Les Alexander was Donald Westlake’s friend for 35 years and is a producer on the Parker film. He sent this e-mail to reader Dave, who posted it to the comments. Dave and I both thought it was worth a post of its it own.
Les has been kind enough to engage us hardcore Parker fans about the movie, so I would ask, please, no brickbats about the film in the comments if it’s something you’ve already said here or in the Yahoo group. He’s read it already and often responded. (People who haven’t yet commented, positive or negative, are welcome to.)
I have some thoughts of my own which I hope to sum up in a post for tomorrow. For now, I’ll let Mr. Alexander speak:
I love that there are DEW fans like you who care enough about his legacy that these discussions are even happening. Don’t judge the film by the trailer – designed by Film District – the studio – for one purpose only – and one which DEW would heartily approve of – getting people into the theaters.
I was fortunate to have known DEW for 35 years and had many a discussion about the difference between a good adaptation and a slavish translation. He said that when adapting The Grifters for Stephen Frears, what freed him to write the Oscar nominated script that he did was Frears telling him to forget the book. The book would always be there for anyone who wanted to read it. The movie would be judged as a work unto itself.
Don’t deprive yourself of the pleasure of enjoying a truly entertaining movie that works on many levels.
John McLaughlin (Black Swan) did a great adaptation of Flashfire which involved much pruning and many hard choices – and yes Parker’s crime spree is still there as is a line from Parker to Hardwicke that real pros don’t like killing civilians because it brings out the police in greater numbers.
Yes, Parker is a bit softer – as are the post-hiatus final novels. DEW at 70 was different and so is Parker. We chose Flashfire as a way of introducing people to the character without doing yet another copycat of the two previous movies. The story maintains many of the big beats that define Parker. He wants what is his – not a penny more – and when an agreement is broken Parker is relentless in making things right. He is not romantically involved with Leslie (Jennifer – in a stunningly good performance). He remains true to Claire.
DEW’s wife, son and Larry Block attended a private screening of the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. Comments were that Don would have been delighted with the way the movie turned out and that by the end Jason had truly earned the right to be called Parker. I think this is Jason’s best performance since Bank Job. His Parker will not be as anyone imagined him. That’s the magic of books and radio. Much thought went into the choices made and Abby Westlake spent time on the set and with Taylor Hackford filling in details and missing pieces where needed.
If you can let go of the preconceptions there is a very good movie here that should bring DEW a big new audience of readers – who can then imagine for themselves who Parker really is.
The first credit after the last frame of the movie and the screen goes dark is
“Dedicated to the memory of Donald E. Westlake”
Les
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
I think it’s great that Les took the time to answer our concerns, and he’s right that it isn’t entirely fair to judge the film based on a trailer. The line about not stealing from people who can’t afford it is still troubling, but it’s also true, as Les points out, that the final Parker books are not as spare and hard-boiled as the original books of the 1960s and early ’70s. The one thing that I still just can’t understand, though, as I said before, is why they have Parker speaking with a foreign accent. Yes, Jason Statham is British, but lots of European actors can fake an American accent (check out Keven Branagh in Dead Again — I couldn’t believe how perfectly American he seemed in that film).
I may still wait for the DVD, but that’s because I rarely go to movie theaters anymore rather than due to doubts about the movie. I can’t say Les has resolved all my concerns by any means, but I’m willing to give the movie a fair chance.
I think the accent will be the least of the film’s problems. And Statham can’t really do a credible American accent, anyway. Kenneth Branagh is one of the best (and best-trained) actors of his generation. It’s debatable whether Statham deserves to be called an actor, but it’s convenient to do so. :)
I think Mr. Alexander is concerned about the opening weekend, with good reason, and thus is quite understandably taking every opportunity to keep the people who actually know who Parker is interested in going to see it. For those who don’t know this, the film’s second weekend competition will be Sylvester Stallone in “Bullet to the Head.” So the opening week really will have to be pretty good, and it’s at a time when ticket sales tend to be low overall. If people who love the character are telling everybody “This movie will suck”, that’s a matter of concern. If the film’s prospects were better, we wouldn’t matter much at all.
I was kind of touched that he offered me free tickets on the VWOP Yahoogroup. But my reasons for not showing up that weekend will not be financial in nature. I won’t buy a ticket for a movie that I think should not have been made–I consider that sending the wrong message. Accepting freebies would amount to the same thing. But I certainly won’t pass my ultimate final judgment without seeing it. And who cares what my ultimate final judgment is, anyway? Well, Les Alexander, apparently.
No, it isn’t fair to pass final judgment on the basis of a trailer, but it’s perfectly fair to base your moviegoing habits on them–that’s what they’re FOR. If you see a trailer for a movie you heard about that you thought you might want to go see, and the carefully picked scenes from the movie that are in the trailer make it look like something you wouldn’t enjoy that much (or at all), then why go see it?
At the end of the day, the only reason I’ll make any effort to see it is so that I can have an informed opinion on it here, but how lame is that? We go to movies so that we can have arguments about them online? I saw the trailer for “Kill Bill” and I spent months eagerly waiting to see that movie, and I enjoyed both ‘volumes’ tremendously (it was exactly what the trailer promised it would be), and I went to see both segments twice, and I had a few good discussions about it online, but I’d have done the same if there was no such thing as the internet.
The mere fact that we’re having this discussion, and a producer on the film is actually INVOLVED in that discussion is a pretty disturbing indicator of the film’s overall quality.
Oh, I forgot to tell a little story–I went to see a movie some years back, and one of the trailers beforehand was for the heavily publicized “G.I. Jane”, with Demi Moore, who was a big star back then, and had been in a string of hits.
The trailer finished, and some guy in the audience yelled out “VIDEO!” And EVERYBODY laughed. And pretty much everybody saw that movie on video, or cable, or not at all. I fall into the third category. So were we being horribly unfair to the makers of “G.I. Jane”? Or were we just behaving sensibly?
We know what we want. We don’t need them to tell us. They need to SHOW us.
Good for you, Craig!;-)
This makes me feel so much better about the film guys, thanks for posting it! Here’s to Parker and Richard Stark!
One could also promote the fact that stealing from those who can’t afford it is a bad idea because they have nothing worth stealing!;-) lol
Update on Fu Shing Cafe Yesterday I was eating diennr at our friends’ home and they oredered take-out from Fu Shing. They ordered eggplant, but with the black bean sauce. It was very delicious. You have to specify the sauce because it is not on the menu, but it is worth a try.
Trent: Your brickbats metaphor reminds me of the film Casino when Joe Pesci and his younger brother get beat to death with Aluminum Baseball Bats and thrown in a grave barely breathing.;-) lol
Trent, great job in getting that letter printed here and a big thanks to the producer for reaching out to the fans. It’s hard to blame any one person when a great property gets watered down by Hollywood’s ways. It is the system indeed. Yet we still must continue to struggle against it so that things can improve (as they indeed have; we have come a long way from the Australian accents being dubbed in Mad Max).
I like Jason Statham and I like Jennifer Lopez as an actor (she was great in Out of Sight), so I had already taken Les Alexander’s advice to approach this film on its own merits. It does look like it could be quite entertaining. If it does do well and that leads to film adaptations of the first iteration of the series that are truer to the tone of those series, I will be very happy indeed.
But if it does well, how does that lead to more faithful adaptations? It would lead to more UNfaithful adaptations, because that’s how this works. If something makes money, keep doing it, until it stops making money.
We have indeed come a long way from Mad Max–a movie that while hardly one of the all-time masterpieces, was a genuinely interesting original action film, that we’d never seen before.
