Dortmunder at the Movies, Part 1 (in a one-part series): The Hot Rock


Dortmunder at the movies was like a rock on the beach; the story kept washing over him, in wave after wave, but never had any effect.

From Bank Shot, by Donald E. Westlake

Rarely has a screenwriter talked to me about adapting one of my books.  The first time was William Goldman [scenarist of The Hot Rock], who holds the whole field of screenwriting in contempt.  Either in spite of that, or because of that, he is, I think, the best living screenwriter.  Nobody on earth could have made a movie of All the President’s Men [1976] and he did.

When he took the job of doing The Hot Rock, he called me and said “I want to take you to lunch and I want you to tell me everything you know about these characters that you didn’t put in the book.”  I thought, “What a smart guy this is!”  We spent time together.  The director [Peter Yates] and producers [Hal Landers and Bobby Roberts] didn’t give a damn, but Bill would send me portions of the script and say, “What do you think?”  He was very forthcoming.

He took out the only thing I thought of as a movie scene in the whole book, a scene where they have stolen a locomotive from a circus because they have to break into an insane asylum.  It’s a complicated scene, but that seemed to me like a movie scene.  Bill explained why he couldn’t use it and he was right.  Every once in a great while–I don’t think in terms of movies if I’m writing a book and I think anyone who does is crazy–I’ll look back at something I’ve written and say, “That’s a movie scene…” And if the movie rights are sold, that scene is never used.

Donald Westlake, talking to Patrick McGilligan, and you can read much more in The Getaway Car, still in fine bookstores near you I would hope, but if not, there’s always the internet.  (Parenthetically, the locomotive was borrowed from an amusement park, not stolen from a circus, but would you want to be the one to tell him that?)

I don’t really want to talk about the Dortmunder movies.  I’ve only seen two–the first two–and those are probably the only two I’ll ever see.  The first is a decent film that could have been a great one, and we’ll be looking at that now.  The second (Bank Shot) is a DeLuxe Panavision nightmare from which I briefly feared I might never awake.

(Can I just ask, while we’re on the subject, what do the people who adapt Westlake’s books have against Joanna Cassidy?  She was in both The Outfit and Bank Shot, and if I were her, I’d conspire to have all prints of both films destroyed.  A beautiful talented actress, who has done many fine things, and it seems like certain filmmakers once lived to dress her in the most horrible clothes imaginable and make her talk like the village idiot.  Except for Ridley Scott, who dressed her in glitter and snakes and not much else in Blade Runner, but she was an android in that one, so maybe that works–I think the book was better in that case as well, but that’s for a different blog entirely, which I’m quite sure already exists–probably hundreds of blogs like that exist.  Thousands, even.  But I digress.)

So this will not be a series of articles on the Dortmunder films, as I’ve already done for Parker, because I think there’s only one Dortmunder film worth discussing.  Or for that matter, watching.  And frankly, the world would not have been all that much the poorer if even that one had never been made, though obviously Mr. Westlake himself would have been somewhat the poorer.  In strictly monetary terms.

Why are the Dortmunder films so bad?   Probably for the same reason most of the Parker films after Point Blank are so bad–because the first Dortmunder film that was only half-bad flopped to hell, in spite of having a dynamite cast, a big budget, the same director who made Bullitt, and, as Westlake himself ardently agreed, the best screenwriter in the business.   And having failed with A-List talent, Dortmunder got relegated to the B, C, D, and possibly even E list ever afterward.  That doesn’t really answer the question of why it failed with the A-List talent, though.

There are, needless to say, quite a few immortal classics of the cinema that originally failed at the box office (like, for example, Point Blank).  This isn’t one of them.   I do think it deserved to do better than it did.   I’m not at all surprised that it didn’t.

I already discussed, in my review of The Outfit, how you can hire a great actor to play a role who gives it his all, and it’s just not good enough, because he’s wrong for the part.   Robert Duvall couldn’t play Parker because there’s just no way Parker looks like that, and because his acting style didn’t work for the character.   They did the same thing with Robert Redford and Dortmunder, only there’s no way Dortmunder looks that good.  How are we supposed to buy somebody who won the genetic lottery like few guys before or since as one of life’s perennial losers?

Redford was much more than just a pretty boy–you don’t have to tell me that.   From early in his career, you could tell he didn’t want to coast on his looks, anymore than Paul Newman did.  Fact is, he played a lot of losers in his career, but they were mainly losers by choice.   Dortmunder is a loser by fate, who occasionally guts out a victory by dint of sheer willpower and ingenuity.  He is not one of Mother Nature’s fair-haired boys–so why is he being played by the ultimate fair-haired boy?

The obvious answer is money.  To make an even half-faithful adaptation of Westlake’s novel, you’d need a very large budget.  For example, the sequence where Dortmunder’s gang invades a police station by way of a helicopter.   You remember how Major Iko kind of flinched when he was told a helicopter was needed for that job–imagine if they’d needed two of them–one for the gang to ride in, and another to film them riding in the first one.  Helicopter shots cost big money, particularly when they’re being done over Manhattan Island.   That’s just one short segment of the film.

The production budget, according to Wikipedia, was not quite 4.9 millon–which doesn’t sound like much, until you look at a list of other 1972 releases, and see that The Poseidon Adventure was made for 4.7 million.  Well, that was mostly shot on indoor sets, you see.  But Jeremiah Johnson was shot entirely on location, way out in the wilderness, much of it in winter, and cost 3.1 million.  The Godfather cost six or seven million, and that had Pacino and Brando.

So they needed a marquee name, to placate the money men.   Redford’s stardom was not, we should remember, an overnight thing.  He’d broken into movies in 1962, but didn’t really break out until Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969.  Then he had a solo hit with Jeremiah Johnson in 1972.  But he’d interspersed these successes with more challenging lower-budget ‘message’ pictures, like The Candidate.  By 1972, he was just becoming a really big established star, though he probably didn’t seal the deal until The Sting, and then The Way We Were.   The Hot Rock took maybe a little wind out of his sails, but not for long.

One thing Redford always knew how to do was read a script.  He knew how talented Goldman was, and how much fun it had been to act out his dialogue.  Butch Cassidy proved they made a good team (on the right project, one should always add).   So it seems like a fair assumption Redford got a copy of Goldman’s script for this film while it was making the rounds during the development stage of the project–he signaled his interest, and that was that.  He wanted to try something different; they needed him to get the financing.

Now according to this blog, they wanted George C. Scott to be Dortmunder (as he eventually would be, in a much worse movie), and Redford would have been Kelp.   But the deal with Scott didn’t pan out, so Redford took the top spot, and George Segal got to be Kelp (and if there’s one perfect casting pick in the film, that’s it).  And that probably goes a good way towards explaining why the film feels so off-balance.  Sometimes unexpected cast changes work in your favor–sometimes not.

It’s possible Redford read Westlake’s book before he was signed, but I wouldn’t bet on it.  I feel quite confident in saying Peter Yates hadn’t read it beforehand.  Goldman, by contrast, had been a fan of Westlake’s for years, and said so (and as you can see above, they had a mutual admiration society going on there).

Westlake would later state his conviction that if they’d simply filmed Goldman’s script the way it was originally written, they’d have had a much better picture.   In particular, he thought it was a shame the big final scene at the airport was skipped, because Yates didn’t want to do another airport chase so soon after Bullitt (this probably also explains why we see so little of Murch’s crazy driving in the film).

Yates didn’t seem to be that enthused about the project, and though he would in his career direct a number of excellent slice of life comedies like Breaking Away, this wasn’t really his kind of comedy–he didn’t know how to make it work.  Since he could do both crime and comedy well, it might seem natural to assume he could do both at the same time, but such was not the case.

Yates, like Redford, hadn’t been a major player for very long.   Bullitt was his first hit, and it had been followed by two star-driven critically panned duds (John and Mary and Murphy’s War).  When he had a good script that he could understand, he usually delivered a solid piece of entertainment, but his two real high points, creatively speaking, are Bullitt and Breaking Away–which couldn’t be much more different, indicating that Yates wasn’t the secret ingredient in either.  He just made them both look really great, and to be fair, he made The Hot Rock look sensational as well.

Looking over his filmography, it’s hard to find any consistent themes–he was a capable director, not an ‘auteur’.  All surface, no substance.  He excelled at big visuals, lyrical wide-angle shots, and there’s always a certain romanticism to his work.  You can’t really place him among the cinema gods, but I must say, I’ve always enjoyed Krull.

I can’t evaluate the screenplay Goldman originally turned in, because I don’t have it (somebody must, but there’s not enough interest to justify publishing it).  I’ve just seen the film again, and I have no doubt there were major changes made to the script in the course of filming.  Even though this is filmed in New York City (and even in an era renowned for fantastic on-location shooting in New York, there’s some exceptional stuff here), they still had to change things around a lot.   And some changes they didn’t have to make, but made anyway.   They always do that.

The first thing we learn from this movie is that Robert Redford is actually a rather short man.


This has been a matter of some controversy–he’s stated in interviews that he’s six feet tall.  He’s generally listed as being 5’10.  He’s probably closer to 5’8–but in most of his films, a combination of special shoes, camera tricks, shorter co-stars, physique, and sheer unbridled charisma, has made him look like a big guy.

In this film, he looked his actual height, which may well have been intentional–they knew this wasn’t the typical Redford character, and they wanted to make him less studly (he doesn’t even have a girlfriend, which may have been ill-considered, commercially speaking), so they didn’t go to such pains to conceal his stature.  He presumably assented to this, like the pro he is.

Personally, I always see Dortmunder as being somewhere in the six foot range, but I think it was the right call in this case to let him be short–creatively speaking.  Though I’m guessing a lot of Redford’s fans didn’t want to see him this way (why do you think he lies about his height?), and that was just one of many things that hurt the box office.

If you’ve never read the book or seen the movie, and you want to enjoy both, I’d advise seeing the movie first.  No, seriously.  That way you end with the more enjoyable story, and you won’t spend the whole movie saying “Why did they do that?”, over and over again.  Like for example, why does the warden in this movie tell Dortmunder he knows he’ll see him again–and why does Dortmunder agree, basically admitting (while he’s still in prison!) that he’s unreformable?  Because they don’t want to show Robert Redford being sneaky?  He’s playing a career criminal.

