What do you do when money’s tight, but all of a sudden that saved search for a rare and precious object comes through five years after you set it?
You bloody well make the purchase, that’s what. Electricity, water, and cable will all be around later, but that Holy Grail may not be. OK, electricity, water, and cable may not be precisely in your house after you failed to pay the bill, but they’ll be around–at your neighbors house, for example, or at the corner bar. And they’ll get back to your place eventually once you recover from the purchase.
Above is the cover of the Doc Savage novel, Asylum of Fear. About all I know about it is that it’s a work of fan fiction that was a freebie at a Doc Savage convention. It’s also the only published work of Doc Savage fiction I didn’t own. Until now!
These are four first edition Lawrence Block Matthew Scudder novels. I apologize for the flash reflection on A Ticket to the Boneyard but I’m not exactly a professional photographer.
I scored these babies for ten bucks a pop at the Austin Book and Paper Show a few months back. The seller was getting out of the fiction business in favor of nonfiction, so he was having a clearance sale. Lucky me!
At the same show, I acquired this baby for under twenty dollars.
Not in the greatest shape, but for under $20, I’m happy to provide it with a loving home. I was scared to take the dust jacket out of the wrapper to scan it because the whole thing is fragile, but it worked out alright and I managed to get the wrapper back cuddling around it and protecting it after the scan was done.
In other news, there’s likely to be a blogging hiatus here for two to three weeks. Nick is in the process of moving and I’ve got a convention to work on behalf of my association. Sometimes when I’ve said there’s going to be a hiatus, I ended up reading and writing about a whole lot of stuff, and that could well happen this time. But if it doesn’t, know that we’re not going anywhere and we’ve got some good stuff coming up. Thank you for always coming back.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
Nice score, Trent, except Doc looks like he’s experienceing the aftereffects of a Burrito Supreme with a dubious meat filler and his crew look like a bunch of middle age dads in a father/son Dungeon & Dragons club;-) lol
I had a few of the Bantam reprints as a kid, and the Marvel comics/magazines, even the late 80’s DC Joe Kubert–or possiby Andy Kubert, it’s been a while–DC revival which focused on Doc’s sons.
I’m pretty sure the nutty guys on the cover are friends of either the author or the artist.
The DC comics you’re thinking of are from the early ’90s. When I read them at the time, I thought they were terrible.
The one on the far left is Will Murray, the present Doc Savage author of eleven new novels as of 2015.
Cool score Trent! I read about half of the Bantam Doc Savage re-prints in my teens. About half of the Tarzan novels at that time as well. I think it was Ballantine that printed the Tarzan books back then. I have one with Ron Ely as Tarzan on the cover as the late 60’s TV series was just coming out. Those were the first series characters I ever read and they had a huge impact on me. Ah the memories!
On another note, back on March 14th in “The Wolf Man by Christopher Lyons” blog comments (comments section is now closed), Chris pointed out the gaping plot hole that has Ed Mackey killed at the end of Plunder Squad, only to return with no explanation in Butcher’s Moon. This bothered me as well but as I continued on with the Parker series I found this explained in Breakout:
“Some years ago, Brenda had trailed Mackey and Parker, though she hadn’t been asked to, when they went to deliver some stolen paintings in a deal that then went very bad. At the end, Parker left a lumberyard’s burning main building, with the paintings destroyed and he’d believed Mackey was dead, shot by one of the people who’d been waiting in there. Brenda, seeing Parker take off alone, went into the building, found Mackey on the concrete floor, and dragged him out and into her car before the fire engines arrived.”
Mystery solved! BTW, I just finished the Parker series and felt it ended on a damn strong note. IMO, the last 3 books, Nobody Runs Forever, Ask the Parrot and Dirty Money, were among the best in the series.
I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that it was probably Brenda who got Ed out of there, though I figured she’d helped him escape from a hospital, since he was pretty badly wounded–the guys who’d come after them thought he was dead. It’s the kind of thing you’d think she’d bring up when they get the call for another Parker-heist, but I guess Westlake figured he had enough backstory in that novel as matters stood. One of the reasons Butcher’s Moon was out of print so long is that as great as it is, it’s the one Parker novel you don’t want to read without having read all the books that came before it.
I read Breakout a few months before I got to Plunder Squad, and I forgot about that explanation. So in Butcher’s Moon, Westlake brought Wycza and Mackey back from apparent (but not 100% confirmed) death, without explaining why they were still alive, then in the post-hiatus series of books, he VERY belatedly explained that Parker had been mistaken in both cases. It was in Backflash that Wycza’s reappearance was briefly explained. I’m guessing Westlake had heard a lot of quibbling from fans in the quarter century or so after Butcher’s Moon came out.
I think DEW should have just published all three books as one huge volume. They were all of a piece anyway. Well, sort of.
Ask The Parrot has the only scene I couldn’t stomach–the killing of the Parrot. I love birds, have owned them, trained them, cared for them. That scene was rough.