Face it, the worst thing about this movie isn’t that it fails to get Parker right. NO movie has ever gotten Parker right. The worst thing about it is that if you didn’t know it was named “Parker”, and you took out a few lines of dialogue from the trailer, you’d find it impossible to distinguish it from any number of other recent Statham vehicles, or really, any number of other crime/action films.
I mean, I never thought much of Taylor Hackford, but the guy did have a style, and I don’t see that style here. Never a huge fan of Statham, but his first few movies did have something about them that was a little bit different. I don’t see that here either. And I was quite capable of picking up that little bit of individuality from the trailers for those movies. If you can’t get it done in the trailer, you probably can’t get it done in the movie itself. They had a very long time to put this trailer together, and it’s likely to represent the film very well.
The movie will be what it will be. Some of us will love it and some of us will hate it and some of us will fall somewhere in-between. I do appreciate Les reaching out to us and I prefer to consider the positive possibilities rather than to just assume it will suck, although I have certainly spent plenty of time under the latter assumption! It’s hard to know what to think sometimes. Ultimately, we all believe what we want to believe. Regardless of the movie, the Parker books remain brilliant.
Brilliant, and impossible for Hollywood to comprehend. But they keep trying, and will go on doing so, regardless of whether this movie does well or not.
I think it’s pretty easy to know what to think when a busy producer bothers to reassure the likes of us.
It means he’s worried.
What makes Les Alexander’s, and the rest of the creators of the film’s job so touchy, is everyone comes to Parker and makes him their own in their own way. And when we don’t see Parker portrayed exactly like we envision him, it rankles. A few words of Voice-Over, or dialogue about “codes” is irritating, but to then dismiss everything else that comes in a 2 hour package is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What if, in many other ways, the film remains pleasantly true to the book and the character? A couple of seconds, or minutes, of a discrepency here and there and it’s all worthless? That’s a pretty high standard of excellence that would be very hard to maintain in the real world, no?
And I should point out no one was more shocked than I to recieve Mr. Alexander’s message; I originally thought it’d been sent out to everyone, but I guess he just happened to notice how genuinely bummed I was after the seeing the trailer–I expressed it here and on the Yahoo Group–that he took the time to explain to me the film has much merit regardless of it strays a bit from the novel and character a bit here or there, and that for the most part, it is closer to the source than any other film adaptation we’ve had yet.
And he certainly didn’t ask me to share the message. I did that entirely on my own, by asking Trent to give it a post of it’s own so hopefully some of the film’s harsher critics would reconsider and take a chance to see it before casting the first stone.
A trailer is not a film. Whether the film is any good or not cannot be accurately gauged until after Jan. 25th.
Yes, I think it’s important to bear in mind that trailers can often be misleading. I don’t really know how it works, but I get the sense that in many cases the marketers and producers have much more say over the trailer than the creative team. I can’t think of a specific example right now, but I know there have been several trailers that had a certain tone that wasn’t reflected in the film at all.
I get the sense that that stupid code voiceover was forced to be front and center by some ignorant producer fearful of “turning off” the public. It’s such a shame, because the public is definitely ready for a Parker character right now. Look at the subtext of Parker, who are his real enemies? Big, powerful, bureaucratic organizations that he makes fools of. Isn’t that everyone’s fantasy right now, to get one over on a stupid government office that is screwing them?
I just listened to an interesting interview with Arnold Schwarzenneger where he talks about his early days of trying to get into Hollywood and producer after producer telling him that he had no chance and should stick to bodybuilding because there was no way someone with his body type could play a leading man in an action movie. It’s the same thing here. Or when Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came out and Sony only released to a teeny number of theatres, ghettoizing it into an art-house slot because they couldn’t conceive that a movie with subtitles and foreign stars would be appreciated by a general audience. When it started to blow up, they had no idea what to do with it. The money people always play it safe and that is just what we are seeing here. It’s a real shame.
I mean look at the recent succesful movie Drive. That was pretty darn cold-blooded and was a huge success. There is definitely space for a proper Parker movie right now that doesn’t pull its punches. We just need some producers who have the stomach for it. No offense to Mr. Alexander, as I don’t know what role he played in the outcome here, but again let’s hope that the trailer is overemphasizing the wrong parts to try and get a broader audience but that the movie itself represents better the real Parker.
Les Alexander is the main producer on the film, so obviously he had a lot of say in how the trailer was put together. Taylor Hackford was doing what they call “Work for hire” in Hollywood–he’s come down quite a long way from the “A film by Taylor Hackford” days. So I don’t think you can blame him for this, nor should you.
About the ‘code of ethics’ thing. I think that’s in the script, and I think I know how it got in there. In “The Jugger”, Parker is shown reading the second letter from Joe Sheer, basically begging Parker for help. Parker is disgusted by the letter. The omniscient narrator in the Richard Stark novels (who I always think of as Richard Stark) translates for us. He tells us Parker is going to check out the situation, to see if he needs to kill Joe Sheer, one of his oldest friends, colleagues, and perhaps even his mentor, in order to shut him up before he can spill the beans about Parker’s straight life to the law. The exact passage–
“He was going for himself. He was going because in Joe’s letter he saw a danger to himself much more obvious and lethal than any danger Joe had been trying to describe. What he saw was the shaky penmanship and shaky mentality of an old man. Joe was going senile. At seventy, he’d lost every trace of the code of ethics he’d lived by all his adult life.”
Fantastic writing. And colder than ice. Parker himself never uses the term ‘code of ethics’, nor would he, ever. Parker rarely ever bothers to explain himself at all, to anyone, and certainly would not do so to people he’s in the process of sticking up. Richard Stark is using this term, and the way he’s using it would not reassure any nervous studio head. “Code of ethics” means “You know the rules, and if you don’t stick to them, you die.” And the later books were every bit as cold-blooded in this regard. Parker kills a guy he had a good working relationship with in the final trilogy of novels. Parker never got soft.
I honestly have a hard time respecting the opinion of anybody who says Parker was softer in the last run of books. If anything, he got harder. In “Flashfire”, he’s ready to kill Leslie–he’s thinking about ways to do it–if she had made just one wrong move in the early stages of their negotiations, he’d have probably strangled her with his bare hands, and never had a single bad dream about it for the rest of his life–would never have thought of her at all. Oh yeah, he’s just an old softie, that 90’s Parker. Anybody think we’ll see that Parker in this movie?
I’ve no doubt the screenwriter did his homework, and probably read every single novel, and he got the ‘code of ethics’ thing from “The Jugger”. But he completely misused it, by putting it in Parker’s mouth, and by making it into something reassuring, instead of something utterly alien and foreboding. Parker never says he has a code of ethics. The narrator tells us Joe has abandoned his, and Parker’s thinking he may have to kill him for that. Joe is already dead when he gets there, but there’s a moment in the book involving a shovel–you know the one I mean? Yeah, I’m so sure we’ll ever see that in a movie.
The wrong people are adapting these books. People with the wrong vision, or people who lack the juice to just push through the hardcore adaptation we’ve all wished we could see. So many things have to come together just right for a movie like this to work. The reason “Point Blank” is the best Parker film ever, and will probably remain so forever, is that the director had a vision, and Lee Marvin gave him carte blanche. And that character isn’t quite Parker either, but he’s quite worth seeing in his own right. It’s a worthy variation.
Let me tell you something.
If I wasn’t so into the Parker books, and so involved in discussing them, here and elsewhere, the odds of my seeing any part of this movie before it ended up on TV would be zero. The odds of my watching it all the way through on TV wouldn’t be much better.
