Porter’s Big Day

I hate Mel Gibson. I have not been shy about this in the past when I’ve had to review his works. I’ve likened him to “human filth”, “a pile of garbage in the shape of a person”, “toxic human waste”, and more. I stand behind those statements. He’s a despicable person, a terrible actor, and the fact that he keeps getting work in Hollywood is disgusting. After everything he’s said and done, the drunken, racist rants, and physical abuse of his partners, he should have been sent to actor’s purgatory (which he was) and never allowed back (except then he was allowed to return). It’s awful. Truly awful.

With that said, Mel Gibson has starred in a number of films that, for one reason or another, I have been unable to ignore (see also: Lethal WeaponFirst started with a script by Shane Black, the Lethal Weapon franchise (movies and television) tells the story of older cop Murtaugh and his loose cannon, living on the edge partner Riggs.). Would I be happier if I never had to see any of his movies again? Sure. But when he has a starring role in a franchise that, technically, has been going since the 1960s, I eventually have to pay attention and at least make a passing nod at the actor. That is, of course, so I can say that he’s the biological equivalent of a Superfund site, sure, but I acknowledged him.

The franchise in question is the Parker series. Started in 1962 by Donald E. Westlake (often writing as Richard Stark), the novels feature lead character Parker (just Parker) is a career criminal, and an exceptionally good one. He’s ruthless, willing to commit all manner of crimes if the payout is good. He does have a few rules, like never double-crossing someone on a job unless they double-cross him first, but for the most part he’s the perfect embodiment of the anti-hero, through and through. He’s a not good, very bad, not nice guy to his bones.

I guess, in that respect, Mel Gibson was perfectly cast for the role. You know, since he’s the human equivalent of a turd stuck in the treads of your shoe.

Payback, from 1999, wasn’t the first adaptation of the Parker novels; there were six previous adaptations ranging all the way back to 1966 (four years after the release of the first novel). Hollywood has tried, time and again, to adapt the Parker stories into movies but rarely have they been successful (a seventh attempt was made in 2013 and it, too, sucked). Payback was the most successful of the lot, although that’s really only be degrees. It made $161.6 Mil against a budget of $90, which wasn’t exactly a win. Many critics called in violent, rote, and predictable. It kind of is all those things, but I won’t deny that there’s something about the film that does work, at times. It’s not Gibson; he feels too hammy and not like he really embodies the character properly. Parker is a costume he puts on, not a character he inhabits. It doesn’t work.

Also, the character isn’t named “Parker” here but, instead, “Porter”. This is a common trend in Parker adaptations, generally not calling the character by his name when he comes to the screen. It’s really weird.

Gibson is Porter, a career criminal who, some time back, was betrayed by his friend and his wife. They pulled a score on some Triads, stealing a briefcase full of money that was supposed to have a quarter of a mil in it, at least. Instead it only has one-forty and change, and Porter’s colleague, Val Resnick (Gregg Henry), needs it all. He wants to buy his way back into the Outfit, the criminal organization running Chicago. Porter, of course, won’t give up all of it, but Val already assumed as much. He engineered it so Porter’s wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), thinks that Porter was sleeping with another woman (Rosie, played by Maria Bello). He wasn’t, as it turns out, but that didn’t matter as she shoots Porter in the back and she, and Val, drive off in Porter’s car.

He should have died, but he didn’t, and now, all this time later, he’s back. He wants his money, the seventy-thou that’s his share of the dough, and he starts making a fuss. He stalks Val, he causes trouble for the Outfit, he makes a bit of noise. The Triads, some dirty cops, and an even dirtier hustler are all on the lookout for Porter as well. Everyone wants him, and they want his money, and with the way things are going Porter might just be lucky to leave Chicago with his life. But he’ll get paid first if he has anything to say about it.

Payback is an ugly movie. Yes, it’s gritty and muted and filmed in the least glossy style I could think of (it feels very 1990s, for sure). But it’s the story that I really mean. This film is ugly and mean through and through, very rarely finding any kind of levity to make you think that there’s anyone redeemable in this entire film. There is one, Rosie, the call girl that Porter used to drive around and protect before he got married, but even she seems to think Porter is a good dude, all evidence to the contrary.

Porter is a bad guy. This isn’t because Gibson (pustule on the ass of humanity that he is) is playing the character but more because the script, by Brian Helgeland and Terry Hayes (Helgeland also directed), finds no way to redeem anyone. I’ve read a few of the Parker stories, and I know he’s not exactly a nice guy (he’s a career criminal, after all), but the stories find a way to at least get you invested in the character’s plight. The case, the con, the caper. Nothing here really gets me interested in Porter’s story and that’s because the film never actually finds a way to make him interesting. He gets screwed by his partner, sure, but one criminal fucking another doesn’t have any weight to it when Porter then goes around and fucks with everyone else.

There’s no code to Porter, at least not in this film. It’s like changing his name to Parker allowed them to warp the character and do whatever they wanted to him. They made him nastier, uglier inside, more willing to fuck the world so long as he gets his. Parker in the stories isn’t a nice guy but there’s a way he handles his business that you respect. He has his targets, his missions, he does it right. Porter is a bull in the china shop in this film, and none of that cleanliness, the ability to handle his shit like a professional, is ever conveyed. Porter is all wrong for this story.

I have to think that a different actor in the lead role would have made for a different film. This was a Mel Gibson vehicle, and the actor was still at the height of his career (Lethal Weapon 4 came out in 1988 and the actor had five movies all set for release in 2000). If Gibson had wanted to take this character in any direction, he could have, and actors generally do. They have clauses in their contracts to make changes and shift things around to make them look better (it’s a business all about image). Gibson was happy with this character, ugly as Porter is, and this was the film he signed on for. He made Payback the way it is. He made it not work.

As I said, there are moments in the film that work, small segments where you don’t completely hate Porter and almost can get into his story. But then he does something ugly, or acts like an asshole, or kills a bunch of people and hits a woman and causes so much damage without caring and you get pulled back out of the film. It’s hard to care about Porter, and thus it’s hard to care about Payback.