Oddly enough I’m A-O.K. with the people who get offed. Don’t know what that says about me;-) lol
Yes Chris, good call on Brenda being the one who got Mackey out alive, even if you had forgotten the details. I really enjoyed that pair and liked the way they worked together. They had a nice chemistry and total trust in each other. I also liked Dan Wycza a lot. Along with Handy McKay in the early books, my favorite Parker accomplices. Glad DEW kept them alive!
My fave Parker sideman is Grofield. I wouldn’t have minded seeing him in a few more Parkers.
Stan Devers is also cool because we all can relate to wanting to take down an employer like that.
OK–Maybe only some of us can relate to that;-)
Yeah Dave…every employer I have ever had! LOL!
Grofield was an interesting character but DEW seemed to have it out for him:
Shot up and left to wander through the Mexican desert in The Handle.
Injured in the getaway car accident in Slayground.
Shot, held hostage and finger cut off in Butcher’s Moon.
Did I forget anything? Kind of amazing he survived to have his own adventures!
I haven’t read any of the Grofield solo novels yet but will get around to it one of these days. Nice that U of C has re-printed them for us.
As I read the Parker novels, I tried hard to avoid imagining the characters as actors. I was reasonably successful EXCEPT for Grofield who I always pictured as a young (early 1980’s) Ted Danson. Any thoughts on that casting?
Interesting–from the moment I first encountered Grofield, in The Outfit, I saw him as a young Alan Alda. His manner of speaking, never taking anything seriously, trying to keep everybody off-balance–very Hawkeye Pierce. Though of course Alda was channeling Groucho Marx in that role, and for all I know Westlake was doing the same when he wrote Grofield.
Alan Alda…yeah, I can see that as well. Once again, nearly all the actors we can imagine in these roles are now TOO DAMN OLD FOR THE PARTS! Just as you mentioned in another recent post Chris. Sad day for modern crime films…
Well, there’s always great talents we don’t know about yet. Hard to make them the stars of a major motion picture–but a cable TV series, quite possibly.
Parker will always be hard to cast, but you can’t tell me there’s not a hundred actors out there who couldn’t play Grofield. I mean, it’s not like they have to search very hard to find his motivation. ;)
Who could play Grofield, sorry. An unintentional use of the double negative.
I have the PERFECT Parker/Grofield casting for film version of The Handle, which I’m soon to direct for Paramount;-) lol
PARKER: ROBERT MITCHUM! (Mid-1960’s Mitchum, of course)
GROFIELD: ANTHONY PERKINS! (Mid-1960’s Perkins, of course)
C’mon, Perkins’ playful charm and banter bouncing off hard as a rock, laconic Mitchum. This IS the perfect cast for The Handle (please keep applause to a minimum out of respect for my neighbors;-)
YES! I’m gonna have to invent a time machine first, but expect this film in 2013;-) lol
Ha, ha! Not bad Dave. Good luck with that time machine…let’s get this done!
I haven’t written about this, but I always intended to. I’m sure I’ll do it one of these days.
In Backflash, Parker needs an actor to help carry off his heist. And Westlake went with a character not named Grofield! This puzzles me–it was the perfect opportunity to revive a beloved character. Perhaps Westlake had decided he was simply done with Grofield and didn’t want to mess with him anymore.
Clue:
The Grofield books are not great, except for Lemons Never Lie. But they’re short and fun enough (also except for Lemons, which is much darker than the other three) so worth a read if you’re a fan.
Obviously he didn’t want to use Grofield anymore, but why?
I hate to discuss the plot to Butcher’s Moon much online, but there’s a key moment in the book where Grofield thinks something that can be interpreted in one of two ways–as his lamenting what another character has done, or lamenting what his creator–namely Stark/Westlake–has done.
See, unlike Parker, Grofield winks at the audience–like constantly. He’s the man who never STOPS winking. And maybe it’s just me, but I always feel like he’s making asides to the audience–casting quick sideways glances at us to see what we think (as stage actors so often do)–breaking the fourth wall, you might say. On some level, Grofield knows he’s playing a part in a story somebody is telling, and he’s frequently got problems with the script.
I think there was a somewhat troubled relationship between author and character in this case. Westlake strongly identified with Grofield, who as I mentioned in an earlier post, echoes certain aspects of Westlake’s personality more strongly than Parker. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he likes Grofield better–quite the contrary. Parker is the ideal, Dortmunder is the reality, but Grofield is somewhere in-between. I think Dortmunder took Grofield’s place in Westlake’s heart, and he just didn’t have room for him anymore.
So why not use him now and again as a supporting character? Because once you’re a star, you can’t go back to the chorus. ;)
I never understood why Grofield wasn’t even mentioned in the post-Butcher’s Moon books. I was really hoping to spot a reference to him in those books and was disappointed there wasn’t one. DEW brought back so many characters from the original run of stories, it just seems weird he wouldn’t include mention of a character most Stark fans love–Grofield.