Interesting that you mentioned “Drive” since it’s from the same distributor and some people from the “mainstream audience” complained (and one person even sued the studio lol) that the trailer for the film was misleading that they presented it like a action film à la Fast and Furious while it was nothing like that.
Well at least in the Parker trailer they don’t promise “It’ll be very faithful to the books.” Doesn’t even MENTION the books.
I honestly think they should have not said anything to Parker fans at all, if they weren’t going to be straight with us from the get-go. We’re not idiots. We know there are going to be changes, probably big changes, and that we won’t like them all.
“Drive” cost 15 million dollars to make, so obviously it couldn’t be “The Fast and the Furious”. It had Ryan Gosling (a much bigger draw than Statham), and a big romance angle, and Carey Mulligan (one of the best young actresses of her generation), and it made 76mil worldwide. That wouldn’t be enough to make “Parker” a success, with its budget.
I’m just reporting what the mainstrain audience felt about Drive’s marketing, not my opinion.
Chris I think that you’re too close minded about this, I understand your passion and worries but it’s a bit too much negativity don’t you think ? at least for someone who hasn’t seen the film yet.
and for the box-office it would be enough, they have the Bluray/DVD release after that, most movies with that budget end up making profit with DVDs.
I’m just responding to what you said.
I don’t see how it makes any difference if an opinion you form in advance of a film is critical or defensive. Mine is critical, yours is defensive, neither of us has seen the movie. If a movie I think will be bad turns out to be good, I will always admit it.
But this happens very very rarely, because the fact is that when you’ve been going to see movies as long as I have, you learn to read the signs.
If you’re already looking ahead to the DVD release to save this aspiring franchise, obviously you think I’m making some pretty good points about its prospects at the box office. I think you’re confusing ‘close minded’ with ‘tough minded’. And a Donald Westlake fan really should aspire to be the latter, at all times.
Chris:
If I didn’t know you’d been around here for awhile, I’d think you were stirring up controversy in order to convince the “wait until video” folks here to go check out the flick at the theater so they can have an informed opinion when the inevitable opening day post happens. ;)
And, for the record, Mr. Alexander reaching out to fans predates the trailer by a long shot. It’s not fair to cast aspersions on him that way, and, let’s face it, if every Parker fan in the entire world boycotted the film, it wouldn’t make but the tiniest dent in the box office.
Trent, I don’t know you that well at all, but I know you’re loving all the extra attention this movie is bringing to your fantastic Parker website, and will do so whether it’s any good or not. I personally don’t think that I’m making any significant impact on who does or doesn’t go to the movie. I’m guessing that some people will be more likely to go because of my posts, others less. But most people won’t be affected in the slightest.
As to Mr. Alexander, would it be fair of me to link to his IMDb page?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0018573/
This is far and away the biggest thing he’s ever been involved with–prior to now, he worked pretty near exclusively in television, and mainly in comedy/family stuff. He may have known Donald Westlake for 35 years (Westlake knew scores of people in Hollywood), but I don’t remember Westlake ever mentioning him in an interview (I haven’t read/seen all of them, obviously), nor do I believe they ever collaborated on anything together–this is apparently Mr. Alexander’s first-ever involvement in any adaptation of Westlake’s work. Westlake mentioned a lot of people in the dedications to his books, and he never mentioned a Les Alexander, far as I know. If I’m wrong about any of that, somebody please correct me. So they were friends, but I have kind of a hard time seeing it as a close friendship, or any kind of a creative partnership, and that’s sort of what it’s being made to sound like.
If he knew Westlake for 35 years, which I don’t question in the slightest, I have to wonder why he never seems to have approached Westlake directly to ask for permission to adapt any of his work, until after Westlake had passed away. That’s a hell of a long time to know somebody–I don’t have any active friendships going that far back, and I know a lot of people, intimately and casually. And yet it wasn’t until after Westlake had died that he approached Abby Westlake, as executor of her husband’s literary estate, and negotiated the rights to adapt Flashfire. Surely he could have benefited from Westlake’s input if he had gotten this started earlier, but it never happened. Did he never ask at all? Or did he raise the topic with Westlake and get politely rebuffed? I have no way of knowing. But the track record certainly does not point to somebody with any history whatsoever with the genre Westlake is most known for. Or really, ANY genre Westlake is known for.
I have seen equally prominent TV producers interacting with viewers (or potential viewers) online. I can’t tell you why exactly they do this, but probably one reason is that while they do open themselves up to potential criticism, they much more often get a lot of positive (if not outright fawning) feedback, from people who are excited to be in direct contact with somebody who works in entertainment, even though they may never have heard of him or her before. It’s gratifying to the egos of everyone involved. Hey, it’s been gratifying to my ego. He offered me free tickets. Did he offer anybody else free tickets? Why isn’t EVERYBODY here getting free tickets?
I enjoy getting to speak my mind–and I enjoy critical thinking. I enjoy figuring people out. This whole situation is kind of odd, you must admit. But so am I. ;)
I asked to be corrected if I made any mistakes, and I made one–I have a copy of “Kahawa” still waiting to be read, and it’s a later edition, that mentions Les Alexander in the preface. Now I never once questioned that they knew each other–would make no sense if they didn’t–but I didn’t make the connection to the story Westlake tells about how he came to write that rather atypical and well-received work. Les Alexander phoned him, and told him a story he’d heard about some thieves who made a coffee train disappear in Uganda.
Actually, not so much a story, as a one-sentence description (they’re just chatting on the phone, remember, and Westlake makes it clear he felt wary of getting involved in something, but since Alexander didn’t OWN the story, was simply repeating it very condensed version of it, there was no legal obligation or creative partnership formed on either side. That was Alexander’s sole contribution to the book, but obviously there’d be no book without it. Westlake was so intrigued by that one sentence that he went into full research mode, and ended up writing something very different from the comic caper that he (and presumably Mr. Alexander) originally had in mind. And it was a book he was very proud of, and that garnered a lot of positive attention–though it was hardly a best-seller, nor does it ever seem to have been bought as a potential film project–there’s no movie of it, that much we know.
So that was many a long year ago (“Kahawa” was published in 1981, so I’m guessing late 70’s), and Westlake says he and Alexander often talked of doing something together, but nothing ever came of it. Given the fact that Alexander basically ‘pitched’ the story that became “Kahawa” to Westlake (but purely as a friend suggesting an idea to a friend, that nobody had the rights to, because it was something that supposedly really happened), it seems likely to me that the discussions consisted of Alexander suggesting something to Westlake, and Westlake saying he’d think about it, then nothing came of it, because as already mentioned, Westlake was extremely wary of getting into deals with Hollywood producers, even if they were good friends. So over a quarter of a century after “Kahawa” came out, nothing had still come of any of Alexander’s pitches that would have involved signing actual contracts.
That’s what we know. And I really should have known that, but I’m reading Westlake more or less chronologically now, and I haven’t quite reached the 80’s yet. Looking forward to reading “Kahawa”, and however much of a mess “Parker” turns out to be, I think we all owe Les Alexander a vote of thanks for helping to inspire an important novel from one of our favorite writers. :)
Chris is sticking to his guns. Whatever one may or may not think about him, I think it’s safe to say he has very ingrained opinions and doesn’t easily shed them.
The one thing I would disagree with is about there being no signs of Parker being softer in the later books. I’m currently rereading them, and I see some signs of that, if he’s not “softer”, he’s at least less quick to extinguish a human life. The opening of Backflash springs to mind. And Parker killed Nick Dalesia in Dirty Money because Nick was obviously going to attack Parker. Parker understood this, computed the options, and acted on them.