Why is Kelp married to Dortmunder’s hot sister (one of only two female characters of any note in the film), who has made Dortmunder an uncle, and who is barely even in the movie?   Because they don’t see any other way to justify Dortmunder agreeing to work with him?  Fact is, he actually brings up the problem that if they’re both caught, his sister won’t have anybody to support her and the baby.  So that doesn’t work.

They compound this error by making the devious attorney Eugene Prosker, (Abe Greenberg in the film, played by the great Zero Mostel) the father of Alan Greenwood/Grofield (Greenberg in the film, played by the not-so-great Paul Sand).   Now I think this is to explain why Greenberg agrees to tell his lawyer where the stone is, but is that really so hard to explain?  The hard thing to explain is how either version of the lawyer got into the cell the jewel was stashed in when his client wasn’t there.  And the film doesn’t explain that either.  You notice it a lot more in the film, somehow.

And later, they try to leverage the father/son thing (which takes up way too much time in the film) to explain why the lawyer agrees to tell where the stone is.   The elder Greenberg seems to love his son, but not as much as money, and so he only caves when he thinks they’ve killed his son, and believes they’re going to kill him too (this is the scene where the audience is told that Dortmunder can’t actually kill anybody–like he’s a criminal Batman).  But he’s carrying the safe-deposit key on his person.  They couldn’t just search him?  Anyway, why would he think they’d let him live, when he believes he’s just witnessed his son’s murder?   Westlake must have been shaking his head wearily at the premiere.

If all this pointless family stuff was Goldman’s idea, shame on him.  It’s bad cliched writing, something he was not often guilty of at this stage of his career.  But a screenwriter is rarely the only person responsible for the story you see in a film.   He writes what the higher-ups tell him to write, as best as he can.   I have little doubt Goldman would have loved to adapt The Hot Rock the way he later adapted his own novels–sensitively yet efficiently, keeping in all the best scenes, cutting out what doesn’t fit, making it all flow together effortlessly.  The fact that it doesn’t flow at all in this movie–that it feels so choppy and forced, something one can rarely ever say of a Goldman scripted film–tells me that he got a lot of notes, had to make a lot of changes, and that it wasn’t just the end of his script that got the chop.   And I’m going to prove that theory before this review is done.

Because there are so many pointless scenes in the film, a lot of very important scenes are left out altogether, or get very short shrift.  Dortmunder at no time attempts to give up on getting the gem–which is a diamond here, not an emerald, and I guess they figured diamonds are more commonly found in Africa–except that the technology to cut and polish diamonds didn’t exist until modern times, and this is supposed to be an ancient sacred object that these African nations have been fighting over for centuries (if I tried to list all the errors in the film, the review would run to 10,000 words).  You just know they were hoping for something like The Pink Panther here, but if that’s what they wanted, they should have hired Blake Edwards.

Professionalism is a big part of any Westlake heist book, and it’s commendable that they want to go to such pains to depict Redford’s Dortmunder as a dedicated pro, but he’s so damn cool, even when he’s failing, the whole point of the story–his sense that the universe is conspiring to make him look foolish–is lost.  He never looks foolish, even when a half-naked bum steals his watch at knife-point outside a police station.   I’d blame Redford’s sang-froid, except he did disheveled frustration so well in Butch Cassidy.   But somehow, on that movie, everybody knew what they were supposed to be doing (and I think they mainly just filmed Goldman’s script the way he wrote it, because it would have been a crime not to).

Redford doesn’t have a firm grip on the character he’s playing here, and that’s because the people making the film don’t either.  Without any real sense of who Dortmunder is, he’s got nothing to project but poise and coolness, which undermines the whole concept of Dortmunder, who wouldn’t know from cool if you parachuted him into the Antarctic. It’s one of the weakest performances Redford ever gave in any film.


Segal, by contrast, is so well-cast in his role that all the stupid lines they give Kelp don’t hurt him nearly as much.  Still, he’s also a far cry from the character in the book.  He’s playing the nervous nebbish to Dortmunder’s Mr. Cool, and there’s a lot of useless back-and-forth sniping between them when they’re supposed to be working (Kelp’s the lockman in this film, since they cut Chefwick and his toy trains out entirely, more’s the pity).  His whole role in the book is to keep cajoling Dortmunder back to work, and they try to work with that in the film, but it just doesn’t wash, because Redford’s Dortmunder would never give up on a job once he started it.

Why is this guy a thief?  With the Dortmunder in the book, it’s never necessary to ask.  We know he grew up in an orphanage, he got drafted to fight in Korea, he had basically no education, and he does not look like Robert Redford.  But the Dortmunder in the film is a thief because the script says he is–we’re just supposed to accept it.  We’re told he’s a genius planner who has been arrested and convicted over and over (not just twice, like Westlake’s Dortmunder–there’s also no indication that if Redford’s Dortmunder takes one more fall, he’s going away for keeps).

They do convey something of the odd fugue state Dortmunder will go into when he’s trying to plan a job, sketching on bits of paper, matchbook covers, trying to get an idea.  But Redford’s Dortmunder just doesn’t seem to belong in the professional world he inhabits.  George C. Scott (around 44 at the time the film was made) would have done a much better job, and it would be easier to buy him as a seasoned veteran who has been to prison quite a few times.

Ron Leibman’s Murch is pretty good–Leibman had fun with him, you can tell.   A character actor rarely has trouble playing characters.  They bring in Murch’s mom briefly (played by Charlotte Rae, who is also damn good), and do the bit with the Daytona Speedway record, but it’s an isolated moment in the film, that doesn’t tie in to anything–we don’t even get to see Dortmunder and Kelp look quizzical when they hear the engine sounds.


I’m guessing it was better handled in the original screenplay, but Goldman probably had to fight to keep this much Murch in, when the producers clearly preferred Paul Sand’s Greenberg–there is way too much Paul Sand in this picture, and none of his scenes work at all–apparently he’s been to a lot of fancy schools where he learned about home-made bombs, and I don’t care.  Murch gets two quick chances to display his New York traffic expertise, but they’re just throwaway bits–Yates isn’t interested, so he doesn’t focus in enough, and the running gag just doesn’t get across.  None of them do, really–and this story is all about running gags.  These characters are a collection of running gags.

They don’t even explain why Murch wants salt for his beer when they’re talking at the bar.  So why bring it up in the first place?   How much would it have added to the budget to show a guy sprinkling some salt on his beer to restore the head?  One close-up of a beer glass.  They couldn’t be bothered.  And it’s the little details that make this kind of comedy work.  Not the epic panoramas.

But that’s what they thought would sell the movie–they obviously blew a big chunk of the budget on the helicopter raid on the police station, which really is well done, and must have been technically challenging, to say the least. It’s a bit haunting to see the nearly completed World Trade Center in the background, which sort of ruins the comic effect for us now, but it’s still an inspiring tableau. Goldman came up with a few original bits of business, like them landing on the wrong roof and asking some geezers for directions–and the police chief, believing (as in the book) that the raid is actually a revolution, and saying (in a satiric echo of Lyndon Johnson) that he won’t be the first American police chief to lose a station.

But having done that, they’ve shot their wad. There will be no locomotive raid on a mental hospital (I wish Westlake had shared Goldman’s explanation of why that wouldn’t work–my suspicion is that the main reason was money and time). There will be no face-off at the airport, nor will Dortmunder commandeer a small plane to make his getaway with the titular gem. Nor will we see his Machiavellian revenge against Major Iko (Dr. Amusa in the film, for reasons I could not possibly guess).   You can’t convince me audiences of that era–or any era–wouldn’t have liked that better than what they got.

But we do get Miasmo the Great–only just Miasmo here, and played by Canadian actress Lynne Gordon (she had a talk show in Canada), who is effective, but not the least bit funny–the hypnotism scene in the elevator–the most absurd thing in the whole story–is played absolutely straight–like we’re supposed to take it seriously. Now it’s easy to poke holes in retrospect, but I’d have gone with Richard Libertini, who looked so much like the tall impressive black-bearded hypnotist Westlake described, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that wasn’t a coincidence. Gordon just comes across as–well–disturbing.

(Here’s Libertini in a scene from The In-Laws, in 1979–more of a Westlake comedy than any of the comedies anybody ever made from an actual Westlake novel, and still one of the funniest films ever made–at least somebody was paying attention).


So anyway, Dortmunder goes and gets the jewel, like he does in the book, and the movie is over. He’s assuming, like the book Dortmunder, that something will go wrong, but it all goes smoothly, and he gets out of there just before the now-collaborating Abe Greenberg and Dr. Amusa show up to claim it (why did they wait so long?).

And Quincy Jones, who did a fine job with the score, has first-rate jazz musicians playing it (who Jones went out of his way to get screen credit for) launch into a Dixieland riff, and Dortmunder does a sort of victory strut through the Manhattan streets, to the waiting getaway car with a giant key on the roof. He gets in, everybody cheers, they drive away. The End.


The End? Just like that? Some people watch this film now and say “how charmingly counter-intuitive.” I like the scene for what it is, appreciate Yates’ undoubted talent for the lyrical, and I still say it stinks as an ending, and that’s what most people said back then. We already know Westlake thought so–he wanted that airport scene Goldman wrote. Of course, the point of the victory strut is that they worked so hard, did all these big elaborate heists, and then it just falls into their hands. We’ve already been told they can deal directly with the insurance company (we’ve also been told Amusa’s people might come after them if they do that, but how many nitpicks can I do in one review?).

Thing is, they didn’t work that hard. They stole the gem from the Museum only to lose it (it was The Brooklyn Museum, since obviously they couldn’t manage the New York Coliseum, which was a busy place back then). They sprung Greenberg from prison–that’s another good scene, particularly the stuff with Murch driving the getaway car into the truck. They raided the police station. And then they did the thing with Miasmo (Miasma?), still believing they were on Amusa’s payroll, but they didn’t tell him about it (so where’d they get the money to pay her?).

That’s only three bad jobs to one good one. Dr. Amusa calls it ‘The Habitual Crime’ (a phrase Goldman probably got from Westlake during their chats), but they wasted so much time (and money) on lackluster scenes that aren’t in the book, there isn’t enough build-up to make the pay-off work.  It’s not quite habitual enough to make that line ring true.  The rhythm is off.

