I cannot speak of the "new" GET CARTER, but, after what is
reflected in this thread, I think I can easily wait to see it
until one of those cable companies will grind it for the
tube! Or maybe in a plane...
The "old" GET CARTER: (1971)- UK
Script by Hodges himself, from Ted Lewis' novel.
What you take as flat is maybe the result of two things: not
a full scale, nor complete, image(?) (as usual for TV), and
the way Hodges tried to treat the film, as a kind of
"realistic" thriller, keeping exaggerated effects to a
minimum. I have not the memory of a pedestrian filming for
this one... but last time I saw it was approx 4 years ago.
But I keep the memory of a very good HB film.
Sex sequences: you are right, they were daring for the time
considering the film was targeting a "general" audience. But
in Europe at the time, more realistic sex sequences were
rather current in other kinds of film (since the mid of the
sixties). To the point that films exported to the USA (in
those days that was existing)were amputated of the "hot" sex
footage. During the seventies Hollywood losing grounds
(read markets) did special versions of its films for Europe,
wherein love scenes were extended to more steamy exercises
than what the American public was authorized to see...
I do not know for films, but for writing material, a title
cannot be copyrighted... So maybe this explains the title of
the US version? And GET CARTER had a rather good reputation
as a film. Instant marketing?
E.Borgers Hard-Boiled Mysteries http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6384
Polar Noir http://www.geocities.com/polarnoir
--- Dick Lochte <
dlock@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Just caught all but first fifteen minutes of
the
> original "Get Carter" on
> TV. Was surprised by the sex sequences which seem
a
> little ahead of their
> time. The plot was as good as I remembered, and
the
> acting, but I found the
> direction to be a little flat, as opposed to
Hodges'
> "Pulp." Since I didn't
> see the opening, I don't know how the credits
read
> re the screenplay, but
> according to ads for the new version, the
screenplay
> credit suggests that
> the new script was a direct adaptation of the
book,
> rather than the earlier
> script. This is odd since it takes its title
from
> the previous film and not
> from the book.
>
> As to why the book wasn't reissued, it's
possibly
> because the studio, Warner
> Bros., didn't have faith in the film
(Stallone's
> presence notwithstanding).
> They kept it away from the critics. That is,
there
> were no previews. The
> reason for their loss of faith may or may not
have
> had anything to do with
> the quality of the film, or Stallone, or the
book,
> which was probably never
> read by any decision maker. It's
Publishertown,
> Jake.
>
>
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Oct 2000 EDT