Not that Parker was becoming Travis McGee near the end, and avoiding doing damage, but I sense the character evolved. And why wouldn’t he? DEW eveolved as a man and a writer, so wouldn’t it make sense his most famous creation would as well? He would be a rather dull character if he remained totally stangnant, change-wise.
The Parker of “The Hunter” is somewhat different than the one in “Dirty Money”. He’s still a ruthless thug who’ll break your neck if you get in his way, but he’s more likely to give you an option, as he did to his co-Heister in Backflash, or Tom Lindahl in Ask The Parrot, than maybe he would have been in The Hunter.
Eloise is correct in that a huge amount of total revenue comes from the DVD release, On Demand and Netflix, world-wide BO, etc.
I think Parker will easily make a nice piece of change as a profit. Will it be the next Hunger Games or Twilight (it’s sad the the much better film called Twilight–the one with Newman, Hackman, Sarandon and Garner, doesn’t even get mentioned anymore), probably not. But I’ll be dumbfounded if it’s a total flop.
The more I rewatch the trailer, the more it does look like a very exciting Heist film, of which I am an unabashed fan of. Statham jumping from the van, getting his Glock ready, etc., looks pretty damn cool for an action fan such as myself. I can almost hear AC/DC’s T.N.T. in the background!;-) lol
IF they can mix in some genuine Parker overtones to his character, I think Les Alexander’s, Lawrence Block’s, and Abby Westlake’s comments about Statham earning th right to be called Parker are well-founded.
I mean, c’mon, at least in terms of believability in the action and Heist scenes, this has to be a pretty exciting improvement than what we’ve seen in previous adaptations.
I’m pretty much with Chris on this one, except where you get into trying to figure out why Westlake wasn’t involved in this adaptation. So much goes on in getting films to move forward, that it is really speculate.
The issue here, though, is that the film is named Parker. You make a film with that name either because you believe in the property and think it would make an awesome movie or because you think the property has value and that the name will sell it. If your motivations are because of the former, than how can you excise the core element that separates the Parker series from all other crime fiction, Parker’s amorality and platonic dedication to getting the job done right?
Honestly, I think they do it because it’s the only thing that will set the film apart from the flawed but much superior adaptations that have been done in the past. Point Blank. The Outfit. Even Payback. All much better films with much bigger stars, who were also much better actors. And all of them SEEMINGLY closer to the ethos expressed in the Parker novels, though not as close as we might wish. We can’t know more until we’ve seen the film, but to me it seems likely they decided to name the film and its protagonist Parker because Westlake wasn’t around to say no.
And while this is speculation on my part (and I made that very clear), it may well be that after Westlake was gone, they realized that obstacle no longer existed, and that this alone would distinguish their film from the other adaptations. It’s not a huge selling point, but it’s a selling point nonetheless, and it didn’t cost them anything extra. The Parker who is least like Parker will be named Parker. Not because he should be, but because he CAN be.
If anybody thinks, btw, that I’m saying “Les Alexander is a horrible person who conned a dead man’s widow”, they have completely missed my point.
I’m saying “Les Alexander is a guy who leveraged a longstanding and purely social connection with the Westlakes to break into theatrical pictures, after a career spent doing fairly lightweight and little-remembered stuff for TV. Abby Westlake seems to be a pretty bright lady, and she probably had a pretty good idea what the movie would be like. Nobody else was making any solid offers. They made a deal out of mutual need, to mutual benefit, regardless of whether the film is a success or not.”
It’s not a criticism. Of anybody. It’s an observation. It’s exactly the type of observation Donald Westlake made in his books, all the damned time. You can’t understand anything if you go in with the attitude that you are only going to assume the best OR the worst. You assume nothing. You look at what’s actually there. And looking at Les Alexander’s resume, I honestly don’t see anything much there.
Who here has watched a single thing he was involved with, prior to this trailer?
The whole point of Mr. Alexander’s message, to em anyway, is how the hell can anyone determine what core elements were removed from the character based on a 2 minute trailer that wasn’t even likely made by the Producers/Director.
And if that one sentence about “codes” is that aggravating, and convince someone that this must not be the real “Parker” than just don’t go. I hasten to add one would be a huge hypocrite if one were to hold Marvin in PB as an example as the “real” movie Parker, because that character did things in that picture that no Stark fan would recognize as something Parker would do. Namely the goofy boardwalk scene where Parker is walking around with a shit-eating grin trying to woe Lynn, and the “kissing” scene with Marvin and Vernon. Yeah, Parker’d let some drunk guy push him on the floor and smooch him. Uh … WTF!?
Super jazzed about getting that knwhw-oo.
Point Blank is a great movie, but it’s not a Parker movie. I think the closest we’ve gotten at this point is The Outfit.
“how the hell can anyone determine what core elements were removed from the character based on a 2 minute trailer that wasn’t even likely made by the Producers/Director.”
This is a valid question. The problem is that the very first thing that the trailer establishes is exactly the opposite of everything that makes Parker cool. It’s like the Fellowship of the Ring trailer coming on and Gollum is portrayed as Frodo’s cute and cuddly sidekick.
If I HAD to choose between a great Parker adaptation that took liberties, and a bad one that was 100% faithful, I’d choose the former, every time.
And again, as a producer, Les Alexander would have a great deal to say about the trailer. It’s not a good idea to try and sell a movie with a trailer that greatly distorts what the movie is like. That usually backfires pretty badly with audiences. So are you saying Les Alexander doesn’t know how to do his job, which INCLUDES promoting his film? I’m surprised at you! ;)
I just emailed Trent a file Les Alexander sent me in one of his emails to me.
I think this will, if Trent puts it up, dispell any notions of Mr. Alexander inflating his relationship with DEW.
I’d paste it here in the comments section but technologically, I am not up to par. I tried and it wouldn’t work, so I’m hoping Trent will post it. It’s written by the man, DEW himself.
Some people, who shall go unnamed, should really consider what the hell they put in their posts. There is a fine line between sticking to your guns and just being a rude dick.
Not talking about you, Walker.;-) lol Your posts seem naturally cautious, which is exactly how I feel.
When Trent, I should say IF Trent posts the file I sent him, it should be clear DEW considered Les a very good friend and Les was even the man who sparked one of DEW’s most wonderful novels, IMHO, Kahawa.
As I said, the caution and skepticism I TOTALLY understand. Hollywood has butchered some of my favorite novels. It’s just the inuendo concerning Mr. Alexander’s, or anyone else’s motives, that leaves my jaw dropped.
When Statham was first announced my head spun more furiously than Linda Blair’s. I had to rally twist my mind around that casting. But, you know, there are a lot of examples of actors stunning cynical fans. Connery in Dr. No. Craig in Casino Royale. Cruise in Interview/Vampire, etc.
And I very well may be feeling angry and mislead after JAN. 25th, that’s why I refuse to endorse the film, until after I see it. I just endorse SEEING it before condemning it.
Yeah, from what little I know about Hollywood, one’s track record is no indication of their character or artistic integrity or even creative ambitions. Just getting anything made is a minor miracle, whether or not it is close to the original idea or not. Check out the story of Dirty Dancing II: Havana Nights as an instructional example (short version, the original screenplay was a tender and sophisticated exploration of coming of age in Castro’s Cuba).
So I agree with Dave that it is really unfair to criticize any one individual’s involvement with this project. The problem is Hollywood. But even I have to say that Hollywood has improved a lot since I was a young fanatic (Mr. Alexander reaching out to fans is a huge difference in and of itself), so I’ll hold out hope that the movie will be good, and then critique its relation to the real Parker as a secondary thing.
