Reacher Series 1, and maybe less
A friend of mine once asked if I preferred writing about material I didn’t like. It is a temptation for reviewers—almost always their first effort is something they didn’t like. My friend knew his comment wasn’t true of me, but after The Peripheral…
It’s difficult to do this, for reasons which will become clear, but I’ll try trace the bones of this phenomenon. There is a series of books written by an author who calls himself Lee Child. Mr. Child writes at the rate of one book a year, now 23 or near of these books. The books centre round an identity called Jack Reacher. It’s difficult to measure, as promotion interferes, but this book series has become one of the bestsellers of the age. It was a given that at some point some organisation would attempt to film the material. A feature film appeared, Then another feature film. But these films faltered as a series. It is incredibility difficult to get the high production of film moving so it seemed from this position there would be no more Reacher on film. However, something new did happen. The idea of filming Jack Reacher was rebooted as a TV series. The TV series, as I write, is onto a widely anticipated Series 2.
And there has been much written about the books, the films, and the TV series, and none of it makes sense. Except one post by a woman who can’t get out of her apartment. She’s the only one.
Right… here with the TV series, we have an issue. The original Reacher Series 1 was released in summertime. Summertime is the the traditional release time for ‘stuff which may have an audience but nothing big, maybe unusual’. Feelgood movies and the like. Now, Reacher Series 1 received many good reviews, so Series 2 was on. I’m no insider, but it is stated online that filming of Series 2 finished near February this year. With any film, there is plenty to finish after that—editing, soundtrack assembly and rights clearances are massive, and that’s while titling and promotional material is assembled. For all of that, it seems like Series 2 could have been released, like Series 1, in summer.
So why not? Why delay five months until winter? I have no evidence, not a scrap, but one powerful motivation is present. Reacher Series 1, as I said, gathered good reviews. Beyond that, the series continued to gather fans throughout the year. Some evidence to hand, Series 1 has amongst my friends gathered new fans, people who knew nothing of the original books. The series is often mentioned now as being amongst the most popular on Amazon Prime, if not the most popular. Which would be a strong motive for delaying release of Series 2 until winter, traditionally the time for the film industry to release crowd‐pleasers.
This essay, then is about something that is massive, one of the entertainment events of winter 2023. And yet, all I find online makes no sense. Let’s go back to those two feature films that seemed to falter. The overriding reason presented, from online chat to broadsheet newspapers, was that the lead actor was too small. Well, that won’t hold. Let me show you why, by example.
Back in the fifties a guy wrote a book that was, like the Reacher books, popular. By that time the film industry was in it’s full and current state of high‐monetary operatic value, so it was, as it was with Reacher, a given to try adapting this book to film. Though, at that time, the medium was not a TV series but a feature film. Well, the industry managed this, and the film was a huge hit. This has been later obscured by the film being cited as ‘…one of the best of all time!’ You know, I’d always be careful with comments like that, but the film was a good production. And, a particular note, the film moved the already successful actor who played the main character into a new realm of possibilities. The name of the actor was Humphrey Bogart.
I’m not one to delve physical detail, but this is the point being parleyed across media on every level in all channels of the industry, that the actor in the Reacher films was ‘too small’. So lets briefly describe Humphry Bogart as a film presence. He was black haired, small, and had seedy good looks (that later revealed a romantic side). Now I quote off‐the‐cuff from the book, about this same identity,
He was tall, red‐headed, and there was something devilish.
You getting this? The actor in the film was, physically and dramatically, nothing like what was specified in the book. But the film became a huge and enduring hit. And this is the case every time. A film is a translation of a book, and a far‐fetched one at that. Physical details don’t matter. All these commentators are wrong. By default.
But at this place, we need to reverse. If the people commenting on the new TV series of Reacher insist on Reacher’s size, then they must be talking up their disappointment with the films. There’s something wrong, we can agree, except they’ve picked on size of the actor as the feature. Well, wanna hear my theories? Not simple as a publicity photo, for sure,
Reacher books are funny. They’re not often funny as verbal wit, but they are funny in unexpected interaction between characters. The books are also inventive about how they do this, very inventive. The actor in the films is not someone who is good at putting across humour, he’s too earnest. Whereas the actor in the TV series is good
Reacher books are cartoonish and colourful. Basically, the identity Reacher demolishes anything that gets in his way. Which is amusing as it upends all the conventional threat of such books and films. However, the films were made by a solid guy from the industry. He was a writer first—‘The Usual Suspects’. He followed this with his own small film, ‘Way of the Gun’. This film demonstrated be was good at organising action scenes, or he knew people who were. Either him or his friends have been industry employees ever since. They do, of course, have an outlook, which is the tense dark machinery of competent people who will have no second thought about slaying others. This would seem to be a good fit to the books, but it’s not—the identity Reacher never slays anyone unless they deserve it
The Reacher identity has a quirk which is original—he can’t settle. He wanders round with little more than a toothbrush and, later, a bank‐card. And clothes, most of the time. In the films, the actor, the director, and finally the filmic conventions they are working with are unable to capture this. The films seemed to squawk ‘Action!, Action!, Action!’
