The ideal Reacher. (Who could be the new Jack Reacher?)

If you’re a Jack Reacher fan, you’ve probably already heard the news. If you’re not, let me tell you what recently made me jump up and down with proverbial glee: there will be no additional Jack Reacher movies. Instead, we’ll get something better. At some point in the future, we’re going to get a JACK REACHER STREAMING SERIES and TOM CRUISE WILL NOT BE CAST AS REACHER! Because Jack Reacher author Lee Child loves us, and he loves Reacher, and he wants to see screen-Reacher appear as his actual Reacher self as much as we do, I’m thinking. Child has so carefully crafted Reacher and fleshed him out over the years that the Tom-Cruise-as-Reacher news felt like a plunge into an alternate universe the majority of us would never want to visit. And I never did visit. I’m sure I’m not the only Reacher fan who avoided that universe.

I refrained from watching Reacher on the big screen, but now I can look forward to watching him on the little screen, which is the better screen, in my opinion. The little screen is today’s big screen. We’re not in a Golden Age of television… we’re in a Platinum Age of television. Jack Reacher would fit right into our existing catalog of excellent streaming series heroes, and not in Tom Cruise’s shoes.

I first read this announcement on Twitter, and then my friend directed my attention to an article about it (linked above, but here it is again in case you missed it). That was about a month ago, and I’m still ecstatic about it.

Of course, the biggest buzz-worthy aspect of this news is the speculation: who could take on the role of Reacher in the upcoming series? Lee Child would like to hear our thoughts. Child is open to suggestions, he says. (Reportedly.)

Lee Child will probably never see this post, so my chiming in here is for my own amusement more than anything.

My thoughts and opinions:

–The ideal Reacher wouldn’t appear to be congenial in his countenance. Reacher doesn’t go around looking like Mr. Nice Guy. He goes around looking menacing, even though he is a nice guy. He’s nice until you annoy him or otherwise get on his bad side, that is.

–The ideal Reacher wouldn’t have a pretty face with fine bone structure and/or features arranged in a way that makes him conventionally attractive. Lee Child has actually described him as “ugly.” If the new Reacher actor has stock good looks, he should at least have the sort of looks that could be readily roughened/uglied-up in the hair/makeup department.

–Rather than walking into a room and drawing attention with his good looks, the ideal Reacher would exude a low-frequency charisma particularly (maybe only) detectable by women.

–The ideal Reacher would also bring into a room an air of unadulterated badassery. Any glibness on his part would come across as less than amusing, even if his words are amusing (and they often are).

–The ideal Reacher actor would be over six feet tall at the least, and he would weigh somewhere close to (at least) 200 lbs.

I wouldn’t insist that the actor stand at 6′, 5″ or weigh 220 lbs, because I don’t think that would be necessary. He should meet a minimal height requirement of, say, six feet, and he should either be built or have a physique that’s capable of being built. From there, shoe lifts and physical training could make up any deficit, or at least get the actor close to Reacher’s physical description.

–The ideal Reacher actor would have on his resume action-flick experience and a skill set that goes with it, or he should be trainable in this respect. The actor needs to be convincing as a guy who could crush a person’s throat with one hand. He should also know his way around firearms, as Reacher is an ex-MP (military cop) superior with firearms… and he uses them often.

–The ideal Reacher actor would be faceted enough to play a ruthless vigilante who’s theoretically a sociopath, but unquestionably a good guy. Reacher would seem like an easy character to play with his many one-liners and moments of “saying nothing,” but he’s far from one-dimensional. Lee Child created a complex character in Reacher. An ideal Reacher actor would have the ability to transmit Reacher’s character nuances.

With all of the above in mind, I’m going to throw in the names of two well-known actors who may seem unlikely. I’ve seen these guys in action, and their actions suggest Reacher-potential.

  • Hugh Jackman
  • Bradley Cooper

———

1). The case for Bradley Cooper:

I’ll start with Cooper, because I can already hear exclamations of disbelief.

Bradley Cooper may seem too good-looking at first glance, but in my opinion, his prettiness is borderline and nothing the hair/makeup department couldn’t fix. Cooper could be easily unsmoothed over into a guy who looks rugged, weathered, and age-appropriate for Reacher, who I imagine to be anywhere from mid-forties to early-fifties. (Cooper is 43.) The hair people would only have to bleach his hair blond. Cooper already has Reacher’s notable blue eyes.

