally good at attacking Batman’s weaknesses.
How he pressures him into difficult choices as they both compete for the soul of Gotham.
But what is cumulative affect of these things? What is the greater function of The Joker?
ALFRED: “With respect, Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man you
don’t fully understand either.”

Throughout the script, Alfred hints at the lessons Batman needs to learn.
ALFRED: “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like
money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated
with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

In the beginning, Batman believes that criminals are simply after money, that there is a
logical order to things. But he learns not to underestimate his enemies, that his
strengths can become weaknesses. Batman grows wiser because of the Joker.
ALFRED: “Know your limits, Master Wayne”
BRUCE: “Batman has no limits.”
ALFRED: “Well you do, sir.”

Under the pressure of the antagonist, Batman learns that alone he does have limits. But
with the right allies, they can overcome any challenge. Batman’s resolve deepens
because of The Joker.
BRUCE: “People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?”
ALFRED: Endure, Master Wayne.
And in the battle for Gotham’s soul, he learns that he’s able to make the difficult choices no
one else can.
BATMAN: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see
yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I’m
not a hero. I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be.”

Batman becomes the Dark Knight because of The Joker. The Dark Knight shines as an
example of what happens when the forces of antagonism grow from the protagonist.
When they're inextricably linked. When they’re two sides of the same coin.
The Joker isn’t a great villain because he has an insane laugh and acts unpredictably. He’s
great because he has a profound and specific affect on the story, and on the protagonist.
JOKER: “I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”

The Joker is the perfect antagonist for The Dark Knight.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – EXECUTING THE PERFECT HEIST

Heists present the hero with an incredibly clear-cut goal and difficult obstacles, creating
high-stakes scenes designed to keep the audience guessing. So today, my mission is to
compare two heist sequences from different Mission Impossible movies, to examine the
way they establish goals and convey detailed obstacles and how they ultimately subvert
expectations by taking an impossible situation, and making it even worse.
Just like any sequence in a story, the engine that drives a heist forward comes from the
protagonist's desire.
In the first Mission Impossible, Ethan wants to steal the NOC list a record of every secret
agent and their true identity— because he thinks it will help him find the person who set
him up.
In Rogue Nation, his goal is also to steal a list.
Once the goal is established, the first big problem is clear: both of the lists are located in
highly-secured facilities— there's no way Ethan could get to them on his own. So to
achieve the desire, the protagonist is going to need allies or in this case, a team.
Each team member is designed to have a specific characteristic that will help the
protagonist achieve their goal. In Rogue Nation, Ethan partners with Benji, who we've seen
is a tech wizard and Ilsa, a new character who we've seen is a superspy in her own right.
In the original Mission Impossible, Ethan recruits two new people. Luther, who is great at
hacking and Krieger, who is great at being Jean Reno.
This team assembly phase allows the writers to tease the kind of obstacles our heroes will
be going up against but it also serves to start creating tension.
In both films, the writers give us reasons to suspect that one of the team members is what
John Truby calls, a "Fake-Ally Opponent.": The fake-ally opponent is a character who
appears to be the hero’s friend but is actually an opponent. Having this character is one of
the main ways you add power to the opposition and twists to the plot."
In both heists, the newest members of the team are former agents who have been
disavowed. Ethan is about to put his life in their hands, and isn't sure they can be trusted.
Unfortunately for him, he has no choice. He's going to need their help if he wants to
achieve his desire, because standing in their way are a number of very big obstacles.
In a heist sequence, obstacles are the forces of antagonism that the heroes struggle against
— they are what creates drama.
So once the team has been gathered, both films waste no time in establishing the difficulty
of the mission they're about to attempt.
“It's much worse than you think.”
“It's impossible.”

To keep all this exposition engaging, both films cut away from the team to show the actual
location of the heist.
In the first film, Ethan's narration combines with the visuals to create a kind of tour of the
vault system.
Ethan: “The only person allowed in the room has to pass through
a series of security checks.”

We see that the computer terminal is guarded by voice activation retinal scans,
temperature fluctuations, and even a pressure-sensitive floor. Rogue Nation uses this
cutaway technique in a different way. Rather than simply providing a tour of the obstacles
in the system, the script visualizes the brainstorming process, letting us see which security
systems they could easily fool and which ones they can't.
By letting us actually see the obstacles the team is facing, we get a very clear
understanding of each of them— and the better we understand the obstacles, the more
effective they are.
So now that the heroes know precisely what they're up against, it's time to formulate a
plan, and it's at this stage that the two films differ the most.
In Rogue Nation we know all the main steps of the plan beforehand, and are even shown
what success looks like.
Ethan: “One of us needs to enter the torus and change the
security profile so that the other one can access the computer
without being caught.”