Watching it on your TV now, with limited expectations, you can see the charm of it, insubstantial though it be–but imagine shelling out money for tickets, and getting this fizzle of an ending, that doesn’t really resolve anything–if it wasn’t for the credit crawl, you’d think the projectionist lost a reel. This is how it ends? I’d have wanted my money back.

I think they went over budget, and started trimming desperately to get the film finished.  The producers gave up on it.  Can I prove this?  Surprisingly, yes.   Here’s Dortmunder near the end of the movie, doing a variation on the Jinx Speech from the novel–

Not me. I’ve got no choice. I’m not superstitious. And I don’t believe in jinxes, but that stone’s jinxed me and it won’t let go. I’ve been damned near bitten, shot at, peed on and robbed. And worse is gonna happen before it’s done. So I’m takin’ my stand. I’m going all the way. Either I get it, or it gets me.

When was this Dortmunder ‘damned near bitten’?  We know where that’s coming from.  The German Shepherd who menaced the book Dortmunder while he was trying to sell phony encyclopedias, and then Kelp and Greenwood come and talk him into another shot at the jewel.   One of the funniest scenes in the book–Goldman, being no dummy, obviously put it in his script.  Was it filmed?  One would think so, since the line is in there, but either way, it’s not in the finished film.   And there aren’t any dogs at all in the film, that I remember.

We saw him get mugged (which isn’t in the book), and his sister’s kid pees on him (which has nothing to do with the job and it seems a bit petty for him to bring it up), but there’s no near-biting episode–and what we learn from this–one of Redford’s better bits of dialogue–is that they were getting sloppy.  They needed to either show him being nearly bitten before this scene, or they needed to reshoot the scene, but it was the helicopter scene–they couldn’t possibly manage a do-over.  They didn’t have the money.  The film was probably already over-budget.  It’s the only explanation that fits.  But for the filmgoer in 1972, it’s like “I remember the mugging.  They shot at him during the prison break.  The baby peed on him.  When did he get almost bitten?  Did I miss something?”

Maybe that scene with the dog (if that’s what it was) wasn’t actually shot–movie scenes aren’t usually done in the order in which they occur in the narrative–maybe they did the helicopter scene early on, and it cost so much more than anticipated that they just threw out whole chunks of the script to compensate.  That would explain the way the film doesn’t flow–so atypical of both Goldman and Yates.  It feels very tacked together.  Because (rather fittingly, for a Dortmunder adaptation) things did not work out as planned on paper.  They did not shoot Goldman’s original script.  If they had, we might remember this movie quite differently.

There are many enjoyable moments in this film.  Westlake saw that, and so do we, watching it today.   It’s not a horrible film.   It’s just not a very good one. We know the screenwriter was genuinely great.   We know the director was capable of very good work.  So who’s left holding the bag with the paste diamond in it?

When all else fails, blame the producers.  Hal Landers and Bobby Roberts–who also produced the abysmal Bank Shot a few years later, with George C. Scott as Dortmunder this time, but they didn’t have the greatest living screenwriter, or Peter Yates–the movie was directed by former dance star and Broadway musical director, Gower Champion.  Who had never made a theatrical film in his life.  And never did again afterwards.

Landers and Roberts made some successful films over the years (their big hit was Death Wish, adapted from a novel by Westlake’s old buddy Brian Garfield–though maybe more of the credit there goes to Menahem Golam and Yoram Globus), but best as I can tell, they never made a really good picture in their lives.  They were, you might say,  small time operators who occasionally tried their hands at a big job.  And when they did, it never worked out well.

This is, I’m sorry to say, the story of Westlake at the movies.  It’s remained the story even after his death (see Parker).   Some very talented people have tried to adapt his books here and there, but the people behind those people–the people who hold a project together–have not usually had the right stuff.  Westlake badly needed the money from selling the movie rights to his books.  He had two families to support.  So he couldn’t sit around waiting for the right production team to come along.   He just sold the book rights to whoever made a non-insulting offer, and hoped for the best.  And never got it.

But so what?  He got the money.  So he could go on writing more great books, and not have to take a teaching job, or some other such indignity.  He got to hang out with people like William Goldman and talk about writing, got to see the movie business up close, learn things about it, things that would serve him well in the future, in a number of ways.  And did he really want somebody to make some brilliant hit movie out of one of his books?   I have my doubts.   Mr. Westlake knew the score too well.

The Hot Rock basically vanished without a ripple into the endless Sargasso Sea of Forgotten Films.  1972, as we all know, was the year of The Godfather.  For a long time after that, I couldn’t go to a garage sale without seeing four or five paperback copies of Mario Puzo’s novel lying around in milk crates.  The book had been a best-seller before the movie, but after it, everybody bought one.  Puzo must have made a fortune.  He even got to write the Superman screenplay.  But what happened to his career as a novelist?   Not much.   Who reads the novel version of The Godfather today?   Not  many.  The movie replaced the book.  Devoured it.  Subsumed it.   Puzo could never manage a convincing second act.

Movies based on books can do that, and they don’t have to be better than the book, or even half as good, to make that happen.  They just have to work well enough, and hit big at a strategic moment, and then people will always think of the movie first, the book last.  The list is endless.  It’s even happened to Lord of the Rings a bit (thankfully, long after Tolkien’s death).

But it never happened to anything written by Westlake–even Point Blank, a genuinely great (albeit flawed) cinematic expression, was too much of a flop when it came out–and too different from the book–to ever overshadow The Hunter, which is one of those books that gets bigger over time, not smaller.   As Westlake is one of those writers who get bigger over time, not smaller. And I think, given a choice, he’d have rather had what he got out of Hollywood–enough money to go on–and the learning experience.

If this or some other movie had been a smash hit, and spawned a franchise (the era of the franchise just now dawning with The Godfather), Westlake could have potentially become quite wealthy.  And without the need to keep hammering out more books on his legendary Smith Coronas, without the pressure of yet another deadline, yet another pecuniary shortfall created by kids braces, family vacations, alimony, child support, college tuition–would I be looking at maybe another two years of non-stop blogging to review all his remaining work?  A question that does not admit of an answer, and that’s probably just as well.

The question I have to try and answer next week is why are there not one, not two, but three epistolary novels, written by Westlake and two of his friends, all dealing in one way or another with the pornographic novel industry?  Well, not exactly pornographic.   Well, actually one of them is, but I’ll tell you about that next time.  Until then, adios, motherfuckers.


Filed under Donald Westlake film adaptations, John Dortmunder novels

89 responses to “Dortmunder at the Movies, Part 1 (in a one-part series): The Hot Rock

  1. J. Goodman

    His sister’s baby pees on him after he gets out of jail, but before he goes to the museum for the first time. Guess that’s what he refers to.

    • Oh yeahhhh–but that wasn’t part of the job. He was getting peed on for being an uncle, not a heister. Regardless, the kid didn’t try to bite him–didn’t even have any teeth yet, probably. My point stands!

      Anyway, I edited.

      • J. Goodman

        What can I say….pee is pee! Anymore would have been too much for one caper film! Great article, by the way, and I particularly took the last sentence to heart. Looking forward to the next installment!

        • That one’s going to be a project. Bad enough to review one book, but three? And I’m going to do it a bit differently. We’ll see how it turns out.

          Yeah, pee is pee, but the speech Westlake wrote for his Dortmunder is better. Goldman was hampered by all these conflicting demands from the suits. I can’t believe it was his idea to give Dortmunder a sister (played by an actress named Topo Swope–seriously!–who mainly worked on television) with a newborn baby. Somebody said “We have to humanize him.” So much nonsense larding up the script. And I think somebody thought Paul Sand was going to be big, and demanded a lot of extra scenes for him. Goddam bush leaguers.

          For some reason, they always have to find some way to make Westlake’s criminals ‘relatable’, even though if they weren’t already relatable, the books wouldn’t have sold enough for anyone to buy the rights to make movies of them.

        • Several people must have seen something in Paul Sand that I can’t. In 1974 he got a sitcom on CBS that played between All in the Family and Mary Tyler Moore — the top spot in all of primetime. It lasted 15 episodes. The only thing I remember about it is Steve Landesberg as his best friend, perfecting the deadpan he used so masterfully on Barney Miller.

  2. They were rerunning Barney Miller on one of those channels that show nothing but old TV shows, and for a while there, we were watching it nonstop–it had been my favorite show for quite a long time when it was on. Landesberg was great, but so was everybody else on that show–you could see Landesberg competing with Ron Glass for the coveted prize of squadroom wise guy. My only complaint about that show is that all the Irish cops were assholes. But it’s a minor complaint. 😉

    • J. Goodman

      The odd thing is, thinking back on my experience of being dropped off at the cinema by my Mom who was shopping at the mall where the theater was located, Paul Sand was the one cast member I recognized because he had been on tv shows I watched. I knew Zero Mostel from the Fiddler On The Roof album my parents and grandparents had, really only by voice, but the rest of the cast was unknown to me. I’ll say it again, The Hot Rock film was my gateway to Westlake. I’m not sure that I would have checked out his books without it. It’s easy to look back at the film now and see it’s problems, but when I saw it it seemed very entertaining and was a film I always recalled fondly as it may have been the first ‘adult’ type film I ever saw on my own. Previously I went with my folks to see films like Bullitt, French Connection, Bond films, etc. but until Hot Rock it had always been in their company. I guess more than anything the film has a sort of sentimental value to me. Having said that, the performer who made the biggest impression on me was George Segal, and I probably saw every film he was in from the 1970’s because of THR! it dawns on me that the film he made with Jane Fonda, Fun With Dick And Jane, in retrospect, seems very Westlakian! I need to revisit that one real soon!

      • George Segal is one of the quintessential Westlake-ian actors, even though this is the only Westlake adaptation he was ever in. Any number of Westlake protagonists (as opposed to Stark or Coe, though he’d have been good in supporting roles in their stuff as well) that he could have played to perfection.

        Earliest ‘adult’ movie I can remember seeing is either True Grit, or Tom Jones. Both at a local drive-in. But both with my family. So that doesn’t count. Hmmm. Thing is, a lot of the movies I went to see by myself first were not really movies I’d call that adult. Like maybe Return of the Pink Panther? The rest of my family was watching Jaws. I came in for the big finish where the shark blows up. It was a twin cinema.