The first three Grofield books are Dortmunder-ish: I mean they’re more light-hearted, but still worth reading because Grofield is an engaging character. Lemons brings us right back into classic Stark territory.
hey i found the prob air leak and when i bought the lst2 the sencod gear was stripped but it did not look like it and then when i put it back to stock settings on spur the truck went into sencod killed the gearsthank god 4 ebay lol
Also, wanted to mention something that had been bugging me for a bit. In The Hot Rock, Greenwood starts using the alias Grofield when he gets busted out of jail. Some concluded he was the Grofield of the Parker books, other claimed he wasn’t.
Was rereading Bank Shot lately and caught a reference Kelp makes which makes it clear Greenwood and Grofield are two distinct characters. Greenwood goes on to become a television star; something we Grofield fans know our man would never lower himself to;-) lol
Great casting Dave! I don’t know why nobody matched Mitchum with Parker before. It’s a natural fit! Perkins is a good match for Grofield but I think it’d be hard to see him on screen and not think about Norman Bates!
Sorry if you were asked this before, but do you have any notions for today’s generation of actors for Parker and Grofield? Do you like Statham for Parker? I think it’s a good choice.
You’re right about it being odd for westlake not to use Grofield in the newer books. I guess we’ll never know why he chose not to. Maybe he just got tired of the charcter.
I’ve certainly thought of Mitchum–I don’t know how you can watch “Cape Fear” and not think of him, as different as that character is from Parker (too emotional).
If you could go back in time and get anybody, alive or dead, at the right general age–
Paul Muni
Robert Ryan
Richard Boone
Clint Eastwood
William Smith
Sterling Hayden
Nick Nolte
But I honestly don’t think anybody could ever improve on Lee Marvin. I don’t just mean in “Point Blank”. You ask me, his best Parkerian performance was in “The Dirty Dozen.” He’s putting together a string in that movie. And just like in the Parker novels, he’s got to work with the material at hand to get the job done.
Marvin had a unique gift for being able to express volumes with a perfectly blank facial expression. It all comes out through the eyes. He was the man born to play the role, and he kindasorta did, only not quite.
Btw, Paul Muni’s height is variously listed as 5’9 and 5’10–he was around the same height as Humphrey Bogart (not to mention Jason Statham), only of course the average height in the 30’s and 40’s was not so lofty as it is now.
Those who question his inclusion should perhaps check out a little film called “Angel on My Shoulder” sometime. And of course “Scarface” (which I happen to prefer to the one with Pacino, but I’m weird). He stood pretty tall onscreen–partly his lean build, and partly his charisma. I’d certainly prefer somebody taller (and perhaps a bit less overtly emotive), but he could have worked. A very versatile actor, who basically stopped working much in Hollywood because he found the available roles so constraining.
I think less in terms of bringing these actors forward in time as going back in time to make a Parker movie in the various eras they were at their respective peaks. Such a fun (and pointless) game, is Imaginary Casting Director.
People got taller. Today, I think you’d want somebody at least 6’2–not an inch under 6’1, and only if the actor is perfect in all other respects. No taller than 6’5, or he’d stick out in a crowd too much. No blondes (dye is cheap). Dark eyes preferred, blue or grey eyes acceptable, as long as they’re suitably intense. Parker is variously described in the books as ‘big and shaggy’, ‘tall and ropy’, ‘wide and blocky’–he’s square-shouldered in The Hunter, but slope-shouldered in some of the later books. His hair is various shades of brown, maybe black. There’s no actor on earth who could possibly match every physical description. No wonder he’s so hard to finger. ;)
I think the first Dortmunder was actually the Hot Rock and Paul Newman and Zero Mostel did a film back in the early stveneies. George C. Scott made Bank Shot a few years later. Gary Coleman made Jimmy the Kid which is probably best forgotten.
Chris has some great retro Parker choices there! Any one of those guys would have made a great Parker in their day. I agree with Chris on Lee Marvin as well. He was definitely very Parker in Point Blank even though I am not a huge fan of that movie.
Jay – There has been lot’s of chatting going on about Statham as Parker on here, the Parker Yahoo group, IMDB and probably other sites as well. Most of it pretty unfavorable towards him. I would never think of Statham as Parker if he wasn’t the guy cast in the movie, however, when you consider the current crop of well known actors out there right now, he isn’t the worst choice. Personally, I would like to see Jon Hamm or Ray Stevenson as Parker.
Clue, my own feeling is that while Statham isn’t ideal, he’s not the worst pick they could have made, if they had to go with somebody established–not much of a draw these days, though–the budget better be low.
Jon Hamm would do great in many a Westlake adaptation–just finished “The Cutie”, and I definitely saw him as Clay. I just can’t see him as Parker–too polished-looking, and while he can play a tough guy, he can’t play THE tough guy. He needs to play complicated people.
Ray Stevenson is more like it, and he can certainly play uncomplicated people, but he’s less of a draw than Statham. And already getting a bit long in the tooth.
I honestly can’t think of a single ‘name’ actor doing lead roles in movies now who would be a good fit. Which is why I have no real problem with Statham. But no real enthusiasm either.
Jay: AT first, I was unimpressed with Statham. First, I’ve never heard him do a recognizable US accent. Second, he’s 5’9″!!! I’m 6’2″ and my older brother is 5’9″, so I know there’s a huge difference between the heights. I think Parker is 6’2″ or a shade under, so I’d have liked to have had a more accurate physical match. Third, Statham seems kinda campy to me, like he’s always in on the joke.
