Payback, Mel Gibsonís newest film (he stars but does not direct this time), is really quite
amazing. And not necessarily in a good way, although I have to admit I did enjoy it. After all,
itís entertaining, and quite funny, with some clever plot twists, a neat main character, some good
actors (Gibson is fine, but Coburn is the one who really stands out; even though he only has a bit
part as one of the bad guys, he reads every line perfectly), one or two smart lines (although in
general the screenplay is pretty poor, and very derivative of other action flicks), and a great
soundtrack. But there are other things about it that are deeply disturbing, so that even though I
was entertained, I walked out of the theater feeling guilty and kind of uneasy.
Many filmmakers work on the basic principle that America enjoys sadomasochism. And
they make lots of money, because theyíre right. A lot of you may not like to admit it, but we get
a real thrill out of watching things explode, and watching people beating up or shooting at other
people. I only like it when itís fake, but some people like it even when itís real; if you donít
believe me, check out a series of movies called Faces of Death, or turn on Fox and watch one of
the hundreds of specials theyíve got about real life violence ("Worldís Most Violent Animal
Attacks," "Worldís Most Scary Police Chases," etc.). They donít make this stuff for nothing; they
make it because a lot of people like to watch it. So Payback isnít doing anything new; as I said
above, itís rather derivative of many other films. Payback is just the first film Iíve seen to take
the S&M thing so far, and to present it with so little subtlety. Itís also one of the first films Iíve
seen to try to make S&M funny. The weird and slightly disturbing thing is, it succeeds.
The story goes like this: Mel Gibsonís character is a robber named Porter. He and his
partner in crime, Val Resnick (Gregg Henry), steal $140,000 from some other criminals. The
first weird thing that happens is, they actually get away with it. This is not a robbery-gone-awry
movie, which in itself is quite a relief. The only thing that goes wrong is, as theyíre about to
split the money, fifty-fifty, Porter is betrayed by Val and his wife and left for dead. Of course,
he survives, recuperates and returns for revenge. Now hereís the second weird thing: Porter
insists not only on killing his betrayer (just Val, not the wife; she neatly removes herself by
ODing on bad drugs), but on getting back the exact amount of money that heís due: $70,000.
He wants no more, and no less. And before he kills Val, we learn that Val is a sadomasochist
who has a girlfriend of the same persuasion (Pearl, played by Lucy Liu). Several scenes rather
graphically illustrate their little hobby. But not in a disgusting or repulsive way; itís supposed to
be funny, and it is--the theater was filled with laughter during these scenes.
The catch phrase of this movie is "Get ready to root for the bad guy," and in a way itís
pretty accurate. Porter is really only nice to one person: his ex-girlfriend (during the course of
the film the "ex" is, of course, removed from that phrase), Rosie (Maria Bello), who is the
stereotypical hooker with a heart of gold, a mythic character that has appeared in hundreds of
American films, and continues to reappear--we seem nearly as obsessed with her as we are with
S&M. But unlike his girlfriend, Porter does not have a heart of gold. Heís not like the
traditional movie hero who always offers a hand to the guy dangling off the cliff, even if that guy
is his worst enemy. Porter just kills anybody that gets in his way, and when they offer to help
him, he shoots them in the face. In fact, he basically kills or physically and/or emotionally
batters everybody in the film, including himself (and excepting only Rosie, as I said above).
Admittedly, Mel Gibson usually gets himself beat up pretty badly in all of his films, but here it
seems like heís really asking for it. In one sequence, a real wince-fest, the big bad guy demands
to know where Porter has put his son (thatís right, Porter stoops to kidnapping a kid and using
him for the purposes of extortion); when he doesnít answer, they torture him by slamming a
hammer down on his toes. He loses two toes, not because he has to, but simply because...well,
for no good reason, since he ends up lying to them anyway.
So the big question is, why does he put himself through all this? Porterís motives are
unclear. Itís easy to understand why he wants to kill Val; Val betrayed and almost killed him,
not to mention beating his (ex-)girlfriend nearly to death. But why does Porter insist on getting
back that money, and exactly the right amount of money? Why does he put himself through all
this killing and torture for just $70,000? Many people in the film ask him this question, but he
never answers. Is it a symbol for his vengeance? Must he have it to attain perfect retribution?
Thatís the most obvious explanation; the title seems to suggest it. But Porter could easily have
stolen more money from somewhere else. He seems determined instead to get back his money in
the most difficult and violent way possible. He takes on a huge criminal organization known
alternately as The Outfit and The Syndicate. The rich leaders of this group are hidden in well-
guarded high rises; they have connections on the police force; they have an army of violent men
at their service. Porter takes them all on; he kills, beats, kidnaps, is tortured, and nearly gets
himself and his girlfriend killed in a thousand different ways. And all, seemingly, just for the fun
of it. And thatís whatís scary. It is fun.
|© Copyright 2003-2017 Jim Genzano, All Rights Reserved|
Like what you see here? Show your gratitude in the form of cold, hard cash, and you could help me make it even better!