        I’m going to arbitrarily say my first real adult movie experience was Volker Schlondorff’s The Tin Drum, which was an R-rated film (banned in some parts of the U.S. for ‘underage sexuality’). I was in the city for the day, and I’d read the book (which is full of sex, but not very specific, because Gunter Grass annoyingly assumed the reader knew everything already).

        I say it was my first adult film because it was the film that informed me of the existence of the missionary position. No, I’m not kidding. I understood the basic mechanics of coitus, but that was as far as it went. My dad gave me like the worst sex talk on record. My girlfriend at least got a pamphlet when her time came–her mother was raised in Cuba, and wasn’t going to talk to her about it at all–just handed her an instructional booklet (probably not that instructional), which strikes me as the more sensible policy.

        I was thinking, during this rather conventional bout of intercourse (between the drum-playing protagonist’s parents) “Wait, this isn’t how dogs do it! How kinky!”

        Oh how I’d like to go back in time and give myself a good talking to, sometimes. :\

        • J. Goodman

          I probably should have left the ‘adult’ out of my response and just gone with ‘solo’ excursion. I had seen many family type films up to that point but I don’t recall going to films without my parents before Hot Rock. That is I never went solo to a Disney or like type film. Guess I should have stated The Hot Rock was my first ‘big boy’ experience. My first film, at least that I recall, dealing with ‘coitus’ as you put it, was probably A Clockwork Orange which I saw on a double feature with Deliverance. I think it showed first because I probably would have been scarred a lot more had it been the other way around. This was back when one’s Mom could walk up to the ticket seller, buy a ticket and give permission for an underage kid to see R rated fare and nobody said ‘boo’. The theater near our house showed many great double features and I recall seeing Play Misty For Me, The Groove Tube, Enter The Dragon, Flesh Gordon and many other films with just an okay from my Mom as long as she bought the ticket and didn’t have to go into the theater. I think the hassle involved her having to get out of the car. I really miss the days of cheap second run theaters, at least where I live they don’t exist anymore!

    • Odd but fitting I suppose that you’re a Barney Miller fan, as I’ve recently been contemplating launching a blog (inspired by this one) that would review every episode of that show, a blog that would no doubt attract literally tens of readers!

      • J. Goodman

        I watched every episode from the unaired pilot to the closing of the precinct last year, and I think it may be my favorite tv show of all time, or at least the most satisfying one. It never went down in quality. My major problem with the show is that Jack Soo died too soon! While Dietrich kind of made up for Yemana in dry wit, I wasn’t that crazy about Little Levitt and his issue that seemed to go on and on. A little of Levitt went a long way…but to balance him at least we had the Ol’ Inspector to the very end! Binge watching Barney also has the benefit of allowing one to experience not only returning characters but also returning actors in different characters. A fantastic show that holds up amazingly well.

        • Barney Miller is a unique show in so many ways. I can’t think of another sitcom (except perhaps The Honeymooners) that confines nearly all of its action to a single set, relying on the storytelling abilities of its characters to convey action that occurs off-screen. And yes, its use and re-use of guest actors is legendary, some performers returning five or six times, playing different characters each time. (Two of David Clennon’s five appearances are only three episodes apart.) They were like a repertory company performing a different one-act play every week.

      • One of whom would be me.

        Honestly, you never know, Greg. A year into the project, I seem to have readers all over the planet now–87 flags and counting on WordPress (a flag does not necessarily mean an independent nation-state)–but at most I have a few hundred people who show up semi-regularly, and only a handful who post.

        Barney Miller has a lot of fans–mainly of a certain generation, to be sure. It’s one of those things a lot of people love that didn’t stay in syndication all the time, didn’t generate much of an organized cult fanbase. It was just a really good show that ran a long time, that many of us remember with great fondness and respect.

        It’s also one of the very few cop shows that actual policemen of that era liked. Because it treated them as people. It encouraged the notion that police officers were mere mortals, trying to do a hard job, and often failing. It’s not a realistic show–reality is overrated anyway–but it suggests that the best policeman is the one who remembers he or she is not a superhero, but just an ordinary schmo, whose job is to keep order and (when possible) give people a helping hand.

        I, for one, would love to know more about it. And if you get it going before I review Levine, we could try some kind of link-up. 😉

      • I’d be one of them. Just give a bit of notice for the DVDs to arrive from Amazon.

        And +1 about the recurring guests James Cromwell, Richard Libertini, Bruce Kirby, J. Pat O’Malley, … It was like a post-graduate course in TV comedy.

  3. Anthony

    The movie of The Hot Rock is what introduced me to Westlake. Indirectly. It was actually the Mad Magazine send-up called “The Cute Rook,” with Mort Drucker’s amazing art. I was a teen living in Canada at the time and wasn’t even aware of the movie, but the satire led me to check out the book from the library, and from thereon everything else he wrote. Always wondered what made Mad decide this was a movie worthy of mockery…

    • See, this is the kind of thing that makes me prouder of my blog’s comments section than I am of the actual articles. I had no idea there’d been a Mad parody. Now the fact that Mad sends up a movie or show doesn’t mean they don’t like it, of course–they are equal opportunity destroyers. But usually they reserve their snark for something people have actually seen. So maybe Drucker (or whoever gave the order for this film to get the full treatment–perhaps even Mr. Gaines himself?–was a fan of the original novel. Or maybe they just figured Redford was due for a comeuppance. Uppity goy. 😉

      I’ll have to hit ebay, and get that issue–I can already see that they didn’t promote the Hot Rock parody on the cover. They figured that wouldn’t make anybody buy the magazine. They figured right.

      I really don’t hate the film, but it’s such a wasted opportunity. Goldman’s original script was no doubt still very different from the book. I’d have had kvetches no matter what. But to read Westlake’s description of the final scene they cut–where Redford’s Dortmunder gets into a foot race at the airport with a champion runner from Dr. Amusa’s country, who he thinks has the jewel–only he doesn’t–and then while they’re catching their breath, they start talking about where they get running shoes–that sounds like a lot more fun than what we got.

      Westlake didn’t mind screenwriters changing his work. He was interested in what they did, and why. But he liked to see things done professionally. This was a botched heist.

  4. Anthony

    Issue 154 (just looked it up – don’t have it). The Cowboys (John Wayne Movie) is I think the cover art.

  5. Ray Garraty

    I quit watching it after 10 minutes, and nothing (even this great review) will ever make me to watch it from start to end.
    I wonder though, if Murch (if I remember the name correctly) listened in the film to his ambient LPs?

    • He did–that’s the only scene his mom is in, too. That’s one indication that there was a lot of stuff from the book in the original script. Because honestly, it doesn’t tie into the main plot at all.

      In the novel, of course, it’s one of those scenes where Dortmunder is forced to confront the fact that he’s working with crazy people. But here, even though he’s talking to Kelp on the phone while the record is playing, we don’t get any reaction shot from George Segal. Maybe one was filmed, but they had to cut so much to make room for a slew of stupid scenes that aren’t in the book, that I will go on believing were forced on Goldman by the suits, until I see him saying otherwise.

  6. Anthony

    Forgot to mention before – YES. I AGREE – The (original) In-Laws IS one of the funniest movies ever made.

    (Never saw the remake, refuse to)

    • Oh HELL no. That I will never see. Anymore than I’d watch Adam Sandler’s version of The Longest Yard, or that remake of The Flight of the Phoenix with Dennis Quaid filling in for Jimmy Stewart. I heartily agree with whoever said “They should only remake bad movies.” I just can’t remember who that is right this minute. It’ll come back to me.


      John Huston! Well, probably others have said it, but in his case he was expressing his regret that he couldn’t try another adaptation of Romain Gary’s The Roots of Heaven, having botched it the first time, with the best of intentions. I’ve read that book, and seen the movie, and he was absolutely right. Sometimes a film just doesn’t come together. But I’m not sure anybody could do that book justice.

      • John Huston’s directorial debut, of course, was a remake of a remake — or, if you prefer, a vastly superior literary adaptation, easily besting two previous attempts. It took Hollywood three tries to get The Maltese Falcon right, but JH only one.

        • You would, of course, never get Humphrey Bogart from Hammett’s description of Spade, but this is one time I’ll go with Hollywood’s take. Bogart somehow seems more legitimately Hammett than the handsome blonde guy in the novel. Too bad he never got to play the Op. Now there’s a character who’s never been done right. And how hard is it to find a short chunky balding guy who can act?

        • Replying to FredFitch’s comment below, which won’t let me reply to it proper for some reason. The Op may never have gotten a proper movie adaptation, but Red Harvest has been co-opted (heh) so many times he may as well have. Bruce Willis played a version of him in Last Man Standing, a middling gangster/western hybrid remake of Yojimbo (Toshiro Mifune pulling Op duty), which had been remade once before as Fistful of Dollars (Clint Eastwood, obviously). Not a short, overweight balding fellow in the bunch (though Willis’s haircut in LMS is just plain weird), but the Hammettian premise of the savvy loner playing both sides of a gang war is solidly durable. See Miller’s Crossing, Lucky Number Slevin (hey, Bruce Willis again) and, of course, Butcher’s Moon, which we’ll get to soon enough right here. Bruce Willis stood in for yet another Hammett hero when he played David Addison, one half of a bickering/bantering crime-solving couple. Shades of The Thin Man. Hammett casts a long, long shadow, and his influence is still felt. (Man, I really don’t want to talk about The Hot Rock movie.)

          • Our conversations are getting more involved, so I’ve adjusted the settings to allow for more ‘nested’ comments. But there are certain basic limitations to this format.

            I saw Yojimbo before I came across Red Harvest (it was required reading in a college class I took, believe it or not). It’s one of my favorite films. I’m a bit less enamored of Leone’s version–Once Upon a Time in the West is the equal of anything Kurosawa ever made. However, even though these characters are inspired by the Op, none of them are playing him. The problem is, he’s not glamorous enough. He’s nobody’s dreamboat. He’s tough, but he’s not super-tough. He’s too realistic for the movies.