Any doubts that such a transformation is possible, consider what hair/makeup people did to Charlize Theron for her role in Monster:

 

Left: Charlize Theron. Right: Also Charlize Theron. (“Monster,” 2003)

 

(Charlize also gained weight for the role, of course.)

Bradley Cooper is 6′, 1″. All he would need is three-inch lifts in his shoes.

There’s evidence out there that Cooper’s physique takes well to bulking-up gym regimens.

 

Bradley Cooper in “American Sniper” (2014)

 

(And how about that stone-cold stare?)

His biceps aren’t as big as basketballs, but in my opinion, he looks like he could f*ck someone up fairly efficiently.

Cooper is a talented actor who could bring out Reacher’s character nuances.

Cooper is fluent in French. Reacher’s mother was French. Presumably, Reacher speaks enough French to get by, if he isn’t fluent. Cooper would need no language or accent training for this. Script-writers would be able to deepen the character and add intrigue with snippets of back-story featuring Reacher’s mother. There’s at least one instance in the Reacher canon that has Reacher visiting his mother in Paris.

(The video below is long; just click anywhere in it and listen for a minute.)

 

 

Cooper has a solid action hero credential in his starring role in American Sniper. His performance in the lead role of Chris Kyle earned him a Best Actor Oscar nomination, and it’s actually what brought him to mind when I thought of who might play Reacher.

 

 

Brief synopsis of American Sniper from IMDB: “Navy S.E.A.L. sniper Chris Kyle’s pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and turns him into a legend. Back home to his wife and kids after four tours of duty, however, Chris finds that it is the war he can’t leave behind.”

Reacher is ex-Army and possesses legendary shooting skills untouchable by mere mortals.

————————-

2). The case for Hugh Jackman:

I have less to say about Hugh Jackman; he’s pretty convincing all on his own, I think. Let’s gloss over him, starting with the fact that Jackman possesses naturally rugged, off-beat looks.

Moving on, although Jackman is Australian, his American accent is perfect. He also has a deeper voice that we know (if we’ve seen any of the Wolverine movies) can be growly.

And Jackman is 6′, 2″. A set of mere two-inch lifts in his shoes would do it.

And Jackman is built and can easily become more built. His biceps aren’t as large as basketballs, either, but keep the bulk and lose just a little bit of the Wolverine-lean? I’d see Reacher in there, for sure.

 

“Wolverine” Hugh Jackman.

 

Hugh Jackman “Wolverine” fight scene (Wolverine vs. Shingen)

 

Hugh Jackman’s fight scenes are vicious, even though we haven’t seen him throw punches as much as we’ve seen him slash at people with bladed fingertips.

There’s no doubt that Jackman can look scary. He can be scary. He’s terribly talented. I think he’d make a great Reacher.

Thank you, Mr. Child, for offering us a Reacher streaming series and an opportunity to make suggestions for the role of Reacher!

 

I saw American Sniper. Here are my thoughts.

Somewhere around October-November, we found out about the upcoming film American Sniper. It was set to open on Christmas day. We were looking forward to it, and I liked the idea that two years in a row, the newly released movie we’d see on my December 27 birthday would feature Bradley Cooper.

As it turned out, the movie’s release date got pushed into January, so we didn’t get to see American Sniper on my birthday. Interestingly, though, the holiday movie we did go to see on December 27, Big Eyes, also featured an actor from last year’s birthday movie: Amy Adams! We saw American Hustle (Amy Adams and Bradley Cooper) on my birthday in 2013, and Big Eyes (Amy Adams) on my birthday in 2014.

I like Bradley Cooper. It’s not a crush. I’m not obsessed with him, and I don’t race to the theatre just because he’s in a movie, but I am a fan. I’ve never seen him flounder in a role, and I’ve never seen a film of his I didn’t enjoy or appreciate in some way. Bradley Cooper in a movie usually means that I’m going to like the movie, and this is also true about Amy Adams and a few other actors (Jake Gyllanhaal comes immediately to mind); Callaghan and I are almost always on the same page, which is good. It’s more fun spending money on movie tickets if we strongly suspect that we’ll really like the movie.

