The Hollywood effect Production and distribution companies Publicity and marketing Exhibition circumstances Stars Social and political context Censorship Audience research/reviews Intro In this presentation I am going to analyse the differences and similaraties between the British film industry model and the Hollywood film industry model. To do this I am going to use an example of a traditional British film that has been made into a Hollywood remake because of its past success and/or critical acclaim. The Two examples ill be using are is Get Carter 1971 (Caine) and Get Carter 2000 (Stallone) Slide 1 The production company for the original get carter (1971) was MGM an American production company. The film was made by the British arm of the company and at the time they were beginning to close it down because MGM had a lot of financial trouble. When it was made it had a budget of 750,000, but it is unknown whether it was dollars or pounds, and there is still some arguments over it. The main producer was Michael Klinger who purchased the rights to the 1969 novel jack returns home written by Ted Lewis. The original was distributed by MGM and Angelo-EMI films distributors ltd. The original was also distributed by united artists in the US but it was poorly promoted. The original was distributed in countries like the uk usa, south Africa, Belgium france, turkey, spain, Germany and mexico. The production companies for the remake of Get Carter (2000) was a collaboration of several different companies Morgan creek productions, franchise pictures, canton company, epsilon motion pictures, carter productions and warner bros. the two main production companies were Morgan creek productions and franchise pictures. As there were so many companies involved and most were big companies the budget was much higher it had a massive 64 million dollars budget. Their were also a lot of distribution companies involved this was to make sure the film was distributed globally. These companies included, warner bros pictures, warner bros, Cosmopol FD, warner sogefilms A.I.E., herald film company, rialto film AG, warner bros entertainment, eagle films, warner home video, plazavista entertainment, veronica, argentina home video and sandrew metronome distribution sverige AB. These companies distributed across a range of media from vhs and dvd to the cinema. The film was distributed across countries like the USA, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland, japan, Argentina, Germany, france, Netherlands, spain, the middle east and the Netherlands. Slide 2 The marketing of the get carter original was don by MGM and Angelo-EMI films distributors ltd. The producer Michael Klinger also helped with the marketing because of his previous background as a distributor. Michael Klinger oversaw the promotion of the film in the uk. He made sure there was a get carter poster on
every London bus. There were also several different posters made for the get carter original which were created by Arnaldo Putzu. There was one poster with Carter