John Ottman

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?

A few weeks later I sat down with the script. I knew the film would be expected to be suspenseful and captivating – a ticking bomb – both literally and figuratively. Knowing the promise it would have to deliver, I was half way through the pages when I literally began to sweat. Scene after scene portrayed older men with confusing names in stuffy rooms concocting convoluted plots via unrelentingly technical dialog. It immediately dawned on me that I was headed for a project that was going to weigh massively on re-conceiving/juggling sequences in post, and of course, the music - more than any other film we'd done. It seemed like an operation as impossible as the one portrayed in the film.

The prospect was audacious: A story with an outcome everyone knew (Hitler wasn't going to die.) And on top of that, the main mission (blowing up Hitler) happens half way through the story. How do you keep an audience captivated to the end after you've kind of "blown the wad?" Then there's the fact it wasn't' the most "PC" holocaust era story to make in Hollywood. Given this, the boldness to make Valkyrie had to come from a belief in the film; one that never waivered. This was a true story that needed to be told, and it was also fodder for a great caper. To make those two sentiments work hand in hand was going to be a coup in itself. I tried to delude even myself it would be possible to accomplish this in the sixth-month "in and out" scenario.

Then came the news that the lead was going to be Tom Cruise. For us and for Tom, the expectations (and nay saying), together with pressures of an already tough assignment, would now be ten-fold. Nevertheless, the intent was to make, as Bryan put it, a "caper." It was even decided that in order to confirm the "independent nature" of the film, we'd shoot in 1:85 (non wide-screen). Shooting in super wide might incorrectly convey that we were attempting to shoot Schindler's List instead of a thriller. So, at the time, this decision was a wise one to confirm this as a smaller "independent" venture.

But since it now starred one of the most famous actors in the world, how could it ever be a smaller film? No longer could Valkyrie be made under the radar and sprung on audiences as a pleasant surprise months later. This was a film that was going to be followed intensely; and therefore the pressure to make it bigger and wider appealing was deep.

How do you make a thriller out of an important historical event without belittling the very event and its figures? Add to the mix that this story is practically a holy one for the Germans. The German's were initially concerned that Valkyrie would be Hollywood's excuse to make a Pearl Harbor out of this historical event. This explains why there was early apprehension, in addition to other controversies. But once the German media and opinion-makers read the script and met the filmmakers, they realized the film was more akin to a Tora Tora Tora than the latter. But for a film to succeed as both an historical drama and edge-of-your seat thriller is tricky. In fiction, (or irresponsible historical dramas) filmmakers can take wild liberties simply to service the suspense. With a true story, the hands are often tied if in fact there's a moral obligation to be accurate and respectful of history. Pushing the limits of a true story without affecting the truth is a tough balancing act that often becomes an albatross.

Fortunately everyone involved in the production had the desire – at all costs (pun intended?) – to maintain intelligence, accuracy and reverence to the historical events. Sticking to these guns paid off in the end in terms of the quality of the film – much to the chagrin of the naysayers. More on that later.