So we saw Big Eyes on my birthday, and we enjoyed it, and we continued to anticipate the release of American Sniper. When the day arrived, we went to the theatre with our favorite action-flick movie-watching partner-in-crime, Jason, and I didn’t know what I was walking into. Somehow, I had the idea that the film was about a veteran who was using his lethal military skills for some grand operation in the civilian sector. I didn’t know that I was walking into a war movie. Neither did I know that the story was based on an autobiography/events that happened in the life of a real person.

And I’m glad. I’m glad that I didn’t know it was a war movie, because I generally avoid war movies. Had I known, I would have dropped American Sniper off my to-watch list, and I would have missed out on an incredible movie.

Yes, I know. I’m a Buddhist and a mostly-vegan vegetarian and I’m all about peace and compassion, but I highly appreciated American Sniper. This might seem incongruous, but it’s really not. For one thing, just on the artistic level, I thought it was a brilliant, finely-wrought film. I thought Bradley Cooper gave a tremendous, nuanced performance. I thought Clint Eastwood’s handling of the project was masterful.

Where can I even begin to try to explain my appreciation beyond that?

I guess I should start with the disclaimer that I’m not motivated by politics when it comes to art. I’m a registered Independent, anyway… my political views do tend to lean in a certain direction (if you know me well, you know what direction that is), but there’s a reason why I won’t join a particular party. Also, I generally stay away from the subject of politics on social media sites. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t intend to talk politics here today or any day. I get that it’s hard to avoid politics where this film is concerned, but I’m going to try to avoid the damn politics.

Then I should point out that I’m a combat veteran. I spent six months in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait during Operations Desert Shield, Storm and Sabre, from the beginning of December 1990 to almost the end of May 1991. The ground war in January took all of two days, and the whole thing was rather anti-climactic after the airstrikes, but somehow I managed to get embroiled in the only real action American foot soldiers saw pushing through Iraq. I ran Commo (wire, radios) in a segment of a ground ambulance unit, and our convoy was comprised of mostly medics from my Garrison unit in Germany, along with some infantrymen, American National Guardsmen and women, and a few British soldiers. We were ambushed, and it was intense, and I brought that personal history with me going into the movie theatre to see American Sniper, not knowing, as I’d said, that it was going to be a war movie.

Now, about that Buddhist thing, since I know that it’s confusing to many people. I’ve been Buddhist all of my life, and I’ve been a martial/fighting artist for more than half of my life, and no, contrary to the popular opinion of our times, this does not create a contradiction. Buddhism and the fighting arts are not mutually exclusive. If you can understand this, then my admiration of American Sniper shouldn’t seem contradictory, either.

Rather than going into a tedious academic tangent on the principles of eastern philosophy, including the meaning of the yin-yang symbol, I’m asking that you hang with me for a minute here!

Buddhist monks in the Shaolin temple of ancient China were resourceful and inventive. They developed seitan, a popular protein-rich meat substitute made of wheat gluten, so they could avoid eating animals. They also developed Shaolin Kung Fu, a martial art that enabled them to kill with their bare hands and laid the groundwork for basically all eastern martial arts thereafter. What’s more, the full spectrum of the Shaolin martial arts system includes fighting with weapons. The “Buddhist warrior” is actually a thing, and it always has been. I’m not saying that ALL Buddhists are warriors. I’m just saying that warriors in the ranks of Buddhists have existed for ages, at least as long as there have been temples to protect. Long before Bruce Lee, there were the Shaolin Buddhist soldier monks.

Hard to believe that there’s a history of martial arts bad-assery in Buddhism, right?

Enough about me and my background. Returning to American Sniper, I want to talk about the “problem” of the veracity of (every detail of) Chris Kyle’s story. He apparently made some claims in his book that aren’t true. In my opinion, just from my perspective as a literature major, this is normal. Biography/autobiography/memoir/creative non-fiction and, loosely, historical fiction all rely on facts and factual events for the backbone of the stories within, but there’s usually good reason and/or artistic justification for alteration or invention in some places, and authors take this kind of creative liberty all the time.

Take, for example, a staple of children’s literature well-known and loved by most Americans. The Nellie Olson character in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House” series of books didn’t actually exist… she was an amalgamation of two real-life figures from her childhood. Because Laura Ingalls Wilder also altered the chronology of her family’s travels (reportedly for the sake of simplicity), she took two classmates from two of her schools in two different geographical locations and blended them together to create the one insufferable character we know as “Nellie Olson.” (The real Nellie Olson was one of the two classmates Laura Ingalls Wilder used to create the fictitious one.)

