Re: RARA-AVIS: Get Carter

From: Etienne Borgers (
Date: 09 Oct 2000

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 Polar Noir

--- Dick Lochte <> 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!

# To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
#  This will not work for the digest version.
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Oct 2000 EDT