BUT
Lately I’ve been warming up to him. He’s growing on me, like a fungus, you might say;-) lol I’m beginning to think he may be today’s equivilant of Charles Bronson, who was one badass to the max. Statham seems like he’s lived, if you get my drift. He is powerfully built for a shorter guy, and he can appear menacing: even though he’s a good deal smaller than me, I’d think twice before tangling with him. So the verdict is: I can live with Statham. Just wish he’d hire a dialect coach!
My modern day Parker is Ray Stevenson. Watch Punisher: War Zone or Kill The Irishman. He’s big, he can act, he’s tough enough to impress the guys as well as handsome enough to make women feel “vibrations below the waist”. Check him out on IMDB.COM or google image him. He is a great Parker.
If they do a series of films and Statham bows out, they could always have the next film open with a sequence where Parker’s face is bandaged up and a doctor is cutting the gauze away and PRESTO! Instant Parker replacement. Plastic surgery in the modern era is quite good, eh?;-) lol
Grofield is tougher. Maybe a cleaned up Benicio Del Toro. Grofield is tall, swarthy so BDT fits. Plus he’s one of the best actors of this or any other generation, and can definitely play that type of charming, winking at the camera style required. (Check out a great crime gem called “Way of the Gun”–he plays “Mr. Longbaugh”. His partner’s name is “Mr. Parker”!”)
Chris, your list is superb except for Paul Muni–he’s like 5’5″, so unless they’re gonna make an all dwarf version of a Parker book, I don’t understand Muni.
Finally, Marvin was a good Parker, but not great. Too old for the role at that point in his career. At least, he LOOKED too old.
Have a great Tuesday everybody!:-)
Sorry, Chris, I had the wrong dude. I was thinking of “Could this be the end of Rico?” That guy, as we all know, is Edward G. Robinson, who was in The Cincinatti Kid and Soylent Green.
I agree people are getting taller; but there’s a lot of short people out there. I’m taller than 95% of the people I run across, same height as a few, a tad shorter than some, and once in a while I run into someone who is quite a bit taller than me. I came to the conclusion Parker is about 6’1 1/2 to 6’2″ because in Dead Skip Dan Kearney says Parker is “half a head taller than me”. DK is 5’9″. I checked out the length of the average male head and it’s 9 inches. So half of that is four and a half inches which translates to 6’1 1/2. I know DEW didn’t write that scene but I’m sure Gores showed him it before it was sent to the editor and DEW didn’t complain. Plus in Cook’s adaptation of The Hunter, Parker’s driving licence says “6’2″ and 200 lbs”. Quite a big guy for 1962. Still big now, but in no way massive.
I never understood what DEW meant by shaggy. My mind automatically visualizes Scooby Doo’s constant companion. Did he mean unkempt?
I was – and still am to a large extent – on board with Statham as Parker, but having recently seen his latest film SAFE, well… there’s a couple of moments where he seems to be trying on a US accent. The results are not good.
Fingers crossed he doesn’t attempt the same (or somehow masters the accent) in future efforts…
Dave, that comment about an all-dwarf movie of The Handle had me laughing out loud. That would actually be a movie I’d pay eleven bucks to see!
Everbody here seems so knowledgeable about Stark. Great resource for anyone new to the books.
Dave did you see all the parker movies? Any favorites? I liked Payback with Mel Gibson. Haven’t seen a couple of them, but definitely will in the future. And I think by shaggy Westlake meant his hair was a little long and loose, or maybe sideburns.
In Comeback, Ed Mackey hears about how Parker took out a roomful of rent-a-cops, and deeply impressed, he says “That Parker is a shaggy guy.” I don’t think Ed’s referring to him needing a haircut.
To me, all of Westlake’s prose dealing with Parker’s appearance is an attempt not to describe so much as evoke. He’s evoking an ideal, and we’re supposed to fill in the blank spaces. It’s powerful imagery, but it’s also deliberately indistinct. Maybe he had Jack Palance in mind to begin with, but he really doesn’t want us to see a specific actor. Parker’s identify isn’t found in his face, but in what’s behind it. That’s why he’s so blase about changing his face.
Well, Parker has been played by a white man, an Asian man, a French woman, a French man, an African-American man, so why not a dwarf?;-) lol
My take on the Parker films:
The two asian films I can’t say much about–haven’t seen ’em. But in one of them Parker’s a cop, so… let’s say the screenwriter probably didn’t have a great understanding of our favorite Jugger.
Made is USA is horrendous. Watch at your own risk.
Point Blank: Pretty , pretty good, as Larry David would say. Not great, mind you, but darn good.
The Outfit: I like this one quite a bit. I saw it on TV quite a while ago, even before I was a huge Stark fanatic. Duvall is DEW’s favorite Parker. Said he got closer than anyone else.
The Split: Haven’t seen it. Don’t like the idea of Brown as Parker. (He’s called Maclain in this one).