Well technically, a producer isn’t an ‘artist’. He’s a facilitator of artists. He’s the guy who takes care of business. In a few exceptional cases (Sam Spiegel, David O. Selznick, etc), the producer’s vision may be of enormous importance, but it’s still the screenwriters and directors who are the creative talents. In the case of theatrical pictures, the producer usually just isn’t that involved with the creative side of things, though his or her influence may be felt in many ways. In television, producers play a much larger role, and are usually also writers and/or directors.
Hollywood cranks out TV and movies at an appalling rate, so while it’s a miracle anything GOOD ever gets made, it would be impossible to STOP most TV and films from happening. They happen because the Beast needs to be fed.
walkerp, look at the movies that were being made decades ago, before most of us were ever born, before there was an internet, before directors and screenwriters became cult figures, and even lesser lights got treated like minor deities, simply because they work in entertainment.
Look at the moving coming out now.
I really don’t call that any kind of improvement.
And again, you guys need to learn the difference between criticism and observation. And stop stigmatizing the latter. We need more of it, not less.
I’m not saying the movies are getting better. I’m saying that Hollywood has improved in general in several areas relevant to this discussion: respect for licenses (see all the comic book movies coming out now and the way they take them very seriously), the way they interact with the public and fans and more openness to change. None of this is because they are more open-minded or more sophisticated. Rather, it is just a forced reaction to a change in the marketplace and the way people consume entertainment today.
说：I’ve read through a nbemur of the reviews on your web site now, and I like your style of blogging. I added your site to my favorites blog site list and will also be checking soon. Please visit my own blog as well and let me know how you feel.
It’s a minor miracle that a good film gets made, indeed. No argument here. The best films are those helmed by a strong creative vision, think of films by Hitchcock, Welles, Scorsese, etc. When one truly talented artist is at the helm, there’s a shot–but by no means a guarantee–that something good will be produced. Creativity by committee usually ends in disaster.
Parker is antithetial to what Hollywood doles out. He’s amoral, and doesn’t see the need to consider anyone else’s opinion on that amorality. It’s just what he is. If the film didn’t mention his amorality one way or the other, and just showed Parker going through the motions of the initial heist and then the revenge on Melander and crew, I’d be ecstatic, because at least then I could project my version of his motives onto the screen.
But his “code” nonsense unsettled me. That’s where I can totally agree with Chris. Totally.
Where we probably differ is the fact that I don’t neccessarily think that the 2 or 3 seconds blabbing that code BS makes the other hour and fifty minutes of the film a waste of time. It may have other good points, and other things that’ll remind of us of “our” Parker. And, on the other hand, it may not.
I am rooting for the film to be good, because I hope we get a series of high-quality Parker adaptations. Like we do with Darwyn Cooke’s work. If, in the other hand, the film is just a piece of stinking doo-doo, I hope it dies a quiet death. And I’ll comfort myself that at least we have Duvall in The Outfit, plus a few other decent (not great) film adaptations of Stark’s work. And of course I’ll still be imagining Michel Constantin as the best screen Parker, if only we could ever SEE IT!;-) lol
Chris:
“Trent, I don’t know you that well at all, but I know you’re loving all the extra attention this movie is bringing to your fantastic Parker website…”
You’re right on one thing. You don’t know me that well at all. And you’re also wrong. I’m not an attention-seeker, never have been. I do this for love, fun, and scholarship. The historical record is much more important to me than my hit count, which I rarely even look at.
So, honestly, fuck off when you pretend to know that I’m “loving all the extra attention.” Instead of drinking beer and watching football, I’m writing this and installing a plug-in for WordPress so I can ban you. Does that sound like the way I’d like to spend my Sunday afternoon? Does that sound like I’m loving the attention?
I’m removing your guest posts, too, which is a loss for the site, because I liked them. I’ll refund your donation if you ask.
Sorry it ended this way, but you’ve turned what is supposed to be fun into a chore. And you’re the first person in over thirteen years of running this site in one form or another to insult me. So I’m washing my hands of you.
You’re an intelligent and often insightful person, but you think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually know.
Wow, this got ugly fast.
I’ve decided to not lose any sleep over a trailer that I felt lukewarm towards and for a film that Westlake’s own family and friends seemed to have given their blessing to. I’ll do something crazy like let the other 100+ minutes I haven’t seen settle whether it’s a good movie or not. This is not a knock to this author, but the funny thing is if I had never read Flashfire and the trailer had never mentioned Parker, the heist and tropical setting would have made me think this was going to be from an AMAZING Elmore Leonard novel. And even if this one does turns out “just okay”, I’m still really interested in which of the other books they’d adapt. Comeback’s great, and I’d love to see Mackey and his no-nonsense girlfriend Brenda in one of the Parker films.
On an unrelated note, I found a Tucker Coe book at a library book sale for a quarter.
说：Thank you for give very good info. Your blog is so coolI am impressed by the initomaofrn that you have on this blog. It shows how well you understand this subject. Bookmarked this page, will come back for more. You, my friend, ROCK! I found just the initomaofrn I already searched everywhere and just couldn’t find. What a perfect site. Like this website your website is one of my new favs.I like this site given and it has given me some sort of desire to have success for some reason, so thank you
Yeah, honestly, if this film wasn’t a Parker adaptation, I’d be there in line anyway. I LOVE Heist films. They are my number one favorite genre. I have seen so many of them I lost count. Some of my faves are Kubrick’s The Killing, The Asphalt Jungle (Sterling Hayden would have made a great Parker!), Thief, both versions of Jim Thompson’s The Getaway, Heat, City of Industry, Heist (Gene Hackman’s greatest role, IMHO), and so many others.
The scene where Parker, Melander and crew are getting the swag got my blood pumping, that’s for sure. I don’t know why I love Criminal Procedurals so much (that’s a term I coined; much like Police Procedurals, except seen from the POV of the criminal), or what it says about my penchant for larceny, but I am a sucker for them every single time.
Patrick, speaking of Elmore Leonard… I have not always been a fan of his work, but I’m reading an excellent Heist novel of his called Pagan Babies that I really like. Leonard is hot or miss with me, but when he’s good he’s really good.
Patrick and other readers:
I’m sorry if it was ugly, because that’s not the environment I’m shooting for. Unfortunately, it got ugly and I had to make it uglier in order to get back to the environment I’m shooting for.
Things should be much more civil, and fun, from here on out.
Apologies to you and anyone else made uncomfortable by the exchange. I didn’t anticipate any of this when I decided to make a book-geek website. Live and learn.
–Trent
Chris was being a bit obsessive and insensitive, but I’m not sure he meant to be insulting when he said you were loving the attention. It can be very hard to judge someone’s tone via text. But it’s your site, Trent, and if his behaviour is not what you are looking for here, than that’s entirely your call. I’m just saying if he reaches out to you with an apology and a promise to be respectful in the future, maybe think about giving him a second chance. Hate to see things get so final on a cool website like this. But you gotta do what you gotta do.
@Dave, great call on Sterling Hayden. I may have to watch Asphalt Jungle again with that in mind. Never heard of Heist (how?!) and am going to have to hunt that down.
Oh no, yes, I have seen Heist. It was quite good, but felt more like a Mamet film than a heist film, just because his style of writing is stronger than whatever genre he works in. Good stuff, though.
No apology neccessary from where I stand.
Hope it didn’t ruin your Football day. I spent the day as you did; beer and Football. Is there any other way to spend a Sunday in Autumn;-) lol
Patrick – I picked up the whole Mitch Tobin series by Coe/Westlake at Half.com for a pretty good price. Not as good as the price YOU paid however! Great score!
