Skip to main content

I’m going to sit in the car and whistle Rule Britannia.

Get Carter
(1971)

(SPOILERS) Inspiration to a generation of pretenders, the likes of the Ritchies and Vaughns. It’s curious to see Get Carter’s Wiki-page suggesting its reappraisal as a classic was down to the likes of of these two and Tarantino, as I recall it being held in esteem before that. I think the real distinction comes in the shift in its reception; before their input, it was regarded as respectable but nasty, and the latter took the most emphasis. After the revellers in nu-gangster violence were through, Get Carter became nasty but cool, the latter taking the most emphasis.

And there is a coolness here, in the stark, grim Newcastle location and the haunting twilight jazz psychedelia of Roy Budd’s (actually very sparsely used, but the soundtrack album is a must) maximum harpsichord score. And Caine, with his 70s overgrowth of hair and three-piece suits, strutting through the milieu and paying deference to anyone. Mostly, the coolness is in Caine’s Carter, unapologetic and unswerving in his mission.

It’s dangerous to use the word authentic in reference to movies – Caine recites how an underworld associate suggested the film was “a load of crap” because Carter had no family, emphasising a life of worrying about the kids’ chicken pox – but Carter’s iconography isn’t based in the movie-referencing gangsterism and self-conscious stylistic and soundtrack choices of the generation it influenced. It’s pared ruthlessness gives it its stark power, and anything stylish is dampened by a seedy, sleazy, claustrophobic gloom (and sense of doom). Hodges and cinematographer Wolfgang Suschitzky favour long lenses and an unflattering, documentary look. There’s no sense of indulgence, rather one of unremitting bleakness, no matter how pockmarked it is with moments of humour (and it’s a very, very droll film, not least in Ian Hendry’s Eric Paice, reciting the mantra “Not lost your sense of humour, Jack” whenever they cross paths).

Alex Cox’s first comment in his introduction was “Get Carter is a nasty British gangster film”. Caine suggests they were previously all “stupid, silly or funny”. Forgetting Brighton Rock, evidently (Cox doesn’t). Cox also gets to the nub of the lead character, noting Caine is “really good as the fastidious brute… He’s an evil man; the only difference between him and his adversaries is that they are not as self-righteous as he”. Or as charismatic: we need Hodges there, not pulling his punches and letting Carter survive, as Carter’s victorious grin on putting paid to Eric is infectious. Pauline Kael recognised this, praising/squirming at its “sadism-for-the-connoisseur formula” and suggesting it was “so calculatedly cool and soulless and nastily erotic that it seems to belong to a new genre of virtuoso viciousness”.

Certainly, the picture’s rise in reputation has seen it become one of the quotable Caine roles – a crime that such a fate isn’t reserved for The Man Who Would Be King. With lines like “You’re a big man, but you’re in bad shape” and "You know, I’d almost forgotten what your eyes looked like. Still the same. Like pissholes in the snow”, and his request for a pint “... in a thin glass”, it effortlessly joins the ranks of The Italian Job.

The escalation of violence, when it comes, following Carter just doing the rounds, is particularly striking. He repeatedly knifes a pleading Albert Swift (Glynn Edwards of Minder fame) with a ferociously snarling “I know you didn’t kill him! I know!”. Then there’s his shooting of Peter the Dutchman (Tony "Harrison Chase/ Camp Freddy" Beckley) and the darkly humorous moment of looking impassively on as Glenda’s car is forced into the harbour; Glenda (Geraldine Moffat) is locked in the boot. And throwing Cliff Brumbly (Bryan Mosley) off a multi-storey carpark. Followed by giving Margaret (Dorothy White) an overdose and placing her body on Kinnear’s (John Osborne) estate. All as a prelude to killing Eric, and then being dispatched himself.

Carter has been compared to a Jacobean revenge tragedy., which structurally it is, but it would be misleading to lend it the characteristic of a tragedy. There’s no introspection on Carter’s part. He’s more like a machine, betraying no humanity or feeling (never have his heavy-lidded eyes been used to more serpentine effect), except in that brief moment where he sees the porn film (the moment is unreadable in a more expansive sense, given what we have just heard about his possibly being the father of Doreen (Petra Markham), and all that tells us about his relationship with brother Frank).

There isn’t a bum note in the supporting cast – even Britt Ekland is shrewdly utilised (featuring in an amusingly twisted phone sex scene, where much of the focus is on eavesdropping landlady Rosemarie Dunham in her rocking chair). Ian Hendry, a long way from his peak fame The Avengers role and suffering from declining health and alcoholism, has been noted as antagonistic towards Caine’s upward streak – he was Hodges original choice for the lead – but his sour sarcasm serves the part perfectly (“What are you doing? Advertising Martini?” mocks Carter of Eric’s chauffeur outfit). It rightly garnered the actor a BAFTA supporting actor nomination.

Osborne is similarly superb casting, exuding, as Caine noted, “the calmness of the truly powerful”. Mosley is in the kind of part you could imagine played by Peter Kay today, in over his head with actual hardmen and shown having to deal with the kind of domestic hassles Caine’s aforementioned critic harped on about (shutting down his daughter’s party and complaining about an attendee “Spewing all over my bloody goldfish”). There are further fine turns from George Sewell, Beckley, Bernard Hepton (as oozing coward Thorpey) and Alun Armstrong (“Frank said you were a shit and he was bloody well right!”) Terence Rigby and John Bindon are in the first scene as Kray types, and Bindon of course had his own very public crime world links.

Hodges, making his first film (it is, sadly, one of those examples of his first being by far his best) adapted Ted Lewis’ 1970 novel Jack’s Return Home. He brings the discerning eye of someone who has worked in documentaries (World in Action), but also considerable creativity to bear. The further he moved from the down-to-earth, the less effective his work became (Morons from Outer Space, the much-loved but not all it might have been Flash Gordon). I don’t know how much I buy the entirely upright police aspect, whereby Carter’s plan entails their being in no one’s pocket (the Vice Squad, at any rate). Some report that the Blu-ray release has the redubbed opening dialogue (for the US release) corrected, but my copy isn’t (fortunately, I kept hold of my DVD). For anyone seeing that version, though, it isn’t as awful as is made out, just clumsy. Nothing about the rest of the film could be labelled as such. Get Carter is the peak of its genre.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.