            Bruce Willis, I guess you could say, is short, balding, and chunky when he’s not working out a lot. I’d have accepted him in a straight adaptation. But let’s face it, they’re not adapting Hammett there either–they’re adapting Kurosawa adapting Hammett (and Kurosawa never even admitted that he’d been inspired by Red Harvest in making that film, though he never denied his deep admiration for Hammett).

            There’s an earlier uncredited adaptation of Red Harvest–an episode of Have Gun, Will Travel, called Birds of a Feather. Paladin, played by Richard Boone, comes to a corrupt western town, and turns two feuding factions against each other. That aired in 1958–I’m guessing there were earlier homages–maybe on radio. In the Post WWII era, westerns were hugely influenced by contemporary crime fiction–the approach to the material got harder, more cynical. That’s one reason authors like Leonard and Garfield could jump back and forth between those genres.

            Red Harvest is one of the most influential stories ever told, but somehow it’s always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

            • There’s a pretty awful TV-movie version of The Dain Curse with James Coburn (not short, bald, or chunky) as the Op. You can find it on DVD if you look a bit. My favorite thing in it is Malachi McCourt (described in Angela’s Ashes as Frank’s favorite brother) as one of his fellow Ops, playing him as a complete stage Irishman.

              • Ah, the McCourt brothers. I remember them well. A fine couple of blaguards they were (that was the name of their two-man show they did here and there). Malachy’s still around, amazingly. Haven’t seen him in a long time. He literally is a stage Irishman, so there’s no problem there. 😉

                I know about all the adaptations, but have not seen most of them. It just seems like they always miss the point.

  7. Speaking of DW’s buddy Brian Garfield (I obviously don’t have much to say about The Hot Rock, which I’ve seen but that’s about all I can say), have you ever seen “Hopscotch,” the Walter Matthau espionage comedy Garfield co-wrote (based on his own novel)? Features a character named Parker Westlake.

    • There are also characters named Follett and Ludlum, but I’m straying pretty far afield here, so I’ll just leave it at that.

      • J. Goodman

        Maybe when he gets to Gangway, our esteemed host will address your comments in detail. I really like Hopscotch the film, but there’s very little in the way of Matthau I wouldn’t sit through! Charley Varrick is another of his films that has a Westlakian feel to it in tone and in caper!

        • Hard to imagine anyone like Matthau becoming a movie star today. I guess the closest equivalent is Seth Rogen, and it’s not very close at all. Matthau was sly sophistication–W.C. Fields with sex appeal. We shall not see his like again.

          I will try to read some Garfield in advance of the Gangway review–I really need to, in order to figure out who did what. I’m learning as I go–kind of have to. So very often you guys will be ahead of me. But I’ll always catch up. 😉

        • The Fortune Cookie could be Westlake too. The Jack Lemmon character is a definite nephew.

      • It’s a wide-ranging conversation. Never a problem here. 🙂

    • It’s been a very long time–last time I checked, Netflix didn’t have it. I saw it when it came out, and that was a great while before I had any knowledge whatsoever of Westlake. Pity Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson only made two movies together–they were an amazing screen couple.

      Btw, are you noticing something? Garfield’s movies are turning out better than Westlake’s–Hopscotch a delightful little gem, Death Wish a box office phenom that spawned a franchise, and an enduring pop cultural meme. And the result is, we remember the movies better than the books, if we’ve read the books at all. Subsumed.

  8. JJ Gauthier

    I was thinking reading the book for the first time recently – and it really is a delight, one of the most ingeniously plotted capers ever – that Steve Buscemi would make a good Dortmunder. He’s got the right mix of a hangdog loser air about him while still able to come off as competent and genuinely tough. (even terrifying, when asked to be) Maybe a tad on the old side, but I think the Dortmunder of the book reads as older, or at least more world-weary, than 37.

    And as long as I’m fantasy casting, I’d do William H. Macy as Kelp. (I think you mentioned in one of the other Hot Rock posts having Macy as Dortmunder, which would also work, but I think he’d be even better as Kelp)

    I’ve been reading your blog from the beginning (skipping a few of the posts for books I plan to read and would rather not have spoiled), and mostly haven’t commented because I didn’t have much to contribute. But I’ve definitely enjoyed it, and I think your description of Parker as a wolf in human form is brilliant.

    • Appreciated, JJ–and hope you’ll chime in whenever the mood strikes you. I agree Buscemi would have been a good choice, and could play Dortmunder even now, though he’s pushing 60. Dortmunder didn’t stay 37–he is more of an ‘ageless character’ than Parker–he couldn’t have been in his 70’s by the last book, even though we’re in the age of the internet and reality TV–but I would say he has aged a fair bit since the first book.

      Here’s the thing–with Parker, it’s always very hard to think of who you’d cast–with Dortmunder, it’s more a matter of who you wouldn’t cast.

      And up near top of the second list would be Robert Redford, but what the hell.

      • Judd Hirsch would have been a great Dortmunder when he was a bit younger. Alex Rieger was awfully close: an incredibly clever and resourceful man, the unquestioned leader of his group, but always melancholy because nothing ever really went his way.

  9. So I just added a quote from Bank Shot to the top of this review, which I posted months ago, because I had completely forgotten that quote at the time I wrote this review, and I could kick myself for it, and I’m just going to act like it was there all the time. I’m allowed to do that. Blogger’s prerogative.

  10. rinaldo302

    Speaking of Joanna Cassidy, I immediately thought of her for the female lead (whose name I’ve forgotten) in Kawaha, should that ever be made into a movie. At the time, I may have been influenced by her then-current TV series, in which she played a no-nonsense helicopter pilot.

  11. And now William Goldman has passed on. Some of his obits mention The Hot Rock, but not many. Truthfully, anybody who wrote The Princess Bride (the novel and the screenplay), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and All the President’s Men would be pretty much guaranteed to have anything else he wrote pushed to at least the second paragraph. But Goldman had enough good-to-great stuff on his resume to push THR down even further.

    • It wasn’t really his screenplay that got filmed, though I’m sure some of it survived the digestive process. Producers screwed around with it, director had his own ideas. I think if they’d just filmed what he wrote, the resulting film would have made the first paragraph in his obit. It wouldn’t have been a carbon copy of the novel, but it would have been true to its spirit, or at least as true as a movie where Robert Redford is John Dortmunder possibly could be.

      I’ve only read one of his novels. His movies, of course, have been around all my life–they’re part of our collective consciousness, in a way few screenwriters could claim. And yet, it’s The Princess Bride (which I read well after I saw the his adaptation) that has stuck with me. Haunted me.

      I would assume there was always a part of him that wondered what his life would have been if he’d devoted himself entirely to prose. And Westlake probably wondered the same, in the opposite direction.

      Life is not fair. It’s just fairer than death. That’s all.

  12. Kirk

    This is one of my favourite films. It was one of the first films I remember watching on tv as a kid (53 now & still a kid) can’t remember the year exactly.
    I live in London, Eng, have all my life.
    Reading your review, using the word geezers (copter scene) made me smile bc, a geezer over here is a cool, shifty guy.
    As soon as I found eBay, I found all sorts of Rock memorabilia. Lobby cards, posters AND a 35mm print on 2 reels 🙂 never been through a projector since ownership.
    I agree with you 100% on how the book (found in a book store in Arizona, I freaked.) Vs the movie is a non comparison.
    Money (and time) always the key, and yeah, ya right about blowing shit loads of budget on the copter shots.
    It really IS a shame that no other Dortmunder movie, apart from The Hot Rock, is re-watchable.
    Re-readable yes.
    But watching it at least 2/3 times a year, I can now see the points you have brought up, but it will still be in my top 5, which has about 30 movies innit, I just can’t narrow it down.
    The others on the list would most likely be 👍 as opposed to a 👎
    Mainly works by Sonnenberg, & Friedkin & the great Robert Altman.

    • I am not without affection for it–for one thing, I pretty much love all movies shot in New York City during this time period, since this is about the time I first began to get to know the city as a kid born there, but raised in New Jersey. But my favorite film in that category would be Godspell. Never got any memorabilia connected to it, unless you count one DVD & the New Testament. 😉

      My favorite movie based on a Westlake novel is Mise a Sac, but at least part of that is based on the thrill I got from seeing what was then an unobtainable film at the Museum of Modern Art, and the incredible sense of smugness that ensued. Then somebody put it on YouTube. Killjoy. :\

  13. Jerry Brown

    I started a complete reading of the Dortmunder books at the start of the virus lockdown, (and they have been a major factor in keeping my spirits up), reading your review after finishing each book; I’m currently halfway through Thieves’ Dozen at the moment and already depressed that it’s all coming to an end too soon.

    I saw The Hot Rock on UK TV when I was young and vividly recall the Greenberg elevator scene (and 40 years later was surprised when it turned out not to be in the original book).

    I just watched the TwilightTime blu ray release of the move and enjoyed it, despite the many shortcomings (Segal and Leibman made up for Redford’s miscasting). You might be interested to know that this very site gets namechecked and praised in the commentary track.

    I doubt I’ll ever feel the desire to take on Parker, but may try some of Westlake’s humorous non-Dortmunder books (I also saw the movie of The Busy Body many years ago so will likely go there first).

    Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful site.

    • Given that I’m pretty tough on that movie, I’m rather astounded they’d even bring me up. But I blamed the producers (I think correctly), and they’re both long dead. May they rest in pieces. (Oh now, I jest.)

      I hardly ever buy DVD’s now (and the ones I buy I procrastinate about watching), but I may have to spring for that one, just to find out what they said about me.

      My main interest would be in finding out if my guesses about the origin of certain incongruences in the film’s story and dialogue were correct. That they ran out of money and said the hell with it.

      And I just remembered I don’t have a BluRay player.

      Could you perhaps paraphrase the bit where they mentioned this blog? My ears have been burning, but they always do that. What did they say about me? Inquiring minds want to know.

