Payback: Straight Up – The Director’s Cut
In getting ready to discuss Brian Helgeland’s “Payback” as part of our “Class of 1999” series here at Sonic Cinema, I wanted to finally watch his original cut of the film before the studio had rewrites and reshoots done to make the film more audience-friendly. That theatrical cut was the only one I had ever seen, and it’s good. The “Straight Up” cut is something else, though, and it’s probably one of the most entertaining movies Mel Gibson has ever been a part of- it’s a shame audiences didn’t get a chance to see that for themselves in 1999.
The story in this cut is the exact same as in the 1999 theatrical cut. Based on the novel by Richard Stark, which was previously adapted by John Boorman into “Point Blank,” it tells the story of Porter (Gibson), a small-time robber whose wife (Deborah Kara Unger) and partner (Val, played by the terrific Gregg Henry) have betrayed him. They have their reasons- his wife is pissed that he was sleeping with Rosie (Maria Bello), a hooker he had driven for, and Val because he needed all $130k they just stole to get back into The Syndicate- and they leave him for dead. He’s managed to survive, however, and now, he wants his money. He’s going to find that it’s just not that simple, and it might not end the way he expects.
The difference in the two cuts feels negligible in a lot of ways- there’s no filtered blue in the cinematography (but it feels just as gritty), and there’s no narration by Porter in the beginning- which alone would set it apart, but the third act is completely different. Gone is Kris Kristofferson as main boss Bronson- now it is just a voice over a phone, with the voice provided by Sally Kellerman. It’s honestly a better choice, because it represents the faceless organization Porter finds himself up against, which is less a group of criminals and more a bureaucracy- how many people is Porter going to have to go through to get his money? Why does it even matter to them? That can be boiled down to one word- principle. The word is defined in a title card at the beginning of the film, and it’s what drives the action on all fronts here. While Porter is still the main character in this film, Helgeland’s “Straight Up” cut seems to have a larger focus on the world Porter is operating in, and he isn’t as interested in creating a predictable star vehicle for Gibson. That’s to the film’s advantage.
This film was the real beginnings of movie star Gibson trying different things in front of the camera to tweak his movie star image, and it shows. I really wish this had been the cut to come out in 1999, because I not only think it would have been a big hit with audiences, it also might have given Gibson more chances to transition into a character actor earlier, before his personal problems derailed his career, forcing him to do so out of necessity. Gibson feels very much on the same wavelength as what Helgeland is doing with his vision of this film, and he isn’t afraid to do darker things (there’s a scene early here, cut from the theatrical, where he beats up Unger, and it’s brutal, although it definitely plays more uncomfortably given what we know of Gibson’s past decade). I think Gibson was ultimately too afraid then to just blast his image apart (hence the rewrites to make him more sympathetic and accessible), but really, it’s because of Gibson’s natural charisma that we follow this character, and the “Straight Up” cut solidifies that, along with the fact that this is just a fantastic cast for him to work with, in general.
I’m glad that Paramount finally let Helgeland put out his original version of “Payback,” because while the theatrical cut is entertaining, it feels relatively unmemorable as a stop on Gibson’s career path, even if it’s a really good performance from him. Being able to watch this finally, we see there was much more to not just Gibson as a performer, but Helgeland as a director. This might be his best effort; if he had been able to put the movie out he intended, who knows what type of career he could have had afterwards. It might have been busier in the past decade and a half, at least, to where we wouldn’t have had to wait for him to make another movie until 2013’s “42.” If you’re a fan of either his or Gibson’s, this is a curiosity well worth watching.
