MovieChat Forums > Get Carter (1971) Discussion > Michael Caine's Jack Carter - hero, vill...

Michael Caine's Jack Carter - hero, villain or anti-hero in this movie?


I would more or less go with anti-hero, agree?

reply

Yes. As far as I am aware a hero will do the right thing and try and be decent about it. Whereas an anti hero will try and ultimately do the right thing (in this case avenge his law abiding, murdered brother). Sod who gets in the way though, whether they are guilty (Eric and Peter the Dutchman), only partly involved (Margaret) or completely innocent (the two people in the car which Cliff Brumby lands on).

reply

Yes, definitely an anti-hero. We root for him in this particular circumstance, but at the end of the day he's still a gangland killer. We might want him to win here, but we wouldn't want to spend time in his company or his world.

reply

I think they went to great lengths to portray him as an anti-hero that even the audience wouldn't root for. And they succeeded. Which is why this movie is so good

reply

Yeah, Get Carter is a bleak movie which I think does a great job of making gangsterism look ugly.

I heard Caine did the film as a response to The Italian Job, which makes gangland schemes look like cheeky, sexy fun.

reply

In this film, the main character is definitely a villain, through and through. He's ruthless, and dosen't care about anybody but himself, and dosen't care how much damage he causes while he goes scorched earth on whomever he finds out was involved with his brother's murder. So what happened to him at the end was pretty inevitable, given who he was, and what he did for a loving.

reply

"and what he did for a loving"
You mean "for a living"?

reply

He killed Margaret and also indirectly caused the deaths of a few totally unrelated innocent people.

And also, did he even need to kill that man who yelled that "He didn't kill his brother" only for him to yell back "I know you didn't kill him!" but proceed to stab him to death all the same?

reply

Exactly.

reply

Anti-hero. Some good posts here.

reply

As Carter himself says to a woman, about his brother, "I was always the villain in this family."

We are rooting for Carter to get everybody he needs to for revenge -- zeroing in ultimately on Eric after Brumby and Albert(who seems a poor, innocent soul right before Carter viciously kills him by knife after implying he would let him survive if he gave up information but hey -- Albert WAS in that porn film with Carter's niece.)

But in his villainy -- along the way we watch him semi-drown and manhandle one woman (who dies in the car trunk he put her in when the car is pushed by others into the reiver) and force another woman to strip before pinning her down and injecting her with a lethal overdose.

In those actions, Carter abandons being an "anti-hero"(which allows for SOME decency and heroics) and becomes very muc a villain who we watch in full knowledge that he is an evil man at heart, a ruthless killer and probably a psychopath.

Interesting: Get Carter came out in 1971. Also in 1971, Alfred Hitchcock offered Michael Caine the lead in his proposed movie "Frenzy." Hitchcock was offering Caine a "psycho role" ala Anthony Perkins in Psycho, but this one was R-rated: a modern-day London-based psychopath who rapes women and then strangles them to death with a necktie. Caine wrote in one of his autobiographies "I didn't want to be associated with that part." Fair enough, but in Get Carter we see glimpses of how Caine would have played the "Frenzy" psycho in how he mandhandles and kills women. I suppose the difference in Frenzy is that the female victims are innocent and arbitrary. The women Caine kills in Get Carter are complicit and tied to the mob.

Some years after turning down ?Frenzy" -- when when his career was ridding with flops -- Caine would take a coupla of psycho ladykiller parts....

reply

Well put. What he did to Margaret (the one whom he injects with a heroin overdose) I found particularly evil. The way that he kidnaps her and almost casually keeps her captive for what must have been an hour or more (she must have been terrified during that time), even stopping to make a phone call on the way to where he is going to murder her. Then he quite calmly and almost casually injects her with that drugs overdose as if he is just carrying out an everyday chore (to me certainly the act of a psychopath).
Any sympathy which I might have had for him evaporated after that.

reply

What he did to Margaret (the one whom he injects with a heroin overdose) I found particularly evil. The way that he kidnaps her and almost casually keeps her captive for what must have been an hour or more (she must have been terrified during that time), even stopping to make a phone call on the way to where he is going to murder her. Then he quite calmly and almost casually injects her with that drugs overdose as if he is just carrying out an everyday chore (to me certainly the act of a psychopath).
Any sympathy which I might have had for him evaporated after that

---

And he also forces her to strip down -- to underwear -- another outrage.

Earlier in the film when he only had SUSPICIONS about her involvement in his brother's death, he grabbed her and got physical with her too (slapped her? I can't remember.)

"Any sympathy which I might have held for him evaporated after that."

Me, too. But I suppose the film was showing that being a woman did NOT save either Margaret or the one he half-drowns in her bathtub "when his rage was on." He attacked them with the same fury or cold murderousness that he did the men.

So...hero. No. Villain. Yes -- in his trade as a gangster and towards the women. Anti-hero -- oh, I suppose we all enjoyed the brutal spectacle of watching him mete out deadly punishment to the MEN.