Chris Lyons, intrepid poster here at TVWOP, and probably the most knowledgeable film guy I know, stated he’s quite fond of it BUT he’s on record as being a Jim Brown fan, so that may color his perception. I will eventually watch it as it’s DEW-related, but I’m in no hurry.
Slayground: O.K., here I am a lone duck, as I’m the only one here at TVWOP who’s ever defended this film. Most think it’s a big stinkeroo, BUT I happen to like this film. If you go into it expecting a straight-up adaptation of Slayground, you will be disappointed. If you go into this expecting a valid portrayal of Parker, you’ll be disappointed. In comics, there are “alternate versions” of certain heroes, like Batman of Earth 1, Batman of Earth 2, etc. If you go into this with the idea Stone, played by Peter Coyote, is an alternate universe version of Parker, not as tough, not as ruthless, you may enjoy it. I did. By the way, it’s the only Parker film where Parker uses the “Chuck Willis” I.D.
Payback: Not bad, but Gibson is miscast. Too comedic. The original film’s tone was off, more Dortmunder-ish, almost. The Director’s Cut, Payback: Straight-Up, is worth finding as it’s much darker, and better. Gibson was just the wrong actor to play Parker (his name is Porter in this film).
Mise-a-Sac (Pillaged): Based on The Score. Haven’t seen it but I’m dying to. The actor playing the Parker part is spot on in terms of looks. Maybe one day this’ll be released on DVD with subtitles. If there’s a God, it’ll be released on DVD;-) lol
Shaggy: Parker has been described as having brown hair, then black hair. Being blocky, being rangy. Being handsome, being ugly. For what it’s worth, here’s the dictionary’s definition of shaggy:
Definition of SHAGGY
1 a: covered with or consisting of long, coarse, or matted hair b: covered with or consisting of thick, tangled, or unkempt vegetation c: having a rough nap, texture, or surface d: having hairlike processes
2 a: unkempt b: confused or unclear in conception or thinking
And btw, I don’t like The Split that much. I just don’t think Jim Brown is the problem with it.
The only genuinely good Parker-based movie AS a movie is Point Blank (and I see no reason to think that’ll change anytime soon). Payback is enjoyable, and in fact was the first version I saw of any Parker story, long before I read any of the novels. I used to watch it on TNT over and over, until I knew parts of it by heart. Wondered why I liked it so much, since it’s not exactly a classic, and I’m not terribly fond of Mel Gibson (it’s pretty much the last good movie he’s been in). I tried the director’s cut to see if it was better, and while I can see they’re trying to be more faithful to the story, they’re not really succeeding. If you don’t understand the story you’re telling, you might as well tell your own story, which is why the version seen in theaters works better. The best part of either version is the dialogue they lifted straight from the book. Well, that and Maria Bello, who would have made a fabulous Claire.
Payback led me to Point Blank, and Point Blank ultimately led me to the novels. I don’t always like the book better than the movie. But in this case, I’d take any chapter of a Parker novel over all the Parker-based movies ever made.
Nice job Dave. I too share your great desire to see Mise a Sac. From what I have read, it sounds like it’s a pretty faithful version of The Score. We can only hope a DVD comes out some day.
I also like The Outfit very much and bought it on DVD a few months ago. There are a few scenes and some dialogue taken directly from the book.
I’m not a big fan of Point Blank although I love Lee Marvin. He is great as the Parker character (Walker).
I may be the only person on here who actually liked Mel Gibson in the role. He definitely Mel-Gibson-ized the part but the Payback Directors Cut is pretty good and almost as good as The Oufit (in my opinion).
Those are the only Parker adaptations I have seen but The Split actually kind of intrigues me. I may pick it up some day. I don’t expect it to be great but it sounds kinda fun. I will definitely NOT expect Parker out of it! As for Slayground, everyone else warns us away from it but you actually made me curious Dave. I see it on Amazon for 6 bucks. Might have to give it a shot after all!
Clue: Please try Slayground. I would love someone on this site to say something nice about the film. It’s been called so many bad things I think people don’t look at it with fresh eyes when they eventually do see it. If you have the IFC channel, they play it on there religiously.
Chris, did you get around to seeing The Outfit yet? I’m curious what your take on it is. I think you may find Duvall’s Parker quite fascinating.
Which goes to prove you really DON’T have to be 6’2″ and 200 Lbs. and have shaggy brown hair to play Parker. Even a bald, short, bowl-legged guy can play Parker IF he’s a good enough actor and aquaints himself with the source material.
Have a great Thursday people! Off I go into a cool gray world;-) lol
Chris – I definitely agree with you on two counts:
1> “I’d take any chapter of a Parker novel over all the Parker-based movies ever made.” – Well said!
2> Maria Bello (one of my favorite actresses) would have made a great Claire.
I am also not much of a Mel Gibson fan but check out Edge of Darkness if you haven’t seen it. I liked it a lot.
