(Image property of Skydance Media/Paramount Pictures)
People who say men don’t know how to express emotion have clearly never seen a group of guys discuss the tragic death of Nick “Goose” Bradshaw in the 1986 machismo classic you know as Top Gun. The Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School: The Movie.
Tony Scott’s Top Gun is one of the greatest military movies ever made. Hands down. Which is why many people, myself included, were skeptical when it was announced that nearly 60-year old Tom Cruise would be starring in a sequel made more than 30 years after the original’s release date.
The newly released Top Gun: Maverick now holds the record for longest amount of time between original movie and sequel. Not that this is the first or only long-delayed sequel we’ve seen released recently, but I would argue that, outside of your major franchises like Star Wars, this is the most high-profile sequel we’ve seen released.
Since “Maverick” is the sequel to a movie that has defined most men’s personalities for the better part of three decades, Hollywood knew it had to be done right. And, according to most of the people who have flocked to theatres for yet another Tom Cruise revival, they seem to have nailed it.
I will add one more voice to the crowd of those saying that Top Gun: Maverick is a very good movie.
Because Top Gun: Maverick is a very good movie.
The one nagging criticism that seems to be floating around out in the ether regarding Mr. Cruise’s latest high-flying escapade is that the movie never explicitly states who the enemy is. Seriously. Everyone wants to talk about why there is no clear identity for the enemy in this movie.
Some movie sleuths have deduced that the enemy nation in question must be Iran. For starters, there is a sorta spoilery element (Click that link at your own risk) that aeronautical experts have used to confirm this fact. There are also hints throughout the movie, such as radar screens that hint at the outline of Iran, and the fact that the mission is described as attacking a “state-sanctioned” target, so it can’t be separatists or terrorists, but an actual national military.
But I am here to tell you that the enemy in Top Gun: Maverick is not Iran.
The enemy is none other than Maverick.
“Is this like that movie where there were two of me? Maybe I really am my own worst enemy.” (Image Property of Skydance Media/Paramount Pictures)
And Rooster, Goose’s son who is now a Top Gun-caliber fighter pilot. And the new character Hangman. And John Hamm’s Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson. Legendary movie villain Ed Harris even makes a small appearance as an antagonist.
If I may get academic for a moment, there are a few different types of stories. Some stories are plot driven and some stories are character driven. While this may seem odd, Top Gun: Maverick is one hundred percent character driven. And that means that Top Gun: Maverick is all about personal conflict.
To continue our academic over-analysis of Hollywood cinema, there are a few different types of conflict that we discuss when talking about literature and stories: personal conflict, internal conflict, natural conflict, societal conflict, and technological conflict. To name a the primary, basic types of conflict.
Think about the greatest war movies you’ve ever seen. The best ones will usually boil down the massive military conflict into a personal conflict between two soldiers on opposing sides. Think of The Patriot where Mel Gibson’s American William Wallace is once again fighting a British ruffian, this time in the deliciously evil persona of Jason Isaacs’ Col. Tavington.
That was a personal conflict the filmmakers used to personify the "evil” of the British army.
In Top Gun: Maverick, the other military does not matter. Even though the entire movie is spent focusing on Maverick training his team for an upcoming mission against said military enemy, the identity of those enemies just isn’t important. It could be Iran, Russia, North Korea, Canada. Heck, it could be the Galactic Empire, for all I care.
That last joke isn’t too far off, either, considering that the battle plan was literally stolen from the Rebellion’s Battle of Yavin where a plucky farmboy blew up the Death Star.
“He gets a cool code name? All I got was a number and a color!” (Image property of LucasFilm/Disney)
The most important conflict in Top Gun: Maverick is the internal conflict that the titular character deals with. Maverick is fighting himself, he is fighting time, he is fighting a US military that kinda-sorta doesn’t really want him around anymore.
His internal struggle is summed up by the words of Val Kilmer’s Iceman: It’s time to let go.
The Gosling, played by Miles Teller and more accurately known as Rooster, is fighting the pain of losing his dad all these years later. He is fighting the pain of being around Maverick, the man he still somewhat holds responsible for killing his dad.
One of the movie’s entirely new characters, Hangman, played by Glen Powell, is a unique blend of Maverick and Iceman. He’s antagonistic and cocky, he’s a bit selfish, he’s a bit reckless, and he has to learn how to work in a team setting.
The training that these characters go through services the plot that services the conflict. It is not the other way around. Who cares about the faceless, nameless enemy? They aren’t important. Just as with the original, Top Gun: Maverick is a movie about the struggles that men and women go through when they have to learn how to get over themselves and care about others. Or, in at least one case, how to care about someone else a little bit less.
As great as explosive action can be, it doesn’t really tug at people’s heart. It doesn’t make a movie memorable. There are lots of mindless action movies that have come and gone with great looking action, but nobody really remembers them a few years later.
The reason that Top Gun: Maverick will endure is the same reason that Top Gun has endured. These movies are about the people and the entirely relatable conflicts that they go through. Not the military enemy.
“I have feelings, too!” (Image property of Paramount Pictures)
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never shot down a Russian MiG. I’ve never flown Mach 2 in an F-18. I can’t really relate to those moments.
I can, however, relate to someone who is mourning the death of a friend. I can understand how someone might feel if they had to carry the guilt of their best friend’s death. I can understand how someone might feel having to face the fear of a life-or-death situation where they have to succeed.
That emotional connection, that relatable conflict, is what makes the Top Gun movies better than standard action fare. That’s what makes just about any great action movie better than the standard popcorn flick.
Don’t get me wrong. This movie is full of high-flying action, aerobatic bedazzlement, and really, really cool explosions. It has everything a Top Gun movie should have. It’s just that most people don’t consciously think about the mental and emotional drama as a vital aspect of a Top Gun movie.
I can assure you, however, that complex emotional realization is indeed crucial to the success of these movies. On the list of elements vital to the success of a Top Gun movie, emotional drama ranks somewhere between fast planes and shirtless sports on the beach.
“I feel the need! The need…for emotional closure!” (Image property of Paramount Pictures)