  14. Jerry Brown

    It’s probably for the best if you don’t hear the commentary in full, since they periodically assert that the movie is much better than the book. Here is a transcription of the commentary accompanying the break into the prison to spring Greenberg:

    Critic 1: “Well Westlake himself said he felt that the difference between Parker, his character in the Stark novels, and Dortmunder – the difference between a comic – well maybe, it was maybe Westlake didn’t say this; I might be quoting someone who writes about Westlake on a very interesting, er, blog or site called The Westlake Review, so forgive me for not knowing your name Mr Westlake Expert, but I think, er, this person said that the difference between the comic character and the serious character is the serious character knows who he is, whereas the comic character is trying to find out who he is. I think it’s a wonderful description of the difference between Parker and Dortmunder. I think Dortmunder is hapless, you know, he’s always trying to figure out what his place is in the world.”

    Crtic 2: “Although…”

    Critic 1: “Insecure and unstable, whereas Parker is dead ahead”

    Critic 2: “like a shark”

    Critic 1: “like a shark”

    • Wellllll, I must of course quibble, since I am after all Mr. Westlake Expert (the priest gave my parents an odd cross-eyed look at the baptism, but it all worked out in the end).

      There are moments when Parker forgets who he is for a while–as in The Seventh–and there are moments when Dortmunder knows precisely who he is, as in What’s The Worst That Could Happen?

      It isn’t as simple as all that, the differences between the two, because with Westlake, it never is. Parker and Dortmunder are mirror twins (perhaps cross-dimensional siblings–neither seems to know his parents), and each contains aspects of the other, but the polarities are inverted. Perhaps they started from the same origin point, but there is no way they live in the same world, and Jimmy the Kid is all the proof you need of that. Parker could only be a fictional character where Dortmunder holds sway, and vice versa. And yet they are both quite quite real.

      Tragic characters typically also don’t know who they are (and only find out, if they ever do, when it’s too late to matter), but as I’ve said in past, Stark doesn’t do tragedy, because to write tragedy, you have to believe happy endings were possible in the first place, and Stark is quite certain they’re not. Happy interludes, perhaps. Westlake arguably wrote tragedy here and there (Adios, Scheherazade), but never for his series characters. No, not even Levine, because that is a triumphant finale, however saddening.

      Shark? Yes, I suppose. Wolf? Much apter. But for some reason, they all shy away from that. Even though Stark directly refers to Parker as a wolf in The Seventh. Well, I suppose you can’t be bothered to read that carefully, Mr. DVD Commentarian. Probably your parents got some odd looks at your naming ceremony too.

      But the book is a thousand times better than the movie, and accursed be all DVD Commentarians.


  15. Russell Telfer

    Are you there, Freddie?
    I’d like to ask a question which one of you good fellows will know immediately. I’m a devotee in England now on my second round, that is reading again the Dortmunder canon step by step from my own and from borrowed books. This time I started from the beginning (not knowing of the early books at the start) and have recently read The Hot Rock and Bank Shot. I was impressed by the maturity of these early stories. Generally I think they match well with the later ones. I suppose you could spot that in these early two, D.E.W. doesn’t seem to know his characters quite as well as he will later on.
    But here’s my question. Dortmunder’s team carry out a heist in New York and Insp Mologna is all set to arrest them and jail the lot. As bad luck would have it another gang (the Mafia?) intercept the theft, heist the heisters and nicely fall into Mologna’s trap. Which book was it? I can’t find it anywhere?
    I’d love to see an answer to this appear on your blog. Thanks.

    • That sounds like Watch Your Back!–except Mologna isn’t in that one. I believe he only shows up in two books, the first of which was Why Me?(the question of the hour, for all of us), and the second was–um–I have this–wait a moment (searches own blog) What’s So Funny? That’s the one. Also a redolent title for the present time.

      I suspect what’s going on here is the usual memory decay we all suffer with age, and you’ve macaronized several different stories together in your mind. Happens to me all the time.

      I’m of two minds about the ‘Freddie’ thing, by the bye. If I’m going to be Freddie, I expect you to send me Jeeves, forthwith, by parcel post. If he objects, tell him we’ll go for a spot of tarpon fishing. No need to mention that I’m not going anywhere near Florida until this dashed virus shuffles off the coil. Tell him to bring some purple socks and Etonian spats. There’s a good chap.

      • Now of course I know the name of Jeeves’ ostensible master is Bertie, that Freddie Threepwood properly belongs to the Blandings novels (don’t send me Beach, he’d never survive the journey), and yet all the same I made an epic bloomer, which amply demonstrates the macaronic memory thing I referenced in the previous post. Point proven!

      • Anthony

        I might regret not walking upstairs to check the book, but doesn’t Malogna do a walk-on in Good Behavior? As I recall, he was still doing penance for crapping all over his status in Why Me? and had to suffer the indignity of driving into the city on a weekend (!), where he observed Dortmunder et al as nuns sneaking onto a bus. They were pretending to be nuns going off to record a song in a professional studio and something something something about their overall ugliness, and needing to make a video if they wanted success. Possibly Westlake’s only observation about MTV when it was a thing.

        Regrets be damned. I’m pressing Post Comment.

        • Yeah, very brief–I mention that cameo appearance in my review, so my blog search didn’t turn it up.

          Of course, if I’d typed in ‘Malogna’, the search engine would have found no mentions at all. 😐

        • Russell Telfer

          Good man yourself. We’re in agreement on the way that films generally don’t hold up to repeat viewing. Some books can be revisited time and again, and Westlake’s are the prime example. I can and do reread Hiaasen as well.
          I’m not sure who Anthony is, but he’s probably right in guessing that Mologna appears in Watch Your Back. My recollection was that he was in 2 early ones (which I read a decade or more ago) and one later one, WYB, which I read more recently. I feel, as I think you said, Mologna was sadly underused. The pronunciation – Moloney – that had me in hoots.

          I still haven’t fathomed the many sided strings of your site, please forgive me if I show up in the wrong place.

          • It’s a long list of Dortmunder characters who got underused–Herman X, for one. J.C. Taylor grieves me even more. But he had his reasons, I’m sure. Even a writer as prolific as Westlake has to stop and take a breath sometimes. And sometimes a character who seems to us to possess limitless story possibilities in theory, doesn’t work out that way in practice.

            Anthony is to the Westlake Review what the barflies at the OJ are to Rollo the barkeep. And I mean that only as the highest of compliments. Though he really should pay his tab sometime. 😉

            • Anthony


              If I were a Westlake character, I suspect I would be a nephew: protagonist for one book, then done with. Nothing against the regulars….

              • I’m sure I know nothing of what you get up to when you’re away from here, Anthony. Hopefully no serious entanglements with the law and/or organized crime. I would hope your one-shot escapade at least concludes with an alluring romantic partner. 😐

                I’m flattering myself with the comparison to Rollo, who mainly keeps mum and pours drinks. Who could I possibly less resemble?

            • rinaldo302

              Along with Herman X, I kept hoping for Leon to return. Surely you don’t set up a memorably hilarious love-hate relationship like the one between him and Mologna, and then never use it again in a long-running series? But as you say, an author has other priorities to think about.

              • The only way to work it would be to do a novel about Mologna and Leon. And we all know Westlake didn’t want to write about active-duty cops. He only did that once, with the Levine stories, and look what happened to Levine. Tobin fared only slightly better.

                And lo–Mr. Westlake’s attitude towards the constabulary has come into vogue with a vengeance. Literally. I am thinking about writing about that. I think about writing a lot. :\

  16. Russell Telfer

    Fred, my dear fellow, I do apologise. One must not take the other chap’s name in vain. Most awf’ly sorry. I’m currently out of Jeeves, I’m afraid! I think you aptly point out that I have must have macaronised some strings of memory, but I do remember that the description of Mologna in whichever of those two it was, was the most beautiful description of a certain type of cop. And we could do with more of him, could we not?
    May I say, on first impressions a couple of days ago, I thought your blog was marvellous, detailed, apt, well considered, and showing a good rapport with your peers. Thanks indeed, and I look forward to adding to it when I have something useful to say.

    • Oh my dear fellow, say no more about it. After all, we were at school together. The Westlake School. I have the tie around here somewhere…..

      Mologna, who feels at times like a sympathetic character, comes a cropper in both books he appears in. A fine demonstration of Westlake’s attitude towards policemen.

      The sloppy ones, the ones who are just out to take what they can, hurt whom they may, he treats with undisguised loathing. The professionals, the ones who know their jobs, intend to do them, he has a guarded respect for–perhaps even admiration at times. But never for one moment will he trust them. He doesn’t think any of us should either. A necessary evil is both of those things at once.

      As Robert Caro writes, power does not always corrupt, but it invariably reveals–the nature of whomever holds it. And if we could but come to understand that……

      • Russell Telfer

        I can’t say much about what you’ve said on movies, but yes, I’m interested in your comments on Quick Change and on Jay Cronley and will look into that. I would guess that a sustained reader of your blog, or you yourself, would pick up every clue about DEW’s characters, drip-fed over several stories, and form a pretty reliable reading of the main characters. The people who somehow come in charge of the direction of movies don’t though. They have other motives. The result will be a different story. And the punchline: the people who know the characters and the story best will always be the ones most disappointed.

        • Which is why Westlake said that in most cases, a film shouldn’t try to be the book. It can’t be. Only the book can be the book. The film has to try and be its own thing, while still getting across the spirit of the book. Which The Hot Rock half-succeeds at doing (thanks primarily to what’s left of Goldman’s original screenplay), and none of the other Dortmunder adaptations come close.

          I think for Westlake, the worst-case scenario wasn’t a bad movie made from one of his books. The worst-case scenario (aside from not getting properly compensated for the adaptation rights, see Made in USA) is the movie replacing the book in the popular consciousness (see The Godfather, which simultaneously made Mario Puzo wealthy and irrelevant).

          Parker, Dortmunder, and all the others, are his children. He doesn’t want anyone doing a better job with them. He doesn’t want anyone doing as well. He wants to believe only he can truly get to the core of them.

          And so far, he’s the only one who has.

  17. Russell Telfer

    Indeed. And where the gang are centre stage you need the enemy to be a bit fuzzy, in the background, to let the lads get on with whatever they have to do.
    On the subject of films though (as I would call ’em) I shall have to be mute at present. I haven’t seen any of the Dortmunder films as of yet. It would definitely be better to see them first because the book is nearly always better when you start with a good writer. Catch 22 by Winner, and the one by George Clooney were both wrong, way out.
    I’ve recently read The Hot Rock and The Bank Shot, very relevant
    and perfect reading. So.
    I’m still checking out your website. There’s so much of it. Great stuff!