By way of comparison, look at how "cleaned up and chivalrous" Sly Stallone plays Carter in the Americanized remake.

PS. Given his scene killing Margaret, I really don't see how Michael Caine saw the psycho sex killer in Frenzy as all that worse...

reply

Funny how Caine didn't want to be associated with Frenzy but went on to make Blame it on Rio

I think they all got what they deserved personally. Margaret was the one who directly set up Dory for the porno. And then after tried to distance herself from her saying she's nothing to do with her. It's stated by Jack that Margaret was effectively her mother ever since her real one ran off.

So she pimped her out causing a chain of events that led to her Fathers death and then removes herself of any blame and is then galivanting around town with her sunglasses on without a care in the world like nothing happened .
I know they like to push the narrative in films that by taking justice into your own hands you become like the monsters that did the crime against you but honestly fuck all that that's over intellectualizing the problem it's an eye for an eye all you have to remember is imagine it was your daughter then picture Margaret swanning around in those fucking sunglasses

reply

Funny how Caine didn't want to be associated with Frenzy but went on to make Blame it on Rio

---

Uh..interersting thought. I HAVE found it interesting that after turning down Frenzy in 1972, he appeared(SPOILERS) 8 years later as a trans psychopath in Brian DePalma's Dressed to Kill and committed the horrific bloody straight razor killing of Angie Dickinson and was later shown STRANGLING a nurse(the Frenzy killer was a strangler.) But Caine's career was "hot" when he turned down Frenzy and "cold" when he took Dressed to Kill(Caine wrote that this movie saved him after four flops in a row --"five and you are out."

But then the Frenzy killer raped his female victims first...neither Carter nor the Dressed to Kill psycho were rapists.

Which brings us to Blame it On Rio. No villainy there, no murder, no rape. But -- yes -- consensual sex with an underage (or was she?) girl with enormous breasts(his daughter's friend which suggested incest.) The movie seemed to suggest that the aggressively "wanting it" sexual teenager was "disturbed," but -- c'mon -- as male fantasies went, it was a major one.

Oh, well, its a long, long, LONG movie career Michael Caine had...he played all sorts of people, good, bad, horrendous...

CONT

reply

I think they all got what they deserved personally.

---

Well, the movie is pretty rough in saying that, from Carter's view, men AND women were equally deserving of his wrath and of getting killed by him. The one woman's death -- drowning in the trunk of the car -- was not intentional on Carter's part -- we don't really know WHAT he would have done with her had the story continued with her. But he certainly was brutal to her from the moment he saw the porno with his "niece."

A spectacular scene,that. Caine's great acting summons up his hypocrisy and self-loathing. He KNOWS of all the women used for sex in the criminal world; its only when it is HIS niece/daughter that the rampage begins. (Indeed, the movie suggests that, in the criminal world, the men are used for violence -- killings, beatings -- and the women for sex.)

-- Margaret was the one who directly set up Dory for the porno. And then after tried to distance herself from her saying she's nothing to do with her. It's stated by Jack that Margaret was effectively her mother ever since her real one ran off.

So she pimped her out causing a chain of events that led to her Fathers death and then removes herself of any blame and is then galivanting around town with her sunglasses on without a care in the world like nothing happened .

---

Yes. One interesting thing about the "bad guys and bad girls" in this story is that they seem to have simply NOT FACTORED IN, that in killing Carter's brother...he would come. Only as the story moves along do you see them realize the mistake they made. A BIG one.

---
CONT

reply

I know they like to push the narrative in films that by taking justice into your own hands you become like the monsters that did the crime against you

---

I'e never liked revenge stories with that "moral at the end." If you want to make a revenge movie -- make the revenge SWEET, I say. Justifable. Satisfying.

Carter seems quite pleased with himself at the end...before the twist ending. At least he completed his mission!

reply

Carter seems quite pleased with himself at the end...before the twist ending. At least he completed his mission!

lol yes he does. Remember in the book Carter lives but the film makers deliberately changed it so that he suffers some form of punishment because they wanted to throw in that moral that violent retribution can't be rewarded.

I do still like the ending it's tragic it's a brilliant film overall i wouldn't change a thing but i can see what they did there and i don't personally agree with it. Nor do most i think.

Wow i didn't catch that hinted incest aspect of Blame it on Rio i switched it off half way through but i was actually going to mention while seeing Caine in this role disturbed me the other father creeped me out way way more he was sleezier

reply

Carter seems quite pleased with himself at the end...before the twist ending. At least he completed his mission!

lol yes he does. Remember in the book Carter lives but the film makers deliberately changed it so that he suffers some form of punishment because they wanted to throw in that moral that violent retribution can't be rewarded.

---

I have not read the book and I did not know that he lives in that version.

