Thu 20 Nov 2014
TED LEWIS – Get Carter. Syndicate Books/Soho Crime, US, softcover, 2014. First published in the UK as Jack’s Return Home, Michael Joseph, hardcover, 1970. First US edition: Doubleday, hardcover, 1970. Reprinted as Get Carter by Pan, UK. paperback, 1971; Popular Library, US, paperback, 1971. Other reprint editions exist. Film: MGM, 1970, as Get Carter (with Michael Caine). Also: MGM, 1972, as Hit Man (with Bernie Casey) and Warner Bros., 2000, as Get Carter (with Sylvester Stallone).
This is what you might call a “revenge” novel, and that’s with a vengeance, if that’s not redundant, and I don’t think it is. As the story begins, Jack Carter, who works for a pair of mobsters back in London, is heading back to his steel-working home town in northern England (no name given, as far I have discerned), where his brother Frank has just died, supposedly in a drink-related automobile accident.
Jack, who tells his own story, knows better. He knows his brother, and he knows the men who run the town, better perhaps than they know themselves. Someone is going to pay, and before the book is over, pay they do.
It does not matter that he and his brother never got along. That Frank’s daughter Doreen, now 15, may really be Jack’s has something to with that, and as a result, Doreen may have grown up way too fast. Also occupying Jack’s mind is that back in London, he has been sleeping with one of his boss’s wives, and once this bit of business is done, is planning to hie off to South Africa with her. He’s a tough nervy bloke, Jack is.
I’ve not seen any of the movies based on this book, a serious error on my part, but I’ll remedy that as soon as I can, starting with the Michael Caine version. You can tell me in the comments whether the other two are worth tracking down.
But whether any of these movie versions can match the intensity, brutality and bursts of mayhem of the novel, I’m not so sure. Also involved are child pornography, cheap sex and a surprisingly careless viciousness toward women.
What you also get is a gritty picture of the working underclass of a small but typical mill town in England circa 1970, when this book first ppeared. The prose reminded me at times of Chandler, while the story is as hard-boiled as anything Hammett might have written. There are not a lot of survivors at book’s end. Jack Carter is cool, cruel and efficient at what he does, and he does a thorough job of it.
But surprisingly enough, it is the ending itself which is the most disappointing, or such is how I found it. The last two pages nearly undo what should have been one crackup of a finale, marred by a bit of near deus ex machina — almost but not quite. It’s still a doozy, but unless I missed something, it should have been better.
Note: By the time this one ends, you might think that this would have been strictly a solo appearance for Jack Carter, but no, he returned in two more novels: Jack Carter’s Law (1974), and Jack Carter and the Mafia Pigeon (1977), both also recently published in the US by Syndicate Books. Ted Lewis (no relation) died in 1982 at the very young age of 42.
November 20th, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Find and see the Michael Caine film ASAP, as for the other two, once you have seen a perfect version of a story why see two flawed versions? I’m assuming that like me you weren’t all that impressed with James Cagney’s version of THIS GUN FOR HIRE or the Sidney Poiter version of ODD MAN OUT.
There are good remakes of course, but the two of this film aren’t worth the effort.
It’s a tough great British hard boiled novel that defined that genre in England. The movie though is a classic and no need to worry about sequels.
Michael Caine is a revelation in this considering we had previously seen him in ZULU and ALFIE. Nothing in those showed that he had a character like Jack Carter in him.
You mentioned Chandler and Hammett, but the book this most reminded me of was Paul Cain’s FAST ONE. The cool headed and lethal Carter reminded me of Kells, though with a shade more depth deftly sketched in between the lines.
The movie is better than the book, but only because there is no way to recreate Caine’s performance in print.
November 21st, 2014 at 4:00 am
Definitely a latter-day classic,from a time when the hard-boiled PI had been superseded by the smooth spy, and before tough/gritty came back into fashion.
November 21st, 2014 at 12:30 pm
David
I’m sure I have the Caine version on DVD. I’ll check as soon as I get home. If not, it doesn’t look as though it will be difficult to get a copy.
As a big fan of Michael Caine ever since seeing him in ALFIE when it first out, then all of the Harry Palmer films, which I thought much better than the James Bond movies, I don’t know why I let this one slip by.
As for Paul Cain, I see I left out a small phrase in my review. I meant to say:
“The prose reminded me at times of Chandler, while the story is as hard-boiled as anything Hammett might have written, with the pacing of a Paul Cain novel.”
The recent paperback edition has a foreword by Mike Hodges, the director of the movie. he describes some of the changes he made in filming the book, but I only skimmed it, deciding to wait until I’d seen film, assuming it would mean more to me then.
November 21st, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Steve
If you liked THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY NIGHT or MONA LISA I think you’ll really enjoy this film. Without being brutal or sadistic for the sake of exploiting those things it is seductively violent and Caine walks a fine line because he allows you to identify with Carter just enough to draw you in, but he keeps Carter a bit remote and never makes him into an admirable or really sympathetic character. He is only just better than the men he is fighting. It’s not unlike Lee Marvin’s performance in POINT BLANK save Caine lacks the sociopathic loner vibe Marvin gives Parker. Carter is a slick operator, but by no means a force of nature.
Caine’s Carter can get hurt, he’s smart, tough, and criminal, but on a realistic level. He is not one of those monolithic avenger’s of near inhuman anger and wrath. He’s playing a sort of private eye seeking a truth he doesn’t entirely want to know but unable to let go of the need for revenge.
Like ALFIE it is a remarkably self assured performance, and considering the milieu is so similar his Carter is nothing like Alfie was.
I’m not sure you can really compare the Bond and Harry Palmer films despite Harry Saltzman’s participation in both as a producer. The Palmer films actually are spy movies while FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is the only actual spy mission Bond takes on until FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and the Craig films. Bond is a commando/policeman, Palmer is a low level field operative on a civil service salary Bond has an Aston Martin, Harry needs a raise so he won’t have to ride the underground or bus.
Bond is Philip Marlowe or Sam Spade, Harry is the Op.
But I was truly impressed with the first two Palmer films though Ken Russell’s BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN takes a little getting comfortable with.
November 21st, 2014 at 10:07 pm
HIT MAN is ok — not particularly well acted or directed, but the early 70s blacksploitation funk is thick and juicy enough to cut with a knife, and Pam Grier is eye-popping. Don’t waste your time with the Stallone movie, one of the worst ever made. The original GET CARTER is my pick as one of the three best crime films of the Vietnam era, the others being POINT BLANK and HARPER.
November 22nd, 2014 at 2:10 pm
I agree with your other two choices. Both are terrific. GET CARTER is now high on my “must see” list, but it will have to wait till I’m home. I’ll be here in LA for the next few days.