After hearing so much about the original filming of The Hunter, a novel by Richard Stark (Donald Westlake)- Point Blank starring Lee Marvin - I was pleased to discover a DVD of this recently. Now I can put into focus why the two versions (the other being the present film, Payback)have often been compared.
First, the two versions are very different. While Payback is informed by the first film's interpretation of the novel, most of it builds a whole new interpretation from the ground up.
Point Blank is a very odd film, attempting to interject avant-garde film ideas into a straight mainstream gangster film. It is entirely about the ethics of the central character ("Walker" in that film, "Porter" in this, Stark's "Parker"), a professional criminal bent on revenge. This professionalism - the heart of the Stark novel, by the way - is rather underscored in Point Blank, yet it is essential. Marvin's Walker is, specifically, a professional THIEF; thus the task of the storyteller is to let him get his revenge without actually killing anybody (since that would take him beyond his profession, into the role of murderer, with all sorts of worries attached to it that Walker doesn't really want).
Both Payback's director, Helgeland, and star Gibson have missed this entirely. Instead, they are more interested in seeing the character get his revenge in as violent a manner as possible, and still get away with it at the end. Thus, although Gibson's Porter is more clearly a career criminal, he is just not as professional as Walker (or original Parker).
This comes out in an oddly romantic way. In Point Blank, after sleeping with him, Walker's sister-in-law thinks she has found her way into his heart; "What's my first name?" he demands - a question she can't answer since he never bothered to tell her. This relationship isn't going to last very long.
Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, finds in the prostitute Rosie "the one good thing in life that hasn't been taken away." So Payback will need to find a way of resolving this new, exciting - and very UNprofessional - relationship by the end of the film (and I won't say how).
Does this make Gibson's Porter more "human" than Marvin's Walker? Oddly, no. One reason we're fascinated with Walker is because he is intentionally keeping his real personality hidden from the world. Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, is an open book - he's out for revenge, and we're along for the ride. The multi-dimensionality of the personality melts into the conventions of the genre. Thus despite his being a cold-blooded killer, Porter is really just another variant on the suicidal Vet-cum-Cop Gibson plays in "Leathal Weapon." The flatness of the characters in Payback is to some extent relieved by the excellent performances of the cast, all of which make these stereotypical genre figures seem believable - but it's all Hollywood, in the last analysis.
One more comparison between the two films is worthwhile here. Point Blank appears to have been made fairly rapidly, but director Boorman's strategic decisions concerning imagery and editing necessitated a remarkable precision in the making of the film.
By contrast, and despite delays, Payback looks hurried and sloppy. For one thing, the soundtrack wants to remind us that all this action is taking place around 1970. But since making this film a period-piece would have required much more expense and effort than is visible on screen, we are left with a film about 1990s gangsters who just never grew up.
Well, it sounds like I didn't care for Payback very much, but this is not true. Actually, I think Payback is a lot of fun, and I see it at least once a year; Now that I've seen Point Blank, I don't expect to see it again, because its so downbeat. Point Blank is a better film than Payback, but it's really a different film.
But films are not (contrary to Hollywood propaganda) just for fun. They can be that, but they can also be something else.
personally, I'm now looking forward to somebody savvy enough to make a version of The Hunter as complex as Point Blank and yet also as much fun as Payback. Now THAT would be a movie.
First, the two versions are very different. While Payback is informed by the first film's interpretation of the novel, most of it builds a whole new interpretation from the ground up.
Point Blank is a very odd film, attempting to interject avant-garde film ideas into a straight mainstream gangster film. It is entirely about the ethics of the central character ("Walker" in that film, "Porter" in this, Stark's "Parker"), a professional criminal bent on revenge. This professionalism - the heart of the Stark novel, by the way - is rather underscored in Point Blank, yet it is essential. Marvin's Walker is, specifically, a professional THIEF; thus the task of the storyteller is to let him get his revenge without actually killing anybody (since that would take him beyond his profession, into the role of murderer, with all sorts of worries attached to it that Walker doesn't really want).
Both Payback's director, Helgeland, and star Gibson have missed this entirely. Instead, they are more interested in seeing the character get his revenge in as violent a manner as possible, and still get away with it at the end. Thus, although Gibson's Porter is more clearly a career criminal, he is just not as professional as Walker (or original Parker).
This comes out in an oddly romantic way. In Point Blank, after sleeping with him, Walker's sister-in-law thinks she has found her way into his heart; "What's my first name?" he demands - a question she can't answer since he never bothered to tell her. This relationship isn't going to last very long.
Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, finds in the prostitute Rosie "the one good thing in life that hasn't been taken away." So Payback will need to find a way of resolving this new, exciting - and very UNprofessional - relationship by the end of the film (and I won't say how).
Does this make Gibson's Porter more "human" than Marvin's Walker? Oddly, no. One reason we're fascinated with Walker is because he is intentionally keeping his real personality hidden from the world. Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, is an open book - he's out for revenge, and we're along for the ride. The multi-dimensionality of the personality melts into the conventions of the genre. Thus despite his being a cold-blooded killer, Porter is really just another variant on the suicidal Vet-cum-Cop Gibson plays in "Leathal Weapon." The flatness of the characters in Payback is to some extent relieved by the excellent performances of the cast, all of which make these stereotypical genre figures seem believable - but it's all Hollywood, in the last analysis.
One more comparison between the two films is worthwhile here. Point Blank appears to have been made fairly rapidly, but director Boorman's strategic decisions concerning imagery and editing necessitated a remarkable precision in the making of the film.
By contrast, and despite delays, Payback looks hurried and sloppy. For one thing, the soundtrack wants to remind us that all this action is taking place around 1970. But since making this film a period-piece would have required much more expense and effort than is visible on screen, we are left with a film about 1990s gangsters who just never grew up.
Well, it sounds like I didn't care for Payback very much, but this is not true. Actually, I think Payback is a lot of fun, and I see it at least once a year; Now that I've seen Point Blank, I don't expect to see it again, because its so downbeat. Point Blank is a better film than Payback, but it's really a different film.
But films are not (contrary to Hollywood propaganda) just for fun. They can be that, but they can also be something else.
personally, I'm now looking forward to somebody savvy enough to make a version of The Hunter as complex as Point Blank and yet also as much fun as Payback. Now THAT would be a movie.