In the original film, we don't learn what the team's plan is until the next stage of the heist
execution.
As the heist begins in Rogue Nation, we’ve already been told the centerpiece of the plan,
but the details leading up to it are surprises. Ethan and Ilsa parachute in, as Benji does tech
things and enters the building. And with a quick reminder of the obstacles and stakes…
“Two and a half minutes to switch the security profile, thirty
seconds to escape through the service hatch.”

It's go time. But in the original Mission Impossible, we know their goal and we know the
obstacles, but when it comes to how they're going to pull it off, we're completely in the
dark. This lets the reveal of their plan be part of the fun.
The team shows up as firefighters, responding to fake alarms set off by Luther's hacking
skills which allows them to access a maintenance room and gain access to the ventilation
ducts. Meanwhile, Claire changes disguises so she can covertly poison the coffee of the
only person who has access to the terminal, William Donloe.
And finally, the film reveals the heist's centerpiece. This is the point of no return. The
team is fully committed, and now it's all about building tension.
So how do these heist sequences build tension?
First, they both feature a "ticking clock."
In the first “Mission Impossible,” they have a small window of time in which the poisoned
man is...incapacitated. In Rogue Nation the ticking clock is a literal ticking clock, counting
down how much air Ethan has left. This is one of several visual cues the films use to
convey to the audience how close the team is to failing another great way of creating
tension.
But the best way to create tension is to subvert the audience's expectations. So now:
everything must go wrong.
In the Rogue Nation heist several problems arise. First, Ethan drops the cards he needs to
swap when he's hit by the robotic arm then the water flow is turned back on, so he has to
use even more oxygen to retrieve them and once he does they've been mixed up so he's
unsure which is the correct one to insert. And all the while Benji is moments away from
being caught as the ticking clock is ticking down to Ethan's death.
In Mission Impossible, Ethan's initial descent is interrupted by the arrival of William
Donloe. But once he is out of the picture, things go smoothly. The temperature is fine,
sound is within limits, and Ethan is well above the pressure sensitive floor that is, until a
rat appears and Krieger can't keep it together, resulting in one of the most famous
moments in film history. This is the crisis of the sequence, and a great example of why
it's important for the obstacles to be clearly communicated to the audience.
We understand that if Ethan touches the floor, or makes a sound, or doesn't get the right
card inserted in time, the mission will be a failure. And now that everything has gone
wrong, we are glued to our seats and dying to know what will happen next.
In Rogue Nation, Ethan manages to get the proper card secured just in time, while in the
vault sequence Krieger manages to lift Ethan back up, and he's able to secure the NOC list.
This appears to be a victory, but in Mission Impossible not even the escape is simple.
In the original film, as Ethan reaches safety, Krieger snatches the disk from Ethan, and in
doing so drops his knife. This provides one last moment of suspense, but more importantly
confirms that Krieger cannot be trusted.
In Rogue Nation, Ethan drowns and Ilsa has to jump into the tank to save him, making us
think that we can trust her.
“I misjudged you.”

These last-minute twists underscore the fact that these heists aren’t really about the thing
being stolen. Both of these sequences begin at almost exactly fifty minutes into the
runtime— the midpoint of both movies. Up until this point, Ethan has been totally focused
on stealing the thing that will lead him to the antagonist, and by the end of the heist, he's
gotten it. But instead of solving Ethan's problems these heists have actually just
created new ones forcing the fake-allies to reveal themselves as opponents and
spinning the plot in a different direction, creating a new mission for Ethan in the
second half of the movie that will seem just as impossible.
The Mission Impossible films demonstrate how thrilling it can be to watch people
improvise within established constraints after a plan goes wrong— much more fun than
watching a perfectly executed plan would be.This is true not only of heist sequences, but of
storytelling general.
Stories are often simply about someone who wants something, tries to get it, and then
improvises as everything goes wrong. And this is compelling when the audience has a
clear understanding of the character’s goal, the obstacles they face, and how they plan to
get it.