Thanks also for sharing how you came to Parker via the Payback and Point Blank films. I always enjoy hearing how people came to find Parker/Stark/Westlake. I’m pretty new to Parker. I was vaguely familiar with the Parker series from seeing them in bookstores when I was a kid but never read any until I stumbled onto this website. Even then I had to check out Cooke’s version of The Hunter before I read the actual novels. Now, 8 months and 24 Parker books later, I’m a fan of the highest order.
Dave – I decided to shell out the $5.46 for the Slayground DVD on Amazon. I should have it by the weekend. I’ll let you know what I think of it!
Dave, I think Mel did a good job with Parker. I don’t think he was miscast. And from what Chris wrote he brought a lot of people to the books. Sorry to disagree with you, but I think a lot of your other comments were on the money. Do you like Mel as an actor, aside from Payback?
I’m sure The Split brought people to the books. You want to bet Made In USA didn’t bring some French New Wave cinema fans to the books? The books can speak for the books just fine–the books keep bringing filmmakers to take with both hands, and the filmmakers never get it right. Sometimes they make a decent film. Mostly they don’t. But they only take what they want, and leave the rest. Sloppy heisters.
I think Payback is a decent enough film in either version–much less coherently re-imagined than Point Blank, with a much less impressive lead, and a much less capable director–I will give the script brownie points for sticking in so much classic Richard Stark dialogue verbatim, even if it is repurposed.
Gibson did a good job with the role he was playing, but he wasn’t playing Parker. His height isn’t the main problem, any more than Brown’s color, or Anna Karina’s gender (and of course he’s better-suited than either of them).
His attitude is all wrong. He wants us to LIKE him. He doesn’t care if the people in the film like him (well, except for Maria Bello, and who could blame him?), but he keeps winking at the audience here and there, reassuring us he’s not such a bad guy. Less in the original version, but who insisted the movie be recut, with dubbed in narration, and reshot scenes? Mel Gibson. It’s his movie. And in all fairness, the changes he made were probably for the better, in terms of making a film that didn’t flop, the way Point Blank did, because Point Blank, for all the changes it made, played its Pseudo-Parker straight. Marvin captured the enigma of the character remarkably well. Gibson never could. Not his thing.
A REAL ‘straight-up’ Parker adaptation would be a real hard sell, make no mistake. There’s a reason Parker never made any best-seller lists, though there was always a ready market for more books. You really need the more specialized niche audiences on pay cable to ever make that work.
But even with all the tweaks, Payback would have been a flop if it hadn’t had Mel Gibson, back when his name alone sold a whole lot of tickets (a whole hell of a lot more than Jason Statham ever has). It’s actually one of his lower-grossing films from his heyday as an action star. Because with all the gunplay and explosions, it’s not really an action movie. It’s not mainstream, and I like that about it, but it’s trying to be mainstream, and I don’t like that about it. I see what they’re doing there, and it works as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. When push comes to shove, Mel Gibson always has to be the hero. ALWAYS. And Parker, as we all know, has no use for heroes.
I’m notoriously demanding when it comes to movies, which is why I hardly go see them anymore. Most of the best movies ever made were made before I was old enough to go see them. Same goes for crime novels, of course. And music. Same goes for almost everything. Born too late, dammit.
Btw, Payback made 161 million dollars worldwide–like I said, not great for a Mel Gibson pic in the 90’s. Its budget was too high for it to make a profit with that gross, but the studio probably made money with home video and TV sales factored in. It’s been shown on TV regularly ever since.
It was probably seen by more people than all the other Parker adaptations combined.
Litvinenko’s superior htaleh is what enabled him to stay alive long enough to talk to reporters, who then publicized his case. This is what I explained in clear terms in my post which clarified the issue of why it is that the general public is aware of his murder. To reiterate, had Litvinenko died a quick death, the details of his assassination, though they would (most likely, but not assuredly, as deaths from cancer are not ordinarily followed by autopsies) have been investigated, would not have received much, if any, publicity. Again, I made this clear in my previous post, and now that I’ve repeated it, I hope you are able to grasp the concept.As for the conjectures about how it was that the Kremlin was caught essentially red-handed assassinating a British citizen on British soil, well, conjecture is conjecture, rumination and nothing more.It is plausible that a message was being sent to others, in the most public of ways, not to publicize the crimes of the Kremlin. This would not, after all, be the first time something of this type has been done by the rulers of Russia.It is plausible that a message was being sent to the West that the next terrorist attacks are to be nuclear.It is plausible that Litvinenko’s death was meant to appear to have been from natural causes, that detection of the polonium-210 was not thought to have been likely or even possible by the assassins because they thought he would die much quicker than he did.It is plausible that, given the position of strength (a fact which I will not go into in this post for the reason that it would require, in effect, that I teach you a great deal about the subjects of Russian strategic superiority, strategy, tactics, and other things which I don’t have the time to go into right now) that Russia commands, Russia did not care whether they were caught in the act or not. In other words, Russia is now in a position in which its leaders no longer have to rely on deception, and is free to begin openly bullying the world the same way it does its own population.You and certain others here may scoff at the things I have revealed, either because you are in denial, or because you wish to maintain the grand fiction, but to others what I’ve said will be a revelation, and they will begin their own inquiry. They will begin to wonder if they were deceived, if Reagan, Thatcher, and all of the West was deceived. And if they dig a little, they will know that they were, and they will wonder why it is that you are carrying water for murderers.Litvinenko was killed because he exposed the fact, in great and convincing detail, that FSB agents, acting on orders from the Kremlin, blew up apartment buildings in Moscow and other cities in order to start two Chechen wars, so that fictional democracy in Russia would bring to power the one of their own, Vladimir Putin.Your denials ring hollow.
