Austinist Interview: Payback-Straight Up Director Brian Helgeland

What initially drew you to the material? Did you consider Payback primarily a Donald E. Westlake adaptation, or did you take any cues from Point Blank [John Boorman's 1967 film also adapted from Westlake's crime novel The Hunter]?

I honestly don't believe in remaking classics so if Point Blank had existed on its own I wouldn't have touched it. But the Westlake book that it's based on is quite different from that movie. My adaptation, in my opinion, is much closer to the book and therefore able to stand separately from Point Blank. At the time I had been under contract to Warner Bros. for several years and there was an openness there to me directing something if it was cool and cheap enough to make. Warners owned the book rights and I thought of it as a throwback to the old film noirs of the 40's. It was a chance to concentrate on style and character on a manageable, doable scale. So it started out with Warners. How it ended up at Paramount is a much longer story.

As a first-time director, did you have any apprehension towards directing your own material? In hindsight, would you have done anything differently?

As a writer I had been lucky enough to have been on the set of movies I had written all the way through post-production, writing lines on the ADR stage. Richard Donner had allowed me to sit in on casting sessions, meetings with the production designer, the stuntmen, costume fittings - it was a great education. The only thing I was afraid of was I wouldn't shoot the proper coverage. I was especially concerned because it was only a 50-day shoot and part of the ethos was to shoot simply. So I didn't have a lot of shots to waste. The DP, my editor and script supervisor got me through it.

As far as doing anything differently, I don't think that way. I did what I did and was comfortable with my decisions. I had come with the notion that a director wouldn't have the problems a screenwriter did. What I learned was this is false. The directors just don't talk about it. They maintain the illusion that they are in control. And they are until they're not. If anything, in the end I wish I was more of a salesman or manipulator. When you decide that the people putting up all the money don't have a right to an opinion, you have only made a mistake if they realize it. They realized it. I failed.

In the years since Payback, you've directed several features but mainly focused on writing for other directors. What draws you back to the insanity of directing, as well as writing, a motion picture?

Writing a movie is a lonely proposition. All alone in a room with your insecurities and demons for months if not years at a time. Directing, actually being on the floor doing it, is a joy. The politics after and before stink, but the actual work overwhelms it all. As far as continuing to write for other directors, it's all about who the directors are. There are many who are confident enough in themselves that they welcome rather than fear a screenwriter's input. Those are the ones I try to work with.

Occasionally a director's cut proves to be more popular than the original film, in particular Blade Runner and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Was your recut at all influenced by alternate versions of other films?

Not really. I just always felt that in not being strong enough or smart enough I had abandoned my film. Forced or not, it stuck in my craw as they say. But I did my time in movie jail and waited until I had a chance. And old passions died away and a new regime arrived at Paramount and finally, to be honest, no one cared enough anymore to stand in the way. If I wanted to spend all those hours in the editing room and on the mixing stage, then so be it. Weirdly, in the movie the character of Porter simply wants his seventy grand back. No more no less. He just wants what he thinks is his. I became that guy. I just wanted my film back. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece. I'm not saying the world needs to applaud my vision such as it is. I'm just saying that something was created out there - rough edges and all. I'm saying it's mine. It's mine and I want it, and, ultimately, I got it back.

With the advent of DVD there has been a concurrent rise in films being released in several guises: unrated versions, extended cuts, restored scenes etc. Sometimes this seems to be motivated mainly by commercial interests—releasing as much product as possible—but do you feel that in today's media-saturated climate, films are more open to alteration than in previous generations?

In previous generations it was impossible. Very few films saved their trims, their unused takes and sound mags for more than a few years. Storage alone was prohibitive. I guess digital is changing all that. Still, despite the circumstances I find myself in, I'd prefer only one version of a film. Just adding unused footage is often a dull waste of time. Pulling footage out, trimming takes, editing down to the essence are all elements which made the great films great. Most of the time it's all shoved back in to make more money and ultimately a lazier, less focused film. But I hope Payback is the exception and not the rule.

How has the reaction been for Payback-Straight Up? Do you feel a sense of vindication after all these years?

Only a few people have seen it so far, so I really can't answer. As far as vindication, who knows? I'm sure some people will still prefer the other version. But those aren't the people I made it for. I made it for whoever digs it and the fact that it's alive is all the vindication I need.

Thanks very much for you time!

You're welcome.

Payback-Straight Up
Tonight
Texas Spirit Theatre [map]
7:30pm