Why is the Villain in Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol So Forgettable?
What makes a good antagonist?
After 2006’s Mission: Impossible III, the Mission franchise was in a strange place. The film wasn’t a flop by any means but it failed to perform as well as Paramount had hoped (perhaps due to Cruise’s off-screen antics in the months leading up to the film’s premiere).
It would be five years until Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol hit theatres and became a massive success, essentially re-inventing the franchise into the box office juggernaut that it is today. The film received mostly positive reviews from both critics and audiences and featured some of the most exhilarating stunt work ever put to film.
While I still immensely enjoy Ghost Protocol, upon reflection I can’t help but find that the film’s main villain, Kurt Hendricks, is the most forgettable for me in entire franchise. Although a WhatCulture.com list ranking the all Mission: Impossible villains put Hendricks in the number two spot, the author does get his name wrong, so surely he couldn’t have been that memorable.
If I hadn’t re-watched the film and spent some time looking things up online, I wouldn’t have remembered what Hendricks was trying to accomplish or why. It takes my brain a few moments to recall what he even looks like.
Even in what I consider to be the franchise’s weakest film, 2000’s Mission: Impossible II, the villain, Sean Ambrose, has a certain charisma and screen presence that sticks in my mind. What is it, then, that makes Kurt Hendricks so forgettable?
To find out, let’s first look at what makes an effective antagonist.
The Ingredients of Antagonism…
A hero is only as good as the villain he or she comes up against. Whether you’re writing a novel or a screenplay, there are certain qualities your villain should possess. While this is by no means an exhaustive list, here are five qualities that make for an effective and compelling antagonist:
- A strong motivation.
The villain should be as motivated to achieve their goals as the hero is to stopping them.
2. Is physically or mentally capable of defeating the hero.
It wouldn’t be very entertaining to watch a movie where the villain stands no chance against the hero and is defeated immediately.
3. We can empathize with them and relate to their humanity.
Even if we, as the audience, don’t agree with what the antagonist is doing, we should at least be able to understand why they are doing it and relate to some true human qualities that they have within them.
4. A compelling backstory.
“Villains are real people to whom terrible things have happened,” says author Jerry Jenkins. When we learn about where a villain came from and what made them the way they are, we are better able to empathize with them.
5. A mirror image of the hero.
This is essentially means that the villain should possess some of the same qualities as the hero, but is misdirected and uses these qualities to a different end.
There are, of course, more ingredients to crafting an effective antagonist, but the above five seem like a good place to start. So, let’s look at Kurt Hendricks through each of these different lenses.
A strong motivation.
Essentially, Hendricks’ goal is to start a nuclear war between Russian and the United States because of a misguided belief that what remains of humanity after the war will be made stronger. In his own words: “world destruction is an unpleasant but necessary part of evolution”.
In his eyes, Hendricks is committed to advancing and improving humanity by accelerating the natural processes of evolution. Now, this might be a bit of a reach, but the takeaway here is that Hendricks has a clear goal and a plan to achieve this goal.
Is physically or mentally capable of defeating the hero.
Hendricks is stated in the film to not only have served in the Swedish Special Forces, but is also said to have a genius IQ of 190. It’s safe to say that Hendricks has both the brainpower and physical capabilities to defeat our hero, Ethan Hunt.
Empathy and humanity.
While we understand what he wants and vaguely why he wants it (even if it’s a bit nonsensical) Hendricks falls short in the humanity department. There are no moments in the film where displays any form of sympathy for his fellow man, or any real human weakness.
After enlisting the help of nuclear code expert Leonid Lisenker by kidnapping his family, Hendricks kills both Leonid and his wife and son without a second thought. At no moment throughout the story is Hendricks humanized.
A compelling backstory.
Hendricks worked as a physics professor at Stockholm University and served as a nuclear strategist for the Russian Central Command during the Cold War on top of his service in the Swedish Special Forces. While we’re given a lot of information about Hendrick’s, I wouldn’t say it’s particularly compelling.
A mirror image of the hero.
This one is pretty easy. Hendricks is essentially a smarter version of Ethan Hunt with similar combat abilities, someone who is just as driven to achieve world destruction as Hunt is to stopping it.
Hendricks doesn’t tick all the boxes above, but, to be fair, I’d say there’s only one villain in the whole franchise that comes close: Jim Phelps from the original Mission Impossible.
Even my personal favourite antagonist from the series, Owen Davian from Mission: Impossible III (played by the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman), doesn’t fulfill the above criteria.
So, what then makes Kurt Hendricks, in particular, so forgettable? It seems to me to be a combination of three main factors:
1. Mish-mash of evil.
Hendricks is too many things. The writers tried so hard to create a worthy opponent for Ethan Hunt that they ended up creating someone that possesses too many qualities to be perceived as a real human being. It feels as if a bunch of villainous backstory tidbits were put in a blender and we ended up with a weird evil smoothie of genius Swedish ex-special forces, former nuclear scientist/ strategist, former professor, and current insane person. It’s just a bit much, isn’t it?
2. Lack of charisma and screen presence.
While charisma isn’t necessarily a key to crafting an effective antagonist, it certainly helps to make them more memorable. Hans Gruber, Hannibal Lector, Loki, Gordon Gekko, they all have charisma. There’s a certain magnetism to them, an alluring quality that, even though you don’t like or agree with them, there’s enjoyment to be had watching them on screen.
Other villains like the Terminator, Darth Vader, or the Xenomorph may not be quite as charismatic, but they still have an undeniable presence that keeps your eyes glued to the screen. Both charisma and screen presence are hard traits to put on the page and it’s often the actor that brings these qualities to a role. Although the late Michael Nyqvist was a fantastic actor (unfortunately, he passed away in 2017), Hendricks just doesn’t really pop for me.
3. A goal that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
While I think the movie makes it very clear what it is that Hendricks wants, there are some significant logical leaps involved in understanding why he wants it. It’s a hard sell that a certified genius and somebody who has worked both in academia and for the highest tiers of the Russian government would believe that bringing about the end of the world through nuclear annihilation is what is needed to bring humanity to the next evolutionary level.
Another important question that the film doesn’t answer is “why now?” What happened in Hendricks’ life that made him decide “now is the time for me to start nuclear war”? What was the trigger moment for his plan?
To counter these problems, Hendricks is branded in the film as being “insane”. Unfortunately, making Hendricks insane kind of just feels like a copout. I mean, obviously anyone who wants to destroy the world is probably suffering from some serious mental delusions, but saying Hendricks is insane is just a cheap way of saying, “yes, we know this is a bit of a stretch, but he’s crazy so just go with it.”
The elephant in the room…
Am I overanalyzing what is otherwise a very fun and entertaining movie? Yes. Do other villains in the Mission franchise have equally silly and unbelievable goals that don’t really make that much sense? Absolutely.
When I go see a Mission: Impossible film, I’m really just looking to be entertained and Ghost Protocol is a highly entertaining film. Perhaps all of this was a giant waste of time.
I’m a huge fan of the Mission movies and what they have become. They really do seem to be getting better with each new instalment and I’m very excited about what Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie will bring to the table with the next two.
If nothing else, I hope this article has provided some insight about what makes a good villain. If you’re a writer, try to keep some of the above-mentioned points in mind when crafting your own antagonist. If you’re not a writer but you’re interested in the art of storytelling, maybe think more about the villain next time you’re watching a movie and what truly makes them tick.