That’s going to make things a lot easier from here on out.
Clue: Good going, my man! After viewing it, please do let me know what you think.
Jay: No worries! What works for me might not work for you and vice versa. I don’t think my opinion is any more valuable than anyone else’s here. And by the way, I do like Payback enough to have bought both versions on DVD. Whereas if Made in USA was free I wouldn’t take it.
Gibson is OK. He has some decent acting chops–I agree with Clue, his best work was probably Edge of Darkness. My only problem with him as Parker is … well, Parker has to be intimidating. If he throws you a scary look, you should wet your knickers. If Mel throws me a scary look, I want to laugh. That French dude who plays Parker in Mise-a-Sac looks downright scary and thuggish.
Actually, I think Mel would have made a better Travis McGee than Parker. I can easily see him circa 1987 leaning against the rail of the Busted Flush, deep tan, Boodles gin in one hand, inspecting the newest crop of sandy-rumped beach girls. He kind of reminds me of the modern day Rod Taylor.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
Chris, Payback WAS a flop.
A real straight-up Parker adaptation is an easy sell: what do you think Heat was? Or City of Industry? Or The Outfit?
The Payback director kept telling Gibson, “less attitude, less attitude” but ‘ol Mel had to keep hamming it up. Then he had the director fired and a new director brought in to shoot new scenes and add that atrocious voice-over.
Believe me, I know how f’d up the filmmaking process is. I’ve written two screenplays for local production companies here in N.E. One was a feature, the other a thirty minute short. Both Hardboiled Noir, very Stark-like stuff. After I signed off on the contracts, the producers, who had the combined IQ’s and artistic integrity of a Chimpanzee, changed my scripts, added atrocious dialogue, whole new scenes. The contracts allowed them to have final say but they insisted, “You’re script is wonderful; we wouldn’t change a word.” Of course, they did the exact opposite. I wanted to disavow myself from the whole process. Thank God the producers managed to screw up the production and the option ran out.
But I went through the whole thing, casting auditions, location scouting, everything leading up to the camera rolling. The problem with filmmaking is it’s art by commitee. When a true visionary takes the helm, who doesn’t let the moneymen screw things up, THAT’S when you have great filmmaking.
Believe me, if somebody like Sam Peckinpah had helmed a Stark production, we’d have gotten the real deal.
Couldn’t agree more with your comments about the filmmaking process. I have exoperience in local film as well, no features yet, mainly entries in the 24 hour film festival, but I see the same kind of thing going on from my vantage point. Way too many ideas and not a strong concept and strong creative force usually spells disaster. Art by comitee, as you put it, never works. A strong willed director/writer who can delegate prodeces the best films.
Michael Mann is obviously a huge Parker-phile, no? With Thief and Heat? Haven’t seen City of Industry yet so I’ll reserve judgment. Peckinpah direct a Parker film? We’ll he did direct Getaway, which is in the same ball-park, no?
Peckinpah could never have dealt with a character incapable of feeling guilt.
Michael Mann’s best days are long behind him, and I don’t consider Thief or Heat to be any more like Parker than your average films of that genre. Lots of filmmakers are fans of Westlake’s work, which is why it got adapted so often. But they don’t necessarily understand what makes it so unique, which is why they’re adapted so poorly. Or maybe they do understand, but they simply don’t think the audience would.
I mean, nobody’s made a film of any of Dan J. Marlowe’s books–I’m just reading The Name of the Game is Death now, and I can see why. Not quite as good as Parker, but even harder for Hollywood to digest.
The best crime movies were made back in the days of the old studio system. Many people contributed to the making of these films–it was really a factory system–and you couldn’t just chalk it all up to a few ‘auteurs’, though they certainly had strong-willed directors. Difference was, the studio heads back then loved movies, and were more inclined to go with their guts, and let the audience tell them what they liked, instead of doing market surveys.
How the hell could Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney, or even Humphrey Bogart become major movie stars today?
There will NEVER be a truly good truly faithful Parker movie. Give that up as a bad job. Pay Cable is our only hope, but honestly–if it happens, great. If not, fine. We have the books.
Don Siegel’s Parker–that I’d have given much to see.
Jay: Thanks for your comisseration on the state of filmmaking, and please chack out City of Industry if you’ve got a chance, it’s brilliant.
Peckinpah’s The Getaway was a great film, although not entirely faithful to the book. My fave Peckinpah is absolutely Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia. On a desert island, that’ll be one of the DVDs I bring. Warren Oates is one of my favorite actors and this was his best performance. Love everything about that film. Peckinpah was the man!
