MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible (1996) Discussion > Why did Kittridge expect Hunt to be boot...

Why did Kittridge expect Hunt to be booting up the NOC list even though it was a decoy?

posted 6 years ago by BillySlater (4099)
4 replies | jump to latest

In the aquarium scene, Kittridge tells Hunt, the NOC list was a decoy as part of an internal mole hunt. So why did he then expect Hunt to try and load up the list when Hunt knew it was a fake? Also, the original NOC list was in Langley in the vault room. Even though we know, the NOC list at the embassy was fake, what made Hunt and his team believe it was real and could get potentially out in the open, surely considering the safeguards in place to keep it secure, Hunt and his team would know that the IMF would never leave a real list so unsecure.

[–] Lemming (67) 6 years ago

Are you referring to the scene where Max loads up the disc while interrogating Hunt? Remember Hunt explains to Max that the disc is installed with a homing device to match their location. Max believes she has the real list, and loads it up regardless of Hunt's warning. The fake list was the CIA's decoy in the "mole hunt," so my guess is that the homing device was put there by them to track it during that operation. Kittridge didn't know Hunt would be booting it up later.

[–] BillySlater (4099) 6 years ago

I had to load up the scene on netflix, cos I made this comment a while ago. When they´re loading up the fake list, which Hunt advises them not to do, Kittridge shows up after they disappear and says " the man has gone black, Hunt is a ghost, we taught him how to do it" etc. My question was why did Kittridge expect to see Hunt trying to boot up the list, when Hunt already knew the list was fake?

[–] Ilyathe2nd (146) 6 years ago

Taken at face value it makes little sense for Kittridge not to realize the oddity in this action. It should be clear to a trained high-ranking intelligence operative, that Hunt would have used the known beacon deliberately.

That's why my head-canon says, that he knew something was off and was saying that to any possible hidden mics left and the lower-ranking CIA staff, who did not need to know about it. This makes it more reasonable why Kittridge gives Hunt the benefit of the doubt even after all that has happened and seems to have happened. If he were completely convinced of Hunt's guilt, that would be unlikely.

Remember, Kittridge has Hunt's family framed for drug trafficking onlyafter the Langley theft, not before, not even when he declared Hunt rogue at the site of Max's abandoned office.

But I did question several sections of the plot, including having Phelps with his wife kill the whole team. Would someone with a personality that twisted even have gotten into the services? It's doubtful that he grew so disillusioned his basic characteristics changed.

Or maybe I'm giving intel pros too much credit, in light of the Snowden surveillance revelations since 2013 and the many covert ops and coups d'etat over the years there may be more film-type Phelps's in there.

[–] BillySlater (4099) 6 years ago

I mean the whole good guy turns bad has been done ad nauseum, so I kind of don´t scrutinize it when its been so overdone as a plot device.