Which would have been problematic, yes? One tough thing we learn in the movie is that Britt Ekland's cheating on her mob boss boyfriend(husband?) has been discovered and that, at a minimum, her beautiful face has been disfigured(the blond henchman yells this out to Carter -- Carter kills him in return.) So there would be no "escape to South America," at least not with Eklund.

Still, I suppose an "alive" Carter could make the run to South America alone and that the London mob wouldn't have the tentacles to track him down. Still -- he couldn't just abandon Eklund, he'd have to go back to save her or confirm her death -- and start revenge killings all over again. (Hey -- a movie sequel if Carter/Caine had lived.)

----

I do still like the ending it's tragic it's a brilliant film overall i wouldn't change a thing but i can see what they did there and i don't personally agree with it. Nor do most i think.

---

One thing I like about the ending(and now we are in SPOILERville so why not announce that) is that rather than "coming out of nowhere," the sniper is actually SHARING THE TRAIN car with Carter when Carter goes north in the opening scenes. So the mob sent this sniper to "keep tabs" on Carter as soon as he set out on his quest.

Much later in the film, as Carter's mission gets closer to killing everybody,, Northcastle mob boss John Osborne is seen calling the sniper(who we don't KNOW is a sniper) and so we are made MORE aware of this guy so that when he finally DOES shoot Carter...we understand who he is.

CONT

reply

This business with the sniper raises questions that I think are best answered with a solid guess:

Once Carter announced to his London mob bosses that he was going up to Northcastle, they assigned the sniper to ride the same train and 'tail" Carter all through the movie(though we never see this happen.) Perhaps the London bosses were OK with Carter investigating things and even killing some people "to keep their top employee happy."

But as Carter pushed harder against the Big Boss Osborne, Osborne likely got the go-ahead to set the sniper on Carter to kill him and end this.

What Big Boss Osborne DID NOT know was that Carter had already set him up for the drug overdose woman on his property and EVERYBODY getting busted -- even after Osborne had give the sniper the go-ahead to kill Carter.

Thus, Carter's mission TOTALLY succeeded -- he killed most of his foes and got everybody else arrested -- even as Carter died in the process.

CONT

reply

Wow i didn't catch that hinted incest aspect of Blame it on Rio i switched it off half way through but i was actually going to mention while seeing Caine in this role disturbed me the other father creeped me out way way more he was sleezier

---

Its been a long time since I saw Blame it on Rio, but I do recall that the other father was played by American New York actor Joe Bologna, who made a nice contrast to Cockney Caine, but that both Bologna and his daughter(the one who successfully seduces Caine) are a more amoral pair than Caine and HIS daughter -- a young Demi Moore.

Interesting: while the other actress , Michelle Johnson, was quite willing to show off her breasts in a couple of scenes(but hardly all the time), Demi Moore, even as a "new young actress," kept her breasts covered in topless scenes via her long hair over them. Moore was staking out, perhaps, a bigger career ahead while the other gal was hired over a willingness to "show what she had."

Which brings me to a couple of points:

"Blame it on Rio" would have been pretty much banished to obscurity had it not been directed by Stanley Donen, a once-major director who co-directed Singin' in the Rain and directed the thrillers Charade and Arabesque , and the Audrey Hepburn-Albert Finney love story Two for the Road.

With DONEN at the helm of Blame it on Rio, the film's "sexual sex farce" had to be taken more seriously and it got hit even harder.

But hey: the film was an American remake of a French film, and Donen and his then-wife, the younger and very sexy Yvette Mimeux, saw that film, and as a COUPLE believed it should be remade for an American studio. In other words, this was the kind of "adult and sophisticated sex material"(they thought) that might transfer well to American audiences. It didn't.

CONT

reply

I dunno. There was no getting around that for male audiences, the early sequences of the naked and voluptuous teenage girl(still 17 when she filmed this) seducing the middle-aged man was: a sex fantasy had by many men. Just as there have been movies about older women being seduced by very young men.

In short, I couldn't quite clutch my pearls over "Blame It on Rio" and yeah, the early stuff with Caine and Michelle Johnson was sexy. And that's it as far as that movie goes for me.I think Caine said he took the movie for the trip to Rio and the beach.

(For a French film about REAL incest with a more serious, well-reviewed cachet, there's always Murmur of the Heart -- sexy mother, innocent son.)

reply

Yeah the sniper being on the train say's the London mob were preparing for potential action from the get go and your angle of doing their dirty work and culling the Northern mob makes sense.

I was on the line of were they potentially worried about Jack finding out about their potential involvement. Less likely but the fact the film starts with them watching a porn film and the tart in the mansion mentioning she knows them really well they come up all the time ect made me think they knew more than we assumed and that Jack was maybe doomed from the get go

What i love about this film though it's one of those where you know the expression show don't tell? well they don't really show you everything or tell you everything it's a lot of half conversations here and there you have to piece together to see what the timeline was and who the players were

I guess you could class this a a noir

reply

Anti-hero for sure but a very compelling one imo.

reply