Chris, please take this in the way it’s intended, dude, OK? Don’t get mad or write back anything crazy because I’m seriously not trying to get on your dark side; if anything, I offer my hand across the cyberspace void in friendship with a plea of Let bygones be bygones…
BUT!
Man, are you wrong about everything you just wrote.
1. Payback was 27th in worldwide gross for 1999. 27th! For a Mel Gibson film! That’s not a flop?
2. Yes, Payback was seen more than the previous Parker adaptations: BUT; the other four US made Parker films were all pre-1985, and 3 of them were pre-1974. DVD had not been invented yet, nor videocassettes (not mass produced yet) nor did most of the country even have access to cable television. So that comparison is totally nonsensical.
I agree TOTALLY with Jay S. that it’s obvious Michael Mann must be a Stark fan, or if he’s not, he’s just one talented guy because Neil McCauley in Heat has a lot of simialarities to Parker: Attention to detail, will kill if it’s neccessary but not enjoy it, master “planner”, ruthless profesional who will even risk his freedom to gain vengeance on an associate who crosses him, very laconic and emotionless…etc., etc.
The Name of the Game is Death is one of my favorite books, but if you don’t think much of it, hey, as I told Jay S., that’s your opinion. You have the right to believe whatever you choose.
I think Peckinpah would have done a great Parker film. I actually think Brian Helgeland would’ve made a decent Parker film if Mad Mel didn’t screw it up. And I think Parker, starring Jason Statham, is going to be at least good, and maybe great.
I do agree with you on Don Siegel, who taught Clint everything he knows about film direction.
Please, do not take any of the above as vitriol, there is NO MALICE INTENDED. I honestly hope we can eschew the baggage of the past (and I am apologetic of the things I’ve said that were personal, as I know you are) and keep the decorum of this wonderful, invaluable site intact.
If you post this to the Yahoogroups folder, I’ll consider responding to it.
However, you might want to read over my post a few more times first. You don’t seem to understand the post you’re responding to.
Like for example how is “Not quite as good as Parker” a pan, coming from me?
PLEASE don’t answer that. Not here. If you do, I won’t respond. Capish?
Chris, no need to respond. I think I backed up my points with cold hard facts, the first and second points, I mean. They speak for themselves.
The rest is my personal opinion.
Btw, I haven’t posted a thing at the yahoo group. I’ll peruse it, but there’s usually nothing more exciting going on than Hey, I’m a new Parker fan. What book should I read first?
I don’t think Trent and Nick mind any of us having differences of opinion, Chris, just that we do so with a modicum of civility and respect. I crossed that line, as you certainly did, but I apologized privately to Nick and Trent and assured them it wouldn’t happen again. I’m sincere in that I would like to apologize to you as well for the comments I made and hope we can be friends in the future.
I know you won’t respond back here, but if you care to add anything, positive or negative, here are my facebook page and, if you don’t have facebook, my private email:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1293163508
dgplante@aol.com
It’s a relief to find sonmoee who can explain things so well
David:
The point of my last post was to get something more exciting happening in the Yahoo group! But people have to go there and start conversing before that can happen. I thought the question from a newbie was an interesting one, and I’d hoped that it would lead to a good discussion. Pose your own!
I’m delighted (despite a few bumps) that the comments section here has become quite active, but the open-thread nature of it does pose problems. If I can convince folks to sign up and try out the discussion group, I can visualize all sorts of neat things going on beyond “What’s the best Parker book?”
“Have you seen this crime movie? What did you think?” “Here’s a book I loved that you may not know about. It’s a romance.” Things that find their way into de facto open threads, and things that someone visiting this site would like to talk about but can’t find a way to squeeze into a thread. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that it often turns out that if two people like the same books, they often have a lot of other things in common.
If my post read like I was coming down hard on your disagreements, it wasn’t intended that way. Read the post again without the “ahem” that you might have take personally and realize that every bit of it was genuine. I really have wanted to revive it for a long time, not least because I enjoyed it when it was briefly active some years ago and in the occasional flareups since then.
I may be too ambitious here, and I may not be doing a good job of selling it, but I really do want it to work.
Trent, I read your newbie blog after I replied to Chris’s post. Then my eyes wandered over to your newbie post, I clicked on it, read it, then I was like “Oh, my God, now I’m REALLY coming off as a crackpot”;-) lol It was curious to me why Chris wanted to talk on the Yahoo group, but now I know why: he read your blog first!
I immediately went over to the Yahoo group and posted a few comments. I’ll try to keep whateve posts I make here as much on subject as I can, and if I feel like I’m veering off topic too much, or sense a “debate” beginning, I’ll direct whomever I’m conversing with over to the Yahoo group.
I share your hope that the Parker group will start bristling with activity, I belonged to a McGee Yahoo group that was quite fun, but you know how it goes, one minute everybody wants to pitch their two cents in, the next nobody has anything to say for months;-) lol
Best,
Dave
Yep, that’s the way it’s gone. But maybe now there are enough people that it can work long term. I’m knocking on wood.
Maybe I can come up with a prize to get people to register and participate. That always seems to work if the prize is neat.