    • I had assumed Bank Shot was the worst film adaptation–because what could possibly be worse?–but then I saw What’s The Worst That Could Happen?–and now I know. Well, in terms of Dortmunder film adaptations. I fervently hope and pray it gets no worse than that.

      A really fine comic heist film is Quick Change, with Bill Murray. Written and co-directed (with Murray) by Howard Franklin, and adapted from a novel by a midwesterner name of Jay Cronley, who Westlake seems to have obliquely homaged in Drowned Hopes. Cronley almost certainly was influenced by Westlake, as almost anybody writing comic heists from the 70’s onwards would be. Keep meaning to read some of his stuff. But the film is absolutely top-rate (though it did terrible box office).

      And again, I must lament that Westlake almost never got a decent production team adapting his work–but at the same time I rejoice that the books have consequently remained front and center–never subsumed by Hollywood.

  18. Russell Telfer

    As I mentioned, I am an ignoramus on films generally. I had an interesting conversation with my son just this week. I told him that when he was a kid (he’s in his 30s now) he and his brothers were begging to use the TV and I was often minded to give way. My reasoning was that when they were grown up, they wouldn’t be there to stop me (they aren’t) and I could watch what I liked. But I reckoned without one thing, a game changer. Attention span. These days with the proliferation of on demand, multi-channel and everything else, I find that after about quarter of an hour of watching something, I want to do something else. There are a few things that I could watch right through, and most of them are foreign language films with subtitles. (Bring on the shrinks.) I haven’t seen any DEW-inspired films AFAIK.
    More to the point, I’ve ordered Jimmy The Kid and Nobody’s Perfect and I’ll
    be delighted to compare notes afterwards on a first reading of Jimmy The Kid. I’m looking forward to it. More in due course.

    • I love me some Jimmy the Kid. Hard to pick a favorite Dortmunder, but that’s up at the top of the list. Funnier if you’ve read some Parker novels first. Works either way.

      A really good film can still hold me all the way through. But a lot of the time, I fast-forward–I just wanted to see this or that actor or actress (usually actress), or I was curious about something. There are so many more films you can see now–and so much less time.

      And frankly, most films are not that well put together–they don’t hold up to repeat viewing. The script and editing are the main thing. The way each scene fits into the next, pulls you along. It works about the same with novels, and I’m not that impressed with most novels these days either. Story and character is all there really is, and yet the techniques employed now often seem built around alienating you from both.

      Westlake never forgot either.

  19. Russell Telfer

    Just a little moan, a little comment to explain my lack of contribution to the dialogue. My book order (Jimmy and Nobody’s Perfect) happened a couple of weeks ago. Amazon this is. Now no sound. Have they got the books to sell? Not the first time it’s happened, looking for oldish books. One time I pushed them after six months, ABE books this was. They’d taken the money, gave it back, they’d never had the books in the first place. I suppose they were going to grab one if it came up, otherwise no luck chum.
    I’ll be reading your words of wisdom though. Good stuff.

    • Jimmy the Kid can be tough to find a good copy of, and I was lucky to get a first edition without laying down hundreds. Because of the Parker cameo, the collector bases overlap. There’s people buying it entirely because they have to have every last thing written about Parker. Even an alternate universe Parker. I can almost imagine them skipping past the parts with Dortmunder. And much as I love the Parker novels, that’s just not right.

      I can’t say I’ve ever encountered a situation where an Amazon seller took the money and never shipped the book. One time I thought the book was never coming–it showed up the better part of a year later–and this was not during a pandemic.

      Odds are they’re understaffed, and orders are backed up. You say it’s Amazon proper, or an Amazon Marketplace selller?

      You could have the ebook in a trice, but I can respect you not wanting to go that route. There are some formatting gags Westlake used that don’t translate well to digital ink. Still, at the end of the day, the book’s the thing.

  20. Russell Telfer

    Just some comments of general interest. I was expecting to find it difficult to find copies of Jimmy and Nobody’s Perfect but when they came through , they were new books published by Mysterious Press in 2011. I think we can assume that the publishers have these texts in electronic form so I doubt there will be any block in future supply.
    When I was reading Nobody’s Perfect I came to p89 where there were six typos and bad ones at that – a weird reminder of the fourth wall. If the Mysterious people are listening …
    Yours is a very scholarly and erudite site, Fred, an encyclopedia on its own, but I’m still hacking my way through the jungle of a chess board where all the pieces are on the move – to mix my metaphors. But … Nobody’s Perfect …

    • Yeah, the U. of Chicago Richard Stark editions have a fair few errors, but I don’t remember which ones, or where. Weirdly, the original paperback editions, from Pocket and Gold Medal–nary a typo do I recall. But see, while those books may have cost a lot less to buy, they made a whole lot more for the publishers. Huge lucrative market. So they could afford to spring for a few extra proofreaders.

      I love my Kindle, but I will say that there are things Westlake did with the printed page that don’t translate well to that format–little typographical tricks. My hope is that as digital ink gets more sophisticated, it will be possible to fully replicate the original paper editions in electronic form.

  21. Keith Hann

    I just watched this tonight with some friends, having loved the book, and it’s really amazing how much of a failure it is. I place the blame squarely on the director. I kept noticing how scenes that could be funny (and indeed were in the book) were played straight, cut off suddenly, and/or given no musical or cinematographic support. It’s like Yates thought he had a drama on his hands, despite clear nods to and plenty of obvious opportunity for comedy in the script, and was determined to film it that way, and so scenes like Amusa reading the escalating materials lists, Kelp being caught in the security cage, or the distraction scene outside the museum all have their comedy potential evaporate. By the time you get to something like the crew landing on the wrong roof, you forget things were supposed to be funny at all and wonder why they put such a pointless scene there. It also had Yates’ trademark padding, which I noticed in Bullitt.

    I can’t remember the last time I wanted *more* slapstick, mugging it, and musical cues. Segal and Leibman do a decent job playing as comedic background in search of a foreground that isn’t there, while ultimately only Zero Mostel seems to have been allowed to fully commit to screwballness (though his performance just winds up jarring contrasted against everything else played so flat).

    It’s rare that I ever want to see a remake, but this is a film that cries out for one: even using the original screenplay (okay, minus the meh ending) there’s a hilarious film here waiting to be liberated from pedestrian direction.

    One minor note:
    “there is way too much Paul Sand in this picture, and none of his scenes work at all–apparently he’s been to a lot of fancy schools where he learned about home-made bombs, and I don’t care.”

    I’m pretty sure those are supposed to be jokes: Sand specifically mentioned that he honed his bomb-making skills at the Sorbonne and Berkeley. With the film being made in the early 70s, those would have certainly been references to the anti-Gaulist student uprising in France in May 1968 and the Berkeley counter-culture/antiwar protests.

    • Nice observation about the student protests–there’s a vivid first-hand impression of the Paris uprising in Romain Gary’s heavily fictionalized autobiographical novel, White Dog, which Sam Fuller turned into a better movie than The Hot Rock, but still far less than the book (and even less faithful to the original.) However, Gary’s English translation of that idiosyncratic rumination on racism is long out of print, and there’s no ebook. Quel dommage.

      If we’re being honest here, the more interesting a novel is, the more of him/herself the author put into it, the harder it is to make a decent film of it–or at least a film that is true to the original. Much easier with hackwork, since most filmmakers only want the basic premise and plot to work with, anyway. Like the frame for a prefabricated Levittown ranch house you can make into something your own, that barely even resembles the original.

      Westlake didn’t write hackwork, ever. He did, however, need money, always–The Hot Rock was a great success, but not one of the top sellers of 1970 (The Godfather owned that year, Love Story came not long after–you see what I mean about hackwork making for better films? Oh, that was mean.)

      So as I said, he would not wait for the right production team to come along, but would just sell the rights to whoever offered, and let them do the hackwork.

      Everything you say is right on-target. But I don’t think the main problem is the director–who after all, made a splendid comedy not long after. Nor can the problem be the original screenplay by Goldman, which Westlake adored (and glimpsed here and there in the finished result).

      No, I think it comes down to the producers, who made an even worse Dortmunder film of an even funnier book.

      Maybe they should have made Zero Mostel the producer? Springtime for Dortmunder.

      And yes, I’m still alive, folks. Springtime for me. And two Pfizer shots. 🙂

      • Tom

        Keith’s comment about wanting more slapstick got me musing on the idea of a Dortmunder (or more general Westlake) film directed by Richard Lester. Lester, of course, was known for his slapstick (check out that opening in Superman III) and made what in my humble opinion was the best of the ‘Three Musketeers’ films (splitting them in two parts). He even did a sequel to ‘The Mouse that Roared’, which I believe you mentioned in your review of ‘Under an English Heaven’.

        • I’ve long been an admirer of his best work, though it should be said, some of the later stuff wasn’t so hot. (He outlived the era in which he could get the writers and cast he needed). I’ve always thought it was odd how the comics nerds (and technically I am one, though on a minor key) would attack him for his work on the Superman films–and praise the guy who did the Lethal Weapons movies as some kind of auteur. Something similar is going on now with Zack Snyder and Justice League (a bad movie is a bad movie, no matter how you edit it), but I’m not the biggest Joss Whedon fan either–not so terribly shocked at what’s come out about him recently. I heard rumors. And I saw what happened to Buffy. And he literally did a series about a Super-Ho. (The more a guy talks about how feminist he is, the more you watch out for him.)

          If it was Lester in the vein he did A Hard Day’s Night in, maybe (that has something of a heist sensibility to it, oddly–the lads are trying to steal a little private time for themselves). I don’t really think of Dortmunder (and Westlake’s comedy in general) as slapstick, per se. If it is, more like the kind Hal Roach did–not Mack Sennett.

          Westlake was a skeptic when it came to directors and the whole auteur thing. Being a writer above all, he believed a film was only as good as its script–but the script is only as good as the director and producers let it be, and in the case of The Hot Rock, they just tore it to shreds.

          The problem, for him, wouldn’t be that they didn’t make the movie entirely like the book, because he didn’t think that was the point–you want the book, read the book. But you have to understand the book in order to adapt it into something new. It doesn’t seem like they did in this case. And innumerable other cases.

