<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>hi, it&#39;s mike</title>
    <link>https://mike.puddingtime.org/tags/missionimpossible/</link>
    <description>Recent content on hi, it&#39;s mike</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <managingEditor>mike@puddingtime.org (mike)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>mike@puddingtime.org (mike)</webMaster>
    <copyright>© 2026, mike</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jul 2023 16:05:05 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://mike.puddingtime.org/tags/missionimpossible/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Mission: Incomprehensible</title>
      <link>https://mike.puddingtime.org/posts/2023-07-15-mission--incomprehensible/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jul 2023 16:05:05 -0700</pubDate><author>mike@puddingtime.org (mike)</author>
      <guid>https://mike.puddingtime.org/posts/2023-07-15-mission--incomprehensible/</guid>
      <description>A few thoughts on spy film villainy and the double-backflip of ideological sanitization this one does, notable in part because sitting around thinking this stuff up was more entertaining than the actual experience of watching something this insufferable.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, the defining characteristic of spy film villainy (vs. their early Cold War literary precursors/source material) is that the villains are non-state actors threatening a global balance of power that we might not like &mdash; that is terrifying and anxiety-inducing &mdash; but that we definitely do not want upset. That was just market forces: You&rsquo;ve got to sell them globally, so the bad guys need to be de-aligned.</p>
<p>The <em>Mission Impossible</em> series doesn&rsquo;t break from this tradition: It is also worried about non-state or rogue state actors in the classical non-ideological vein. The newest one also has a non-state actor for a villain, so &ldquo;check,&rdquo; but its villainy is framed as its capacity to use misinformation. That makes it sort of reflective of post-2016 American anxieties. That&rsquo;s interesting, in a way, because the classic &rsquo;60s-era spy films went explicitly and pointedly non-ideological, and sometimes even paired heroes with Soviet partners to drive the point home. They didn&rsquo;t even register as anti-communist allegories.</p>
<p>The new MI movie has a definitionally non-ideological villain, but its post-2016 anxieties about misinformation seem at least political if not ideological, and there&rsquo;s an explicit tie to Russia that lost me a little, but feels like maybe it&rsquo;s meant to sketch an association rather than point an explicit finger &mdash; at least not one you couldn&rsquo;t unpoint with a little selective localization when you go to the global market.</p>
<p>Anyhow, it was a very long movie that got pretty tedious and felt weirdly self-satisfied. There was so much &ldquo;finally, back to the movies! Tom Cruise is our last movie star!&rdquo; rhapsodizing about <em>Top Gun: Maverick</em> it was impossible to watch this one and not feel like Tom Cruise&rsquo;s publicist should&rsquo;ve just hid his clippings, because there&rsquo;s something insufferable about this movie. I just wanted it to end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