This is a well-documented fact, and yet I’ve never heard anyone say that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s stories are meaningless because she “made up” the character or “lied” about the trajectory of her family’s pioneering path, nor have I heard of anyone calling her out on any of the other half-truths, embellishments or omissions that resulted for artistic purposes. I never heard anyone say that because of all this, Laura Ingalls Wilder is not to be trusted or believed, and that the attention paid to her stories is undeserved. I never heard anyone say that the worth of other art based on the books she co-wrote about her life – namely, the world-famous Little House on the Prairie television series – was invalidated by her “lies.” I never heard anyone complain that the T.V. show was “mendacious” because Laura Ingalls Wilder changed some things, omitted things, and flat-out made other stuff up.

We know that she did these things, but we still accept her work as autobiographical. That which wasn’t real didn’t cancel out all that was real. Her story is still her story, and Chris Kyle’s story is still Chris Kyle’s story, and just because Laura Ingalls Wilder’s tone was demure and so many people dig stories about pioneer life more than they dig stories about soldiering life doesn’t mean that by majority opinion, we can have a double standard. If we’re going to call Chris Kyle a liar, then we’re going to have to call Laura Ingalls Wilder a liar for the exact same reasons, and we don’t want to do that, now, do we?

And while we’re on the subject, let’s think for a moment of how Laura Ingalls Wilder “glorified” and “romanticized” how her Pa decided to drag the family into Indian Territory and knowingly illegally squat on the Native Americans’ land, and how Laura Ingalls Wilder plainly recounted her parents’ racist attitudes and sentiments regarding the “savages” (sound familiar?) – have you ever heard anyone lambasting her for this dubious aspect of their “courageous” pioneer life? Neither have I. Needless to say, the storylines in the television series’ episodes conveniently omit any mention or reference to this part of the Ingalls’ “adventures.” Most everyone still loves the show.

But people are sure enjoying harping on Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper for “glorifying” and “romanticizing” the darker sides of Chris Kyle and his story.

Finally, I want to say that it’s interesting how the people shouting the loudest about how Chris Kyle was a lying psychopath (and no hero at all) are the ones who never spent a day in his or any other soldier’s boots. Now, I didn’t know Chris Kyle. I didn’t know him before, during or after his service, nor am I a psychiatrist. For all I know, he could have been a psychopath or a sociopath or whatever other -path you want to call him… but I don’t care. I don’t care if Chris Kyle was the kind of guy who’d help an old lady cross the street, or the kind of guy who’d push an old lady off a cliff. Because what I do know is that combat military training and circumstances change you in ways that civilians can’t even begin to fathom. What you were before is rendered nearly irrelevant. Even emerging from regular old Army basic training (Chris Kyle underwent Navy S.E.A.L. training, which is much more intense), you’re different than you were before you went in.

In basic training, you’re broken down from the inside out, with the whole point being to re-build you into something you probably weren’t before you went in: a killing machine that can be set into action when the circumstances call for it. The mental and physical conditioning you undergo in order to serve in combat is complete. I’m talking about the average person here. Now imagine that instead of being an average person, you were already an expert shot accustomed to taking lives (as a hunter)… and imagine, too, that your military occupational specialty is killing.

Someone’s got to do it, guys. The military is an establishment in which there’s a need for many roles, just like in civilian society, and while all soldiers are required to be conditioned in the basics, everyone has to choose an occupational specialty. Some soldiers are cooks. Others are band musicians. Others work in supply. There are the tankers, the ammo soldiers, the administration office-working soldiers, the morgue soldiers and the medics and the mechanics and the military cops and the JAG (legal) corps and the signal corps, the soldiers responsible for ensuring communications in the field (what I did – my 31K occupational title was “Combat Signaler.”) And so on, and so forth… and then you have the soldiers whose specialty is killing. These are the infantry, the “grunts.”

Regardless of your occupational specialty, though, all soldiers function the same way in combat zones, and again, to reiterate, this is what basic training is for. When thrown into a combat situation, the conditioning deep inside you surfaces, enabling you to automatically act according to the situation, and I’m sorry, but combat situations don’t usually involve making butter, choosing fabric for dresses, or embroidering. Pa Ingalls is not going to bust out his fiddle at the end of the day and make everyone laugh merrily as they sing along to his folksy songs.