Trent – No apologies necessary as far as I am concerned either. Too bad you had to turn into the sheriff to keep things in order.
Trent: On the subject of Chris, I’m amazed it took this long for you to pull that trigger. That guy is a long-winded pain in the ass. Good job!
JGA
Mr. Lyons pulled the trigger on himself. Trent warned everyone to back off at the top of this post, and I even attempted to warn Chris myself that he was straying into dangerous waters; of course he ignored me, as he always did.
I’m not happy to see him self-destruct like that, along with his hard to stomach qualities, he brought a level of intelligence and wit I actually admired.
But I can’t help think things will be a lot more easy-going and fun from here on out. Besides, Chris is continuing his anti-Statham campaign over at IMDB, and I’m getting messages from people over there about how crazy and obsessive he seems. I honestly don’t know what is making him so beyond the pale obsessive with this film.
I hope he is well, though, and I’m sure he’ll make his opinions known on the Yahoo group.
In honor of MLK and apropos of this topic:”Increasingly, by ccohie or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken — the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.”– Martin Luther King, Riverside Church, April 4, 1967.
Trent- It’s cool. With every discussion about movie Spider-Man’s organic web-shooters vs. the mechanical web-shooters, there’s always that one guy that calls everyone else an idiot for liking Sam Raimi’s organic web-shooters idea. And takes over a thread with that thought.
I actually prefer the mechanical web-shooters, Patrick!;-) lol
That’s how I remember Spidey from my comics-reading days. But I wouldn’t lose sleep nights obsessing over it.;-) lol
Thanks all for the support. I like to think that I’m a nice guy, and a tolerant one, but a man’s got his limits. There was no need to be insulting towards Mr. Alexander, and there was no need to pretend he knows what motivates me when he hasn’t a clue.
I’ve advertised the VWOP Yahoo group as unmoderated, which is largely accurate, but I maintain the right to moderate it and I exercised it. He’ll have to vent in another forum.
I’m one of those guys who AVOIDS trailers at all cost. I like to go into a movie with no spoilers in my head – start with a clean slate. As soon as I heard that this was actually going to hit the theatres (as opposed to the many projects you hear about that never come to fruition) I stopped seeking out info and actively avoided the trailer. When I’m in the theatre and a preview comes on for something that I know I’m looking forward to, as soon as I recognize that, I stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes (literally..I’m not kidding..I actually do this!). I can’t wait for PARKER to come out – whether it will be any good or not, I’ll have to wait until after the closing credits to decide. I just know that I love the Parker novels so I’ll see any adaptation that makes it to the screen. Speaking of which (ones that never come to fruition) I swear that years ago, I heard that Joel Silver(?) was working on a Parker series – in what I call the HBO format – 12 episodes telling a long and detailed story. Am I dreaming this or was this a possibility at one point?!?!
I know FX was talking about doing a series at one point. The pilot to this proposed series was written by Alexander Ignon and was based on The Green Eagle Score. The script is floating around the net if you’re inclined to go hunt for it. It is terrible, BTW. Both of these subjects have been discussed on this site, specifically here: http://violentw.s424.sureserver.com/?p=5114
Hope this helps your curiosity.
JGA
As a person who’s seen a few trailers in my day, I would advise anyone who hasn’t written this movie off already because of the casting to not judge it too harshly based on this trailer. It’s obviously been cut to appeal to two audiences—Jason Statham fans and Jennifer Lopez fans, i.e., women. It’s also obviously trying to go for an Out Of Sight vibe (fairly successfully, I have to say)which is a movie women generally like, while still letting the guys know that Statham will be cracking the same amount of heads as usual.
The stuff with the code, I bet it’s not in the movie, either because it was just a bit for the trailer, or because the online response made it radioactive. It’s obviously there to make the character seem more attractive, and less threatening to women, and that stops being an issue once their butts are actually in the seat. So I’m guessing it goes.
Is this the Parker movie I’d make? No, because it isn’t a period piece starring Jon Hamm or Josh Brolin. But at least it’s an actual adaptation of a novel and not some pastiche. And Jason Statham may not be the literal interpretation of Parker from the books, but he is physically imposing and capable, which ain’t nothin’, and is something that gets increasingly harder to find in Hollywood actors with every passing year.
I would say my biggest concern personally would be that Parker is a Taylor Hackford movie, since he’s a man who has directed 18 movies, of which I’ve liked none. But even with that, I’m going into this with an open mind because it is more in my interest to like a Parker movie than to not.
Great site, by the way. Long time reader, but this is my first post.
JGA, the script is no longer available on the Internet, as I’ve looked quite a bit for it and Trent even double-checked for me and mentioned the site he’d seen it on doesn’t have it on there anymore. If you run across it again, please either post here or drop me a line at dgplante@aol.com
I’ll owe you one.
I know there’s a script that changes Parker to Frank Parker and gives him a brother. I thought that script was for a theatrical feature starring Travolta, and the FX pilot was something else. If DEW gave his blessing to the brother/Frank script, that undeniably shows DEW was not as much a purist as some here (or some who USED to be here) think.
I’ve been directing some IMDB Parker fans over here to Trent’s site, and have also been championing seeing the new film before villifying it. Most agree with me, but Chris, like a vampire, has infected a few with his jaded cynicism. I totally understand why one would be cautious based on the “credo” nonsense in the trailer. But to get that obsessive and hateful without even seeing the actual movie borders on the psychotic.
The Frank Parker script was the one based on The Green Eagle Score and it was terrible- Parker doesn’t just have a brother, he has a kid brother with learning difficulties, who gets killed at the beginning after being double crossed on a heist. Parker is genuinely upset when he hears this and his only reason for doing the heist is to avenge his brother. They also got rid of the subplot about the psychiatrist and made Stan Devers a double crosser, which annoyed me as Devers was one of my favourite side characters in the Parker world.
Just thinking about that script has made me more optimistic about the Statham movie.
Oh dear god. Thanks for that bit of history as it reminds us that when it comes to adapting Parker, things could have been much, much worse.
My understanding is Ignon’s GREEN EAGLE SCORE was meant to be a theatrical feature (for Travolta), then a television pilot.
I actually liked the script. GREEN EAGLE is not the most cinematic of novels — and it’s not even one of my favorites — and Ignon does a commendable job of crafting action-driven set pieces. His script is not very faithful to Stark, but it is entertaining.
And wasn’t Duvall avenging his brother’s death in THE OUTFIT? Why does that get a free pass?
Well, Duvall seems pretty, ahem, Stark and ruthless ala the real Parker in The Outfit. The idea that Parker’s primary motivation for a Heist would be anything other than monetary, and especially a sentimental motive like avenging a crippled brother, is kind of lame. Parker is a serial Heister. Duvall may have been trying to get revenge by Heisting the Outfit, but he’d be doing Heists anyway.
Any film where Parker is basically just a regular guy who plans one specific Heist and one Heist only before going back to normal life is just not Parker. In a lot of ways, Parker seems to live for the scores he pulls down.
I have not read the Ignon script–I’d love to have a chance one day. If it’s really good, but just not like the Parker we all know and love, I would still give him kudos for writing a great script–just change Parker’s name.
Duvall made a nice try, but I didn’t like the way his approach was rooted in the rural south (as are so many of his roles). Paired with Texas native Joe Don Baker, the two have a “good ol’ boy” cronyism that has nothing to do with Stark’s characters.
