‘Mission: Impossible’ Star Simon Pegg Says Tom Cruise and Director Christopher McQuarrie Are Like ‘Lennon and McCartney’

Since Mission: Impossible III in 2006, Simon Pegg has been part of the core ensemble of the Mission: Impossible franchise, playing hacker and sometime field agent Benji Dunn opposite its stalwart star Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt. Pegg was never going to be the actor risking life and limb on screen its Benjis job to be the one that actually says, what the fuck are we doing here?, he observes. But over five installments of the indefatigable series, his character has shifted from questioning what Ethan is doing in the moment to believing absolutely in why hes doing it, thanks in no small part to the writing and directing of Christopher McQuarrie.

McQuarrie came onto Ghost Protocol as a sort of master plumber to re-wriggle the pipes, as Pegg characterizes it, and since became the series ongoing co-architect with Cruise. Their partnership reaches its peak, even if by all indications its far from over, with Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One, half of an operatic culmination of narrative seeds planted since Cruise first played Hunt back in 1996. In a conversation with Variety, Pegg discusses what makes McQuarries creativity so special, and his collaboration with Cruise et al so unique; he also talks about new details he discovered about Benji, explored the challenges of being self-referential in a franchise like this without undermining emotional stakes, and hinted at what is yet to come as he and the rest of the filmmaking team move on to Dead Reckoning Part Two.

You said that you have shot at least some of these films without a script. Whats actually there for you to work from, and whats the minimum you need to play a scene without knowing what it might connect to?

We never dont have a script on the day of the shoot. The scene will have been written and we wouldve had time to learn it. Its more that McQ allows the locations we go to, the characters, the actors hes working with to help him tell the story. Hell let the story be revealed to him by, say, looking at the streets of Rome or the canals of Venice. Its a fly by the seat of your pants way of working because youve got a rough idea of what youre doing, but the minutia doesnt come sometimes until the last minute. But thats part of being an actor, and I enjoy that we have a mission impossible going alongside our Mission: Impossible. But its never not in McQs head. Hes not making it up as he goes along, by any means. Its all in there, you just have to tease it out gradually.

Thinking about the screenwriting that youve done, Chris shares in common this very Swiss-watch precision to it.

When Edgar Wright and I write together, we have the Swiss watch laid out on a table and we do it like that. McQ throws it in the air and assembles it as it falls, and its extremely educating for me as a filmmaker because its the antithesis of what Edgar and I do. Thats partly because a lot of Edgars transitions are very precise so we need to know how each scene starts and finishes so that it can dovetail into the next one. But it certainly made me aware that sometimes you can allow the situation to help inform the narrative or the dialogue. Thats because McQ is a master problem solver. If you give him a broken script, he just rubs his hands with glee. If you give him a blank page, hell scratch his head. Its just how he is hes an absolute master.

It seems like it shouldnt be quite so unique for Christopher to be able to deliver these smart, muscular, inventive action movies, but it is. What is it that makes McQs creativity so singular?

I think in Tom, hes just found such a perfect creative partner, someone who can facilitate that way of working, can allow him to practice this extreme method of filmmaking. I remember when we were making Ghost Protocol and the script on that just wasnt very focused, and Tom brought in McQ, a sort of master plumber to re-wriggle the pipes. And it was on that that their creative romance really took off. Theyre both eternal students of film and just methods of filmmaking, methods of storytelling, certain camera rigs. I remember when we shot Rogue Nation, we were still using film. The cameras were quite cumbersome. Now, you can put a camera on a motorbike and just send it off a cliff and go down and pick it out of the undergrowth. And theyre forever absorbing these new methods of telling the story. So I just think they found each other in a way that Lennon and McCartney found each other, if I could really hyperbolize.

Dead Reckoning feels like its ramping up to bring full circle these ideas and themes that the series has been exploring since the very first film. Have there been callbacks or references that you particularly enjoyed being a part of?

The interesting thing about the initial phase of this story was that it was an eclectic showcase of separate directors, and then it morphed into something with greater continuity in terms of Chris and Toms collaboration. But Chris has always had a great understanding of the importance of the legacy, and so we have Henry Czerny back for this one, which is so cool to see Kittridge back, and Henrys such a brilliant actor. And also, the acknowledgement of where Ethan came from, this idea that the IMF agents are kind of offered a choice, which is usually prison, death or joining the IMF. And we came up with Benjis whole backstory, that he was a hacker in the UK who broke into a sensitive database in the US and got extradited to be tried criminally and then was offered the choice. And so theyre striving to move forward, but also the embracing of the history of it, I think really kind of singles this story out, I think, in franchise cinema.

