Thursday, 4 February 1999

DECONSTRUCTING PAYBACK

Sometimes a wake-up call is in order. I certainly needed one after the Sundance marathon, and I got one Tuesday night at the press screening of Payback. It's an extraordinary movie. And that's not necessarily a compliment. What I'm going to write now is a non-spoiler look at the movie, something that you might find interesting before seeing the movie. There will be some spoilers available, but you will have to click to another page to get them, so don't be afraid. However, if you want a pure, unjaundiced eye when you see the film, I would suggest that you stop reading now, make note of the date and come back when you've seen the film. Enough with the warnings.

It's hard to tell whether it is my brain or this movie, but I don't think I've ever been more confident about my deconstruction of a troubled movie as I am after seeing Payback. I won't keep you in suspense about my general opinion any longer: this is not a real good film. Its tone and style are all over the place and I'm sure that you've heard by now (maybe here) about the re-shoots on the movie. They are what's fascinating. So much so, I may well go back for a second look. Almost all the buzz coming out about the movie to date has been a load of manure. After seeing the movie, I think it's fair to assume that we know exactly why Brian Helgeland wouldn't do the re-shoots -- they completely emasculated his movie. They did it masterfully and I am guessing, again based on the film itself, that it was completely Helgeland's fault that they felt they had to, but this film is not the film he set out to make. (Excuse all the "theys." Read them as Paramount, Mel Gibson and producer Bruce Davey.) Don't believe that this is a movie based on the book, The Hunter, credited to Donald E. Westlake's nom de plume, Richard Stark. This is a 100 percent attempt to rip-off John Boorman's Point Blank. At least it was when Brian Helgeland was in control of it. And don't believe the stories that Mel Gibson was driven to make his character more likable by his buddies, like Joel Silver. The changes were not likeablility changes, they were far broader than that.

Starting at the beginning, Helgeland chooses to use a blue, almost fluorescent light for the movie. He likely stole the idea from Le Samourai by Jean-Pierre Melville (1967). But he was also likely looking for a way to do something comparable to the color schemes that were so interestingly used in Boorman's Point Blank. As the film starts to roll along, there are changes from Point Blank, but no major ones. Helgeland clearly made a number of specific changes in his screenplay. (Such as moving it to the East Coast/Midwest or how certain gags affect certain characters.) But there is nothing that forces the movie to vary from the overall concepts of Point Blank.

That is, until the arrival of Lucy Lui, whom you probably know best from her weekly turns as Ling on "Ally McBeal." I am about as sure as I can be that Lui's character did not exist when principal photography began. (And in this case "principal photography" is literal, because there was major secondary photography done here.) If you look at the scenes that she is in, the tone is definitively more comedic than the rest of the movie. Particularly when she is teamed with Gregg Henry, whose performance jumps off the broadness meter when she is around. Also, I believe that she and the Asian gang she travels with, neither a part of Point Blank, were also added for action/comedy spice. You could leave all of those scenes out and the movie would still make sense. And that is the genius of the work that Gibson and co. did in restructuring the movie. It doesn't work, but they really do a great job of smoothing out the lines between Helgeland's version and their new material.

Can you imagine the meeting now?
Mel: "I saw that Asian chick on Michelle's husband's show last night." (He cocks head in that Mel way.) "She's the sexiest thing going. She's what we need here. But let's take her farther than she goes on that show. Let's put her in a leather thong and let her beat the sh-- out of people."
Bruce: "But how will that fit?"
Mel: "I don't know. Let's figure it out. Maybe she can beat the sh-- out of Gregg. The test audience seemed disappointed when I just shot him."

Likewise, the rumor is that the Kris Kristofferson character has been added to the film. Now, his analogous character from Point Blank, Fairfax, doesn't ever show up in the original movie. Nor does the entire subplot involving his son come from the original. But here it is, making more sense than the James Coburn character, who matches the Carroll O'Connor character form the original. Coburn shows up almost as a cameo now and in the scenes with Kristofferson, he is seen only in singles. Also suspicious is the fact that he goes uncredited. My guess (and this one is a bit of a leap) is that when Kristofferson was hired on, Coburn had the "and James Coburn" credit, which is what they needed to give Kristofferson because Gregg Henry probably had secured the second spot from the top, behind Mel, by contract and wouldn't give it up. So Coburn vied for the "uncredited" route that has garnered so much attention for folks like Bill Murray.

So why limit Coburn? Well, my clear view of the entire problem (to start with) is this -- audiences were laughing at the serious moments. Coburn gives what was supposed to be a comic relief performance. But, in a film that has audiences laughing unintentionally, they need more edge. Thus, the raging Kristofferson. As you watch the movie as it exists now, it is obvious that the audience is laughing at murders, for instance, that were not meant to be funny. But now with the new material, every murder, every arch moment of melodrama and all the sex outside of the first act is open for laughter. They signal this to us with the Liu character, with the hair of the drug courier (who may well have also been added to the film) and with the broad action beats that come up with the Asian street gang.

My feeling is that Helgeland, a first-time director, failed to live up to the ultra-sophisticated qualities that Boorman brought to Point Blank, which transformed it from bad noir into a work of art and a cherished part of film history. Interviews tell us that Lee Marvin (Boorman's Gibson) had to fight to get the studio to let Boorman make his art. Gibson probably did the same for Helgeland. That is, until the film stiffed in front of its first audience, and I bet you that no one had to wait for the screening cards to realize what the problem was. Boorman walked about as thin a line as you can walk with Point Blank and came up a winner. But Boorman is one of the greatest film directors to ever live. Helgeland was making his first film. It was foolish to give him that kind of support the first time out. Let him direct a Conspiracy Theory-type film, not something this hard to pull off. It was just too much to ask. And as well as Gibson and co. covered their asses, this film doesn't work. It will rank as an embarrassment, an embarrassment that will open around $20 million and end up grossing around $50 million. That's how popular Mel is. And he deserves to be, in my opinion. This thing was just a mistake all around. He could have been great in the role, but he should have gotten Steven Soderbergh to make it. Then he would have had a shot. But Helgeland, who wrote the greenlight draft, clearly leveraged his screenplay and relationship with Gibson to get the gig. Mistake. For him and Gibson and Paramount.

For the rest of this, the spolier stuff, click here.

READER OF THE DAY: From Frank: "Sorry, but I thought the Sundance columns were a big snooze. Films that no one wants to or will see -- especially if they have Val Kilmer in them. The only thing on Hollywood's mind (oxymoron?) is Tuesday's nominations. Will Gwyneth inch her way to an Oscar®? She is the front-runner unfortunately and unless Fernanda (Montenegro) pulls a Liz Taylor-like illness, G will win in a very lackluster year. Can Thin Red Line or Pvt. Ryan cop some acting noms? Can Thin Red Line get a Best Picture nom? Don't be surprised if it doesn't. Watch it go instead to Something about Mary or Out of Sight. Also, watch retard poster-boys Adam Sandler and Freddie Prinze Jr. present an Oscar® together -- I look forward to a close-up shot of someone like Jack Lemmon mouthing 'who are they?' Your next theme column should be on the quick turnaround of actors and films today, especially the fact that there are no more leading MEN and WOMEN but boys and girls. Think about it."

---

E ME: I shall. Pens to email and write!