That’s one reason why it wasn’t the ideal Parker movie. We may never get the “ideal” Parker movie. One can hope. It’s been said a thousand times here and elsewhere, but screw it, I’ll write it again: Probably the best chance to see an authentic Parker adaptation would be a Cable series.
Years ago, I’d say the opposite; that a feature film would be the best chance, but series television, especially on Cable networks like A and E, Showtime, AMC, HBO, etc. have evolved to the point where one could do a serious adaptation, even a period piece ala Madmen.
As we’ve seen with this new Parker film, even producers with the best of intentions sometimes have to change aspects of a character and novel. Especially when you’re tailoring a project around a specific actor. A Cable series doesn’t usually have those concerns. Were that many people aware of Jon Hamm, James Gandolfini, etc. before Madmen, Sopranos? A relatively unknown actor allows the producers to tailor the actor around the character’s concerns as opposed to vice-versa.
I loved this episode. I have a few qotseiuns and I hope someone is willing to take a guess. Where did Pinocchio go? Why didn’t Jackson go looking for his daughter. Now that everyone knows who they are, wouldn’t she be looking for him? If you cross the line then you forget your FTL character and only remember your SB character, but Rumple has always known and remembers his FTL. Doesn’t that mean he has only one character? Would he really lose his FTL memories? Why hasn’t Grumpy found his fairy? Where was she? If henry has the book can’t he fill people in on what is going on or will happen? That book seems to be an underutilized resource.
Jeff, it’s refreshing to see an intelligent and thoughtful post such as yours. Welcome aboard!
I saw Taken 2 tonight. The Parker trailer was one of the previews. Out of a bunch of trailers that included Broken City, Die Hard 5, Cloud Atlas, etc., Parker by far got the most murmurs of excitement and comments like “I’m gonna see THAT”. I gave myself a fistpump. I felt like they were excited about MY movie.;-) lol The scene where Staham jumped from the Van got a lot of ohhs and ahhs.
I’m not expecting the miraculous. I know the movie is unlikely to be as faithful as the Cooke adaptations. But there looks like there’s some good stuff here. The trailer is good enough to get my blood flowing. The thing is if the film does REALLY well, then we get more. And who knows, maybe this will be the beginning of a franchise with the longevity of a 007. You never know.
Jeff – great post! Glad to hear your perspective and nice to know you won’t have a 15 paragraph response from someone telling you how “wrong” you are. (as a long time reader, I think you know who I am referring to!)
Dan – Thanks for shedding some light on the Green Eagle script. I was lamenting the fact that movie was never made – until now!
Dave – Very cool that the Parker trailer is getting some good in-theatre response. BTW…what did you think of Taken 2?
Oh…never mind Dave! Just saw your review on the “news for the week” thread!
Stan Devers is my favorite Parker sideman, after Grofield.
Thank God that piece of waste script didn’t get filmed. I can’t imagagine a soft, sentimental Parker. And yeah, it’s hard to imagine the new film will go off the rails as far as that script does. To quote Garth Brooks: Thank God for unanswered prayers.
I have seen a rumor or two on various Internet sites that the film may have a flashback scene or two to illustrate Parker’s backstory. Can’t gauge the veracity of them, but the scene in the trailer where Statham walks in the room with the pistol kind of reminds me of The Hunter when Parker first confronts Fairfax, or Carter–one of the CEOs of the Outfit; my memory’s not improving as I get older.;-) lol
If it is true, that may be a good sign. If they’d only cut that stupid “civilized rules” nonsense.
Thanks for confirming that the possible TV series was considered at some point. I thought I was going crazy or had dreamt it up. From what I’ve (now) read, it’s probably a good thing that it didn’t get too far in development.
Thanks for the warning! I’m seeing “Taken 2” this weekend so I’ll be ready to plug my ears and close my eyes as soon as the “Parker” trailer comes on – as previously mentioned, I like to go into movies with NO possible spoilers!
Yeah, I got Skyfall and Dredd as the next 2 films on my schedule. I’ve seen a few reviews of Dredd, and they’ve been positive so far; it HAS to be better than that atrocious Stallone version from the 90’s.
And Skyfall: I’m really enjoying Craig’s take on Bond. One of the very first films my father ever took me to see was Moonraker, and we’ve seen every Bond since, plus a few of the Connerys at a local theater that shows oldies. I’ve found something good about all the Bonds, but the one I like the least is definitely Brosnan. There’s just something about that guy I do not like.
Dredd 3D is MUCH better than the Stallone one. They finally got it right with this one (except for the intrusive dance music score which I could really have done without) and Karl Urban makes a great Dredd. Just a pity it didn’t make any money in the States, which makes it unlikely there’ll be any sequels.
Yeah, from all accounts this Dredd is much truer to the comics. One of the problems with big name stars playing already-established characters is they tend to alter the character to fit the star rather than the other way around. I don’t recall Dredd ever having his helmet off in the comics, but of course in the Stallone film it’s off relatively quickly so Stallone could dazzle his audience with his stunning looks.;-) lol
Stallone is playing the Hitman from the Matz Graphic Novel A Bullet To The Head. And it’s directed by Walter Hill, who directed the Bronson film Hard Times and wrote both screeplay adaptations of Jim Thompson’s classic Crime novel The Getaway. Matz (Alexis Nolent) also wrote the Killer comic series, about an unnamed Assassin and his assignments. There are English translations of Killer collected in Graphic Novel format.
I’m assuming there are English translations of A Bullet To The Head, but can’t verify that, but I’ll be buying them if there are.
Stallone starring in this gives me pause; but since it’s based on a Matz series, and Walter Hill is directing, I’ll give it a shot. It’s due out in Feb 2013.
Oh, Yeah! Bullet’s available in English, and it has a very flattering blurb from Charles Ardai, founder of Hard Case Crime. Here’s the link from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Head-SC-Matz/dp/1606901974/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350192549&sr=1-1&keywords=A+Bullet+to+the+head#_
As always, Trent is out in front of the pack with his posts and knowledge of all tings Parker. I was preparing to write a long comment debunking some of the misconceptions the erstwhile Chris was laboring under until I got to the part where Trent kicked his ass out of the forum (which I probably would have gotten to doing myself in the same situation). Now it’s just housekeeping.
For anyone wondering what the story behind the use of the name “Parker” in film adaptations really is, those of you who believe that Don was holding out for a series to be made, instead of a one-off, before consenting to the use of the name are correct. Don long ago learned that Hollywood operates by its own rules and was under no illusion that his original creation would ever be 100% realized in any film adaptation. There are 24 Parker novels and Don didn’t want that to be lost under the crush of some so-called “definitive portrayal” in any single film, especially one starring Mel Gibson.
And speaking of “Payback,” the opening scene may be lifted straight from the novel (“The Hunter”) but Don’s Parker would never waste time or effort, nor take the stupid risk, of stealing from a homeless guy on a sunlit NYC sidewalk. So the code described in this film (yes, it’s in the film, not just the trailer) is just one of many not-quite-perfect adaptations of the infrequently referenced “code” in Don’s books. However, it’s not too far from the version Don created, which is a much more nuanced form of enlightened self-interest than any portrayal by any actor in any version. But consider the fate of Eddie Wheeler, the kid out past curfew in “The Score.” When Eddie hesitates to turn into the dark loading bay, Parker says, “I don’t want to kill you, Eddie. I got nothing against you.” Is that really so different from “I only hurt people who deserve it” coming from Parker in the middle of a heist? That’s not a spoiler, by the way, in case you haven’t seen the trailer yet. There will always be differences between the book and the film and some will be disappointing to serious fans but I don’t think the “code” is all that big a deal. If humanizing Parker a tad in the marketing results in exposing the series to a wider audience, I’m all for it.