When I was 18, I went to basic training and came out different than I was before, because that is what basic training is designed to do. Not only are you different, but you’re also no longer your own person. You become government property, calibrated to respond and operate on a situational basis. The minute you raise your hand and take that oath, the Constitution you’re charged to protect no longer even applies to you. You opt out of those rights in order to protect them. It’s the Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for you!

A day or two before Christmas 1990, we were out there in the vast, cold and empty Saudi Arabian desert when we were told that Sadam Hussein had threatened an attack as a “Christmas present” for the Americans lying in wait, meaning, us. We went into high alert for an indefinite period of time. I remember my 22nd birthday very well. I spent the entire day in a foxhole in the biting cold, suited up in MOPP 4 (head to toe chemical protection gear) with a full bandolier of ammo strapped around my chest and my M-16 at the ready, and again, I came out different than I was before, because that’s what happens when you spend hours on end with every cell and nerve of your being waiting to either kill or get killed. Just being in that situation day after day changes you. Even if “nothing happens,” you can’t ever be the same again.

A few weeks later, the ground war started, and we switched gear from alert to action. We convoyed out of Saudi Arabia to follow the front line through Iraq, destination Kuwait. We were a ground ambulance convoy in our Cut-V’s and Hum-V’s, and we saw and dealt with everything you’d expect to encounter on a battlefield. Then we were ambushed. There were Iraqi snipers. There were detonating landmines. There were casualties. Afterward, there were smoke grenades and medevac helicopters. I’m not going to go into the details of what I did and saw, but you can bet that again, I was a different person by the end of it.

Now, take my modest little combat experience and quadruple it and give it another hefty boost for increased severity. Chris Kyle couldn’t possibly have ended up being the same person he’d been before any of his four tours of combat duty, whatever that may have been. He killed people, as we were all prepared to do, as Navy S.E.A.L.S. were expected to do, and I would venture to guess that he saved many more people than he killed. Whether I “agreed” with the Iraq War or not, I’m grateful to Chris Kyle for his service, and for the service of all men and women in uniform in all the branches of the Armed Forces, regardless of the conflict or the reason for it or behind it, or the duration or severity of it, or the number of times they deployed, or my opinion of it or your opinion of it or anyone’s opinion of it, or anything else.

I’d like to think that if I never lived the experience of being broken down and built back up to human war-machine specs, if I never set foot in a combat zone, if I never mentally prepared to suffer and die under chemical attack or by gunfire or other ordnance, if I never swallowed 12 mysterious pills a day “in case of chemical attack”… if I never lived a day of my life serving my country… I would recognize that I’m not in a position to judge Chris Kyle.

Like him or not, Chris Kyle was a hero. As far as I’m concerned, everyone who voluntarily raises their hand and swears away their own constitutional rights in order to protect yours is a hero, whatever else they may be, and whether they go to war or not. To try to posthumously shame Chris Kyle for being the lying asshole he maybe was is to miss the point of American Sniper. Deriding Eastwood and Cooper for taking part in “glorifying” anything is also an exercise in missing the point.

Aside from all of this, what’s really important here, of course, is that we found American Sniper to be a great piece of cinematic art in and of itself. Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper did a damn fine job, along with everyone else who put their energies into the making of the film. I’m saying this, and I don’t even like war movies!

So, American Sniper? We recommend it. It’s not easy to watch, and I wouldn’t necessarily call it “enjoyable,” but it’s an amazing film.

On that (hopefully cheerier) note, Happy Friday, All!

(Here are some photos I took in the war):

 

The first Hum-V ambulances....

The first Hum-V ambulances….

 

Random tank in Iraq

Random tank in Iraq

 

After the ambush, we continued on without stopping to sleep. This is what Kuwait looked like as we approached it.

After the ambush, we continued on without stopping to sleep. This is what Kuwait looked like as we approached it.

 

As we moved through Kuwait, children came running out from nowhere to greet us, happy and excited

As we moved through Kuwait, children came running out from nowhere to greet us, happy and excited

 

After the ground war in January 1991, this was mostly my view until we left in May.

After the ground war in January 1991, this was mostly my view until we left in May.

 

Thanks for scanning them, Callaghan!