Does Chris give you a sense of the road hes mapping, or do you even need that at this point when you learn the details of, say, Benjis origin story with the IMF?

McQs method of filmmaking is like in Wallace and Gromits The Wrong Trousers when Gromit is on the top of the train and hes laying the track in front of the train as its moving. I think McQ loves to have the story reveal itself to him, and those beautiful little parallels and callbacks arent necessarily preordained they just kind of present themselves. McQs really keen to evolve the story in a very organic way and never to cram anything in. If it feels right, well do it. If it feels like its just fan service or its just some kind of tenuous link, which doesnt quite ring true, then it wont find its way in.

On the other hand, the movie pokes very gentle fun at the idea that the IMF team has gone rogue more than it simply just followed a mission. Have there been other tropes you felt it probably was time to actually admit to as opposed to just sweeping past that choice?

Im so glad they made the IMF joke in this because the International Monetary Fund has become more of a presence in the news, and it felt like it had to be addressed. But something like the mask gag, which is probably the most absurd thing in all Mission: Impossible, the idea that you could literally just immediately look like someone else, I love the fact that we utterly commit to that device in such a way that it rings true. I think if we ever went, wait a minute, how could you look so much like [that person]? It would spoil it. We are not a self-reflexive series. Theres a little bit of that occasionally when its required, but I think sometimes being arch reflects a lack of confidence in your own story. If you dont have the confidence in the absurdity of your story, no one else is going to. And certainly with the mask gag, youve just got to commit.

One of the things that you do in this film is ride in a self-driving car. Why would Benji do that if it could be manipulated by The Entity?

Thats why he puts his seatbelt on. We had that thought, and we even spoke about the idea of The Entity hacking the car whilst Benji was in it. But I think he has to just do a Hail Mary and hope The Entity isnt listening. I mean, fortunately, theyre using kind of analog comms, so with a bit of luck The Entity wont be able to infiltrate the car. But I think its that moment of Benji thinking, you know what? Im just going to pop on my belt, and that was our a way of saying, yes, we know.

How important are those plot redundancies? Is there a certain threshold where telling a story thats exciting is more important than every single screw fitting into every little round hole?

Tom and McQ are incredibly meticulous with that kind of stuff. Obviously at times, just the sheer size of the story, the amount of characters, there are probably little holes that people can find, but weve always got a reason like that to explain stuff. But it is important to not just rely on peoples goodwill. I think you do have to try and cover every base as best you can, otherwise its just lazy. I get annoyed when I watch movies and things happen that just wouldnt happen for whatever reason. And not necessarily great big fantasy films where youre dealing with fantastic ideas, I dont like it when characters do things they wouldnt do just to facilitate a certain plot point. And I think McQ is really good at making sure that doesnt happen with this.

After returning to Benji so many times, what are you still learning about the character?

What I love about McQs writing is that hes always very true to the characters. Some people often say, dont you want to go and do that crazy stunt? And its like, well, maybe, but would Benji do that kind of thing? Hes not Ethan. Its Benjis job to be the one that actually says, What the fuck are we doing here? Whereas Ethans got to be so focused, he cant afford to take that pause. But I love the scene in this movie when Benjis defusing the bomb and its starting to kind of grill him about his personal life. Its both a heartwarming and sinister moment because its The Entity kind of drilling into Benji, but at the same time, you understand just how much Benji cares about whos around him. That character stuff is the secret weapon, I think, of these films. People often make a lot of the stunts, obviously, because Toms doing incredibly daring stuff, but what Tom and McQ talk about the most is character, and thats what they obsess about the most, thats what they spend the most time working on, is making sure that the people involved in these moments of daring are people that you give a shit about. Because if you dont, then those stunts will just be hollow.

Part One feels very complete even though obviously Part Two is coming. How much have you filmed of Part Two and what has the flow been from one film to the next?

Were not shooting in a pandemic, which means its not going to take quite as long as the last one did, which is a relief. I can tell you that weve already shot stuff which makes part one seem tame. To sit with an audience and watch Part One and know whats coming, I feel this supreme sense of dramatic irony. Its going to be extraordinary and surprising and also have the same degree of heart and character and attention to detail that Tom and McQ always bring.