Don’s favorite “film Parker” was Robert Duvall in “The Outfit.” He liked Duvall as an actor and liked the way the movie was done. But he still wouldn’t let them use Parker without a larger commitment. That’s just how he rolled.
Just to put a few things Chris brought up to bed:
Producers rarely have anything to do with trailers. That’s a marketing job. And marketing has a LOT of power, especially on mid and lower budget films. In most of those cases, producers cannot tell marketers how to sell their vision. On the contrary, marketers are more often empowered to change the vision by ordering new edits and re-shoots that conform to the marketing plan. This movie is no different but got off relatively unscathed (though not completely and that’s all I can say for now).
I’m not personally aware of the depth of the 35-year friendship between Don and Les Alexander but I do know that Don’s circle of close personal friends was very small. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a meaningful friendship with Les. I’m occasionally surprised by the extent of Don’s long-distance friendships with people who were essentially pen pals. Those of you who know of the DEW bibliography work done by the jazz musician Ethan Iverson (The Bad Plus) might be interested to know that he and Don corresponded with some regularity for several years and considered each other friends but only met in-person maybe once or twice. Don had many such friendships and Les could easily fit into that category but he and Don traveled in similar circles and probably saw a fair amount of each other.
The biggest mistake Chris makes in his criticism is, as Trent pointed out, to assume he knows more than he really does. About Don. About Parker. About Hollywood. About Jason and Les. And probably about a lot more than that. And certainly he thinks he knows more about the film than the trailer can possibly convey. I’ve been working in media most of my life and have cut more than a few trailers in my time. As far as I can tell, the trend in trailers has been one of misdirection more than accuracy. There are some misdirects in this trailer, which, based on my knowledge of this marketing team, can only be intentional. But they’re the ones tasked with putting butts in the seats and they do what they know works. Parker is not an easy sell. I don’t hold anything against this crew for doing what they know has worked in the past.
I avoid spoilers but give my short assessment of the film in the newest post on the official site here: http://www.donaldwestlake.com/2012/10/18/parker-the-movie/
I’m also working to get some more behind-the-scenes content from the marketing team so drop by for updates.
Dave, Grofield is my favorite, too. I even like him more than Parker sometimes! And I’ve been working on putting the idea of a Grofield vehicle in Les Alexander’s ear. Fingers crossed.
Trent, thank you, as always, for your professionalism, enthusiasm and overall expertise.
I’m sure Trent will be along soon enough, Paul (that’s if he’s not too busy taking the piss out of me over on the Pulp Bookfair post), but thanks for this, and more importantly for the honest appraisal of the film over on your site (which, by the way, is looking better than ever). I’ve not said much about the movie up till now, partly because trailers can, as you say, often be misleading, but mostly because it seemed fairly pointless passing judgement on something I haven’t yet seen. Most of us here, if we’re honest, and whatever our feelings about the film, will almost certainly be unable to resist the temptation to go and see Parker when it opens (er, whenever that is here in the UK), at which point I’ll merrily weigh in on what I think of the thing (if anyone cares). Until then, my fingers remain crossed.
We care! We care! The only literary faux pas you’ve made that I know about Nick, and I’m absolutely sure Clue will agree, is not giving a certain rangy beach bum named Travis McGee a visit in your decades of Crime Lit consumption. You are missing out, my friend.
What a cool, oh so cool, post! Thank you for finally setting the record straight, Paul. You’ve just cemented what Trent, I and 98% of the folks here at VWOP already believed. But now it’s from a source even the infamous Chris couldn’t question.
Your father has given me more literary pleasure and sheer delight than I could ever possibly put into words. It is obvious he was the classiest of class acts and it’s plain to see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.:-)
Thank you for your very kind words, Dave. But you should know I’m actually a total jerk. ;-)
But seriously, cleaning up the bibliography, clarifying the record and sharing the details and anecdotes I know is the least I can do for Don’s legacy. I’m gratified that my efforts aren’t wasted. Thanks again!
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective Paul. I don’t think I am out of line at all in saying it means a lot to all the regular readers and contributors to this site. My excitement for the film has been renewed since the posting of the letter from Les and your comments have added to that excitement.
I am very glad to hear they really ARE committing to a film series (although, if you have any influence at all, please, PLEASE convince them to call the sequel ANYTHING but Parker 2!), and the idea of a Grofield film or series is a great idea! No better way to introduce him to moviegoers than a film version of The Score! :-)
I totally agree with you about not calling a sequel Parker 2. It really underestimates the intelligence of the masses to think they can’t distinguish if a film is a sequel without the same title and a number following it.
But remember H.L. Mencken: No one ever went broke underestimating the public’s IQ.;-) lol
They’ll probably call it Parker 2. That’s just the dumbed down culture we live in. But the upside is it’s spreading the legend. More people are going to discover the “real” Parker than probably ever before if the franchise is a mega-hit. So they could call it Parker 2: Parker meets the Care Bears as long as the film is good and it leads the people to the DEW’s novels.
Thanks, Cluelo! It’s my pleasure to contribute however I can. And I’m really glad Les took the time to reach out to this hardest of hard-boiled fans. The only form of marketing that beats television is word of mouth and if this group is enthusiastic, I’m confident that the movie will reach the wider audience we’ve been hoping to reach. Parker is unlike pretty much any other lead character out there and he needs to be appreciated by every new generation, imho.
I agree that “Parker 2” sucks and that it should be avoided but I’m not sure we can burn that bridge before we have to cross it. And I further think that it should be avoided so as not to confuse the chronology when the book being filmed is earlier in the series. There are only five books after “Flashfire” and two or three of them can be easily combined into one film. So my guess, and it’s only a guess, is that there will have to be “prequels.” The only question will be if they are depicted as prequels or if that’s even necessary for the film audience. Time will tell.
“The Score” would be a great way to introduce Grofield. And it’s also a great way to show the true value of Parker as a leader among “heavies.” One of my favorite Grofield characteristics is the constant film score music he has in his head. It would be so fun to inter-cut the drabness of any given scene/location with Grofield’s POV that sees the world as a sweeping technicolor production or moody film noir drama, and just as abruptly back to the drabness everyone else sees. I’m thinking mini-series that launches from the ending of “The Handle” with a cameo by Statham’s Parker, who immediately leaves as Grofield falls asleep until “The Dame” climbs in the window that night, and away we go. Grofield is nearly as dangerous as Parker but with an almost totally opposite style. That dichotomy would be a great challenge for any actor. And probably tons of fun.
And by “The Dame,” of course, I meant “The Damsel.” ;-)
I only glanced over a few of the remarks. Chris’ comment that it’s a bad sign that a film’s producer/director/whatever would address the fans making him nervous is silly. If anything, it’s also research for these guys. No harm in that.
I think the only weakness in the trailer is Straham himself. Good actor, good action star … But we’ve seen him play criminals and anti-heroes before. Audiences won’t be as shocked as they were when Mel Gibson played Walter/Porter, because of to that point, Gibson had played mostly nice guys. But if that’s the trailers only weakness, I’d say this film looks promising, at least.
Since I’m coming in so late, has anyone mentioned why the producers opted for FLASHFIRE and not an earlier novel? I’m still working my way through the early stories — Honestly, I’d like to purchase a stack of Parker novels from eBay, then read them in order up to BUTCHER’S MOON and just stop. For a while, anyway. Something tells me that you’re better off reading the first 16, allow for a little cooling off period, and then dive into the “new” series beginning in the 1990s.