I’ve never been so torn by a movie in my life. This should have been super easy, barely an inconvenience. A heist movie, directed by Shane Black, based on the writings of Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake (1933-2008), the legendary crime novelist) and his series of novels about a professional thief named Parker. If you know either of those names, you probably went “Whoa! That’s a nearly-perfect pairing! What could go wrong? Black’ll crank it out of the park, surely!” Lord knows, over the years, when the subject of who could do a Parker movie “the right way,” Shane Black comes up in the discussion, based on the strength of his movies, like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and The Nice Guys. If anyone “gets it,” surely, it’s Shane Black.
Oh, be careful what you wish for.
I am, at this time, unable to reconcile the warring factions in my head, so I’m going to let them each have an equal say, starting with the half that thinks Shane Black is unappreciated in his lifetime. That’s followed by the half that regards Donald Westlake as one of the authors who influenced a very eclectic writing career.
The Heist of Heists by Mark Finn, unapologetic Shane Black fan
I’ve been a fan of Shane Black’s writing since the first Lethal Weapon. It would be hard growing up in the late 80s/early 90s and not have been a fan of Shane Black’s movies: The Monster Squad? The Last Action Hero? The Last Boy Scout? He also wrote and directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, one of the better crime movies of the last 30 years, as well as The Nice Guys, another fine effort. Hell, I even liked Iron Man 3. And he deserved a lot of credit for getting to write and direct a Marvel movie at the height of their popularity that still looks and acts like a Shane Black picture. True, he’s got a thing for Christmas, but if that’s his only real quirk, I can live with it.
I’m really glad that he’s gotten the chance to stretch out and take on some bigger budget films because he’s got a knack for doing really punchy violence and deadpan quips in equal quantities. And for every one of his movies that gets made, he’s got other high profile projects (like a movie based on “The Destroyer” book series, and a Doc Savage and a Sgt. Rock film that have been dead or dying for years) that never seem to get off the ground.
Given that he likes working with other people’s properties, it’s no wonder he pulled this gig; adapting Donald Westlake’s crime and heist novels into a movie. He’s got a good cast, including Mark Wahlberg as the lead thief Parker, who deadpans his way through the film while everyone else around him loses their shit. His partner in crime, Grofield, is a great counterpoint to Parker’s professionalism. There’s a lot of great character actors scattered through this twisty-turny plot as the loot has to be stolen and stolen again, doubled and triple crossed, and high-spirited antics ensue.
There are a couple of fantastic action sequences, real showstoppers, that look great (Robert Downey, Jr. was one of the producers, so there’s that). There’s also some inspired shoot-outs bordering on legit gun-fu. I would almost place Get Dirty in between Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys in terms of tone and amount of comedy inherent in the story. If you consider these movies as being among Black’s best efforts, and if you think he would have done a better job than Renny Harlan of directing his script for The Long Kiss Goodnight, then you’re going to love Play Dirty. It may do for the heist and crime movies what Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl did for pirate flicks. It’s not a heist movie, it’s every heist movie.
This is Why we Can’t Have Nice Things by Mark Finn, devoted fan of Donald Westlake
It’s been a long time since the first attempt to put Donald Westlake’s Parker on the silver screen. That movie, the 1967 classic, Point Blank, starred Lee Marvin and Angie Dickenson, and was directed by John Boorman (look him up if you don’t know). With such a talented group in place, you’d’ve thought that they could have delivered the goods. After all, it’s a crime story, with guns. Hollywood’s been doing than since the get-go. And Lee Marvin? Hot damn!
Only, it’s not Parker. It’s Walker. And while many folks think it’s probably the movie that comes closest to bringing Parker to the silver screen, it still isn’t all that close. That’s what you get, evidently, when you try to adapt a hard-boiled and terse series of heist novels featuring a protagonist who doesn’t even have a first name, into a different medium. Ever since Point Blank, they’ve tried, over and over again, to put something resembling Parker from the books into a movie, and they’ve failed every single time.
Including this one.
Who on Earth thought Mark Wahlberg, from Boston, all of what, five feet six? Five-seven? With his constant “bro-energy” that renders him a little intimidating, but not in the same way that Parker, who is tall, broad-shouldered, and cut from a solid piece of granite, and who takes over the room when he walks in—who thought that was a good casting decision? Why didn’t you use Idris Elba as Parker and Robert Downey, Jr. as Alan Grofield? Huh?
Okay, I’m getting worked up. Let’s back up and start at the beginning. This isn’t a Parker movie. It isn’t a Grofield movie, either, but it’s a bit closer to the mark. Given the comedic tone of the film, it SHOULD be a Dortmunder movie. But which book to adapt? Can’t decide? I know! Just use them all!
Play Dirty, then, is Shane Black’s love letter to the oeuvre of Donald Westlake’s most popular series, the Violent World of Parker, and the Dortmunder capers. It’s one thing to file the serial numbers off of your inspiration, but in this case, Black was using Legos from a number of specialized kits and I can tell at a glance which licensed Lego set they came from. Any Westlake fan who’s read more than a couple of books will be able to spot bits and pieces from The Hot Rock, The Split, The Hunter, at least one of the Grofield novels, and a few more odds and ends to make a Westlake’s Greatest Hits movie. Thank God he set the story during Christmas, or I wouldn’t know what to think.
Honestly? That’d be great, if we were celebrating Westlake as a writer’s writer, a crime writing genius. But we still don’t have a single movie that comes close. I’m not too surprised; after all, Parker’s crime stories are pretty bleak. He’s a strong, silent guy who keeps his own council and follows a professional code of conduct, like don’t steal from your fellow thieves, and split the loot evenly, and so forth. In fact, a lot of the killing in these books happens when Parker’s partners in crime don’t follow those rules. He’s not a likeable, nor a really sympathetic character, but he’s fascinating to watch and he’s good at his job. Like a shark.
It’s not surprising that studios balk at the idea of putting an unlikeable anti-hero onscreen. My answer to that is simple: just quit trying. If Shane Black couldn’t get it right, what hope does anyone else have? I think it’s obvious that Black made the movie he wanted to make, but man, does it piss me off that I’ve never seen Parker in action, unless I’m reading a book.
Westlake fans: your only hope is to divorce yourself from the source material as much as you can. Turn it into a drinking game, where to try to identify all of the pieces and parts Black cribbed his script from. That may be a big ask, but if you’ve ever tried to watch a “Parker” movie before, like Parker, starring Jason Statham, or Payback, starring Mel Gibson, then you’re already used to doing this. As someone who has been waiting all of my adult life for a Conan movie that feels like the works of Robert E. Howard, let me welcome you to the party. Pull up a chair and grab some snacks.
You know what’s the most galling of all? That Shane Black could’ve done a Grofield movie in his sleep. Grofield is the light side to Parker’s dark side and the closest he comes to being a friend to Parker, because even though they are very different people, Grofield is a good thief and while Parker never really acknowledges it, there are things Grofield is good at that Parker isn’t, like being human. Shane Black could’ve cranked that softball out of the park. Not for nothing, but there are five-six Parker novels that would be a great on-ramp to the character without revisiting The Hunter/Point Blank/Payback yet again.
I’m really pissed at him. It’s obvious he’s a fan. And it should be self-evident to him that Play Dirty didn’t scratch any itches, but rather rolled all of the Parker fans in a patch of poison ivy instead. At least he made Grofield an actor.