Much of the books are occupied by the Reacher identity’s rootlessness. The result of this is that the character wanders, mostly in America, looking and reasoning. I’m not kidding here. One book, ‘61 Hours’ must spend 1/3 of it’s length doing nothing but describing the effects of heavy snow on the far north of America—which leads to plot strategy, as the author is always careful to include this. Nobody has once mentioned this. Yet the identity Reacher may wander through the unusual landscape of the mid‐west, looking at the irrigation sweep‐poles, and readers know this may at some point be fundamental to plot. As stated above, the films had no time for such detail (in the same way that James Bond films had international tourism but became picture postcards—whereas the author Lee Child’s descriptions of the mid‐west are involved, intrigued and amused)
The other identities/characters in the book series are strong. Ok, they are cartoonish and usually conform to a type of competence, but they have quirks on a par with the main identity. For example, the women are almost always strong, and not necessarily with gun and karate skills. In one book, the author proposes a American–Japanese policewoman who has deduction skills on a par with the identity Reacher. This identity and the Reacher identity meet only glancingly (which is amusing) but at the end of the book this woman gets to rope the fallout of Reacher’s demolition, much to her credit. Unfortunately, and conforming to the approach of these kinds of films, the films reduce the other characters to no more than sketches they hope will be carried by the actors. Despite the quality of the actors, it’s not enough and never works. If you want to see a film where these sketch characters work, see the film Michael Clayton where the lead identity conforms also to the sketch outline
Reacher books always move purposefully with much plot. Some argue that the plots are ridiculous, or riddled with coincidence, but I’d say that’s a misunderstanding of plotting. Anyway, the films reduced this to a background of intricacy with little embodiment. I saw the first episode of another TV series that made this mistake, The Man In The High Castle. We see a note slipped in a cinema that leads to a secret meeting in a warehouse. Cue a lot of vocal dialogue to explain motive (bad). Then from nowhere there is a raid at the warehouse. Not only is this getting the story backwards, it’s blown the menace in a few minutes. What next—some torture? Of course
I could carry on, but this covers several of the strong points. As a result, the films flattened the Reacher identity to no more than ‘He’s very violent’. They also introduced incongruent elements that went awry. In (I think) the second film, the Reacher identity, without any filmic support to establish the character, needed (perhaps for reasons of pleasing the fans) to explain his rootlessness. So the identity plunges into a big speech to the lawyer about why and what are the advantages of rootlessness. Items,
The original Reacher identity never talks unless necessary
The original Reacher identity only self‐reflects once, when haggled by a woman who gives him a lift
This flat explanation projects the identity as smug (‘all you little people busy’) whereas the identity is never in the books smug (except perhaps implicitly in his demolition antics, but never personally)
In the series they nail this in one line, possibly lifted from a book (I don’t recall),
I’m not a vagrant. I’m a hobo
Which is not to say the films are bad. They made money. They are good modern product. But they lack much of the books, some of which I’ve cut out above. So much is missing that the films fail to establish an identity. And an identity is exactly what the older film I spoke about, with the actor Humphry Bogart, established.
Since I’m at it, there’s something I ought to do. Reacher Series 1 addresses much of the above comments. I’d say those items are good reasons why, after the films faltered, the series has become popular. But if any film is a translation of it’s sources, how does Reacher Series 1 differ from the books? Here are a few thoughts,
Reacher is supposed to be intimidating. People will not sit next to him, or pick him up as a hitch‐hiker. The author has recently started talking about the identity’s ‘kind eyes’, but in the books the intimidating presence is referred to repeatedly. The actor is not in the slightest bit intimidating. If you’ve never met that intimidation personally, take it from me
Reacher books are outstanding writing as style. Now, I know this is contentious, and you’ll find plenty of commentary otherwise. I’m simply going to assert that, and give a link to the Stephen King review of one of the books (about halfway down), to give you an idea where my thoughts lie. Then move on to the point, it’s a pity the Reacher series will never get outstanding camera direction. It’s too much to ask, I know, of a TV series and I’d say also that the camerawork in the series is good—I particularly liked the move in the diner at the start of the first episode. All the same…
Some of the inserts were pointless. Flash‐backs and flash‐forwards need a lot of justification in film, usually to introduce ambiguity. I’d have cut them all
I’m not the only one to comment on this, the talky final face‐off was silly. Except I disagree why. Others seem to think it was an exposure of the silliness within the Reacher setup. Myself, I think it broke the continuity of delivery
But these are minor points. After the TV series introduced much of the Reacher books to film. In places, the books were even expanded, for example the diner scene mentioned above.
There is one thought about this series that caused me to step back. On the basis of several examples, I formed a rule that ‘Missteps cannot be rectified in a generation. Two examples—the original film of the book ‘Dune’ had some fine moments, but the release was a patchwork mess. It took forty years to make a good film of ‘Dune’. And ‘The Golden Compass’ film had a few good moments, but was nothing to do with the book. A later rehash, by the prestige unit of HBO/BBC, was a travesty—wish I could say a good travesty, unfortunately worst instincts unleashed. But Reacher Series 1 has defied my rule—a successful reboot within ten years. I’ll never know the cause. Some suspicion about the executive involvement of the author, but this action has a long history of failure. Perhaps something about Lee Child himself? I’ll never know.
Also, there is a worrying signal from the promotion of Series 2. Actors have gone online saying the the series will be ‘Bigger and Better than Before!’ and ‘Non‐Stop Action!’ In other words, Series 2 promises to move towards the film versions. Thereby loosing all the loose charms of Series 1. Plus, the trailer includes an exploding helicopter, which I don’t recall from the book. As a result, I have low expectations of Series 2. And with these bad omens, I won’t believe any of the online commentary or reviews. I expect the charms of Margrave to be lost. I expect worse. I’ll be watching in retrospect. Sometime.