          • Tom

            I should have mentioned that he did ‘A Funny Thing Happened at the Way to the Forum’ also starring Zero Mostel, which I SWORE you could have mentioned in either your reviews of Dancing Aztecs or High Adventure. But I did a search and couldn’t find anything. Maybe my memory’s faulty.

            As a kid, I always loved Superman III primarily because of Richard Pryor whose facial expressions (along with Gene Wilder’s) can always make me laugh. I’ve sometimes wondered about him for Herman X. It would have been tricky for him (or any actor) to play that at the time, though his bisexuality is on record now. And he was in The Busy Body, which I have not seen.

            • Yeah, I don’t remember which one it was either, but I did refer to it. I love that film. Not really a heist comedy, unless you want to say Pseudolus is heisting himself.

              I liked Superman III because Margot Kidder’s Lois kind of bugged me. I liked Annette O’Toole’s Lana Lang much better, and far as I’m concerned, she and Clark ended up together. 😉

              • Tom

                We’re really going down a kind of ‘six degrees’ rabbit hole. It’s funny that you mention Annette O’ Toole (who I always liked), because she was in ‘Cat People’. Which, if you’ll recall, was mentioned in that swimming pool scene in Drowned Hopes where the guard tells Doug that he should see the original ‘not the dumb remake’. Can’t disagree more. I LOVED that remake. Who could hate on a naked Nastassja Kinski? (and come to think of it, a naked Annette O’Toole, in that very swimming pool scene? Sigh…..)

              • Tom

                In addition to my Annette O’Toole comment, I should also mention that Pryor in Superman III does play kind of a Wally Knurr-like character….

              • Tom

                I wish there was an ‘edit’ function on WordPress, so I could fix comments instead of adding to them. Oh, well. Anyway, just to clarify that Pryor’s Gus Gorman isn’t QUITE as geeky as Wally Knurr, but has that same kind of innocence even while engaging in the criminal underworld.

              • I could edit your post if you asked. I’ve done it many times. Sometimes I even obvious correct typos without being asked. I’m just that kinda guy.

                I guess Pryor’s character has some of the same moral confusion as Wally–a guy who lives mostly in his head has a hard time telling right from wrong, even if he’s got a good heart.

                It’s a fun movie, but not the kind I feel like spending a lot of time on. It’s better than than Quest for Peace–not so unintentionally funny as the last two Superman films–and we’ll leave it there.

          • Anthony

            Remaking The Hot Rock does make for an interesting thought experiment. I cannot recall who I am quoting, but it is to the effect that no good movie should be remade – only bad ones (so that they can be done right). The good ones are just fine all by themselves.

            What I find myself chewing on is Westlake’s admonition that there is absolutely no reason to do a period piece unless it HAS to be in that period. With that in mind, a remake of The Hot Rock should be set in the 2020s. This automatically throws out half of the book’s comic scenes. Kelp would not – could not – be bamboozled by a car’s power windows in 2021. He’d have to be bamboozled by the auto-drive features of the doctor’s Tesla he picked up.

            The premise of African nations warring over the emerald would not fly in the 2020s. Nor would the idea of ramming a train into an “insane asylum.” Chefwick would not have model trains – he’d be some online video game fanatic. And so on.

            Could it be done? Sure.
            Should it be done? I vote no.
            Would I go see it if somebody did it? I’d have to wait for the “Fred Fitch” review.

            • I’m wondering if there are going to be any more Westlake adaptations at all. “Parker” was a serious misstep by the estate. They should have waited for a better production team. But I can understand the bird in the hand thing.

              Westlake wouldn’t have cared, of course (except for them giving the Statham character Parker’s name, which he never would have allowed). For him, it was all about Hollywood gold, so he could go on doing what he really cared about. But they needed at least a base hit (say on the level of Payback), and struck out yet again.

              Used to be there was a Westlake agent pushing his stuff, and he was still producing new work. As you know, most of the books he sold the rights to never got past the talking stage in Hollywood.

              Done now, you’d need a more diverse cast of heisters (I always thought Herman X had a lot of unrealized potential)–but both Parker and Dortmunder were played by African Americans–didn’t work either time. Diversity for the sake of diversity always feels forced–has to be organic.

              I’ll say it again–TV would be the medium to try it in. Cable, or else some streaming thing. You can’t establish the characters and milieu quickly enough for a film, and too many compromises are required.

              The period thing is a real puzzle, because he wrote almost everything tailored specifically towards the period he was writing in. There’s a lot of period shows out there now, and many are doing quite respectably. So I don’t buy that it has to be updated all that much. People would love a chance to escape their own time, be reminded how much simpler things were a few decades back (and yet fraught with complexities of their own). No better way to understand the present than to look back at the past.

              No coincidence that all the best adaptations occurred not long after the books came out.

              I give you my word that no matter how awful the next adaptation sounds, if they make one, I’ll force myself to watch it. And review it. Maybe a bit of aesthetic outrage would get me out of my slump. :\

              • Anthony

                I think that the period thing was about cost. A Second World War story has to be set in WWII. A heist film can take place any time.

                To be honest, though, I don’t know if this was a hard and fast rule of his, or why he would even care. I think I got this from him being hired to do the screenplay for The Grifters. He – or he and the director – saw no real need to keep the story in the time it was written.

                And he certainly enjoyed opportunity to introduce Dortmunder to changing times. It was fun to see how he reacted to newfound annoyances such as fax machines.

                And yeah, a limited episode series on Netflix or whatever would be the way to do it.

              • Explain to me why The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel has to be set in the late 50’s/early 60’s? I know it’s kinda sorta based on Westlake’s onetime collaborator Joan Rivers, but it’s actually still not that easy for female standups to make it to the top. Business doesn’t work all that differently–you start in small clubs and work your way up. You could do the same story now, with a few tweaks. But it would be less interesting, perhaps, because people actually want to see that earlier era, do a bit of time-traveling–it’s more than nostalgia–it’s curiosity. And there’s more freedom, precisely because people know less about that time. (Same thing for Mad Men.)

                And that show is hardly a huge hit. Just a niche hit by somebody who once had a big hit on a small network. Enough to justify the budget for shooting period in New York City. (Gee–who else spends a lot of time there?)

                Show’s still in production. I’m just saying.

                The reason for doing Westlake period now is that it’s Westlake. Same reason you’d do The Great Gatsby period, which it wasn’t when it was published.

              • Russell Telfer

                Interesting discussion. I think there are rules for converting the story to another era. Consider Mrs Maisel. It shows 50’s attitudes to women, and particularly women in jobs that were not then considered suitable, the attitude to porn and the respect for (male) authority. If you change it to 2021, some of this wouldn’t “travel”, the way they say wine doesn’t travel. If the story was rewritten, it could be better or worse.
                With Hot Rock, the same applies. For example, there aren’t any lunatic asylums (as we call them here) any more. And even if there were, they’re not the same beast any more.
                Russell T

              • Okay, let me give you a reason for why you would do Parker or Dortmunder period–they steal for a living and never go to jail. (Not at the end of the book, anyway). Nor does either of them ever show even the slightest remorse (or have any idea why they should).

                It’s so hard doing heist stories like that for movies/TV–always was. Where the crooks are the main protagonists, and they walk away alive and richer than they began, with the Law looking stupid. (Mind you, there’s definitely a market for that now–cops have never been less popular–Westlake’s skeptical attitude towards uniforms has never been more en vogue).

                Even at the height of the French Noir thriller, the heisters either died at the end or walked away with nothing. These days they justify it by having the crooks steal from bigger crooks. Westlake did that sometimes, but not most of the time. Because it’s a cop-out. Parker and Dortmunder don’t care who they steal from, long as it’s somebody with lots to steal. So all the film adaptations involving either of them look for some moral escape hole, and it really gets in the way.

                But when you do it period, it’s a lot easier to justify. Remember The Brink’s Job? Fun little 70’s flick–that strongly implies the boys who pulled that 1950 armored car caper ended up spending their ill-gotten gains after getting paroled (and being treated like heroes). That was really rare in movies. It’s based on a real story, so I guess that helped, but nobody knew for a fact they got the money after getting out of jail.

                The Sting was another example, even though they were running a scam on another crook. A Depression-era caper with a score from the Ragtime era. Newman and Redford walk away clean, with the cash (okay, Redford turns it down, which is sort of in character).

                In effect, when you do it period, the statute of limitations runs out. Even with Butch and Sundance, who had to die (because they really did), everybody’s rooting for them to get away with it. The lawmen are the bad guys in that film.

                And there were different social attitudes then towards crime, right? You can do the same stuff as Mrs. Maisel, reminding us what’s changed, and what hasn’t. Also easier to avoid the obligatory diversity casting, since nobody’s going to buy a lot of ethnically mixed gangs in the 60’s and 70’s. (I’m all for diversity, but not when it’s just done for show).

                I don’t think it’s happening, but it would be much more likely to succeed if they did it straight. Screwing with the material pretty much always led to failure, anyway. That’s not likely to change. And you can’t do it straight unless you do it period.

  22. Tom

    “When was this Dortmunder ‘damned near bitten’? We know where that’s coming from. The German Shepherd who menaced the book Dortmunder while he was trying to sell phony encyclopedias, and then Kelp and Greenwood come and talk him into another shot at the jewel. One of the funniest scenes in the book–Goldman, being no dummy, obviously put it in his script. Was it filmed? One would think so, since the line is in there, but either way, it’s not in the finished film. And there aren’t any dogs at all in the film, that I remember.”

    I just happened to be reading a book on dog training by a guy named Lew Burke, which came out in 1976. In the beginning of the book Burke goes into his professional credits, some of them being as a trainer on movie sets. One of the movies he mentions is ‘The Hot Rock’. So evidently they did hire a dog trainer for the film, though whether the scene actually got filmed is up in the air.

    • I also enjoy reading books by dog trainers. They have so many amusing stories to tell about befuddled clueless people, perpetually outsmarted by their dogs. It’s fun to laugh at yourself. Also befuddled clueless film producers, but since they actually get paid big bucks for it, maybe the joke’s on us?

      Anyway, thanks for the supporting evidence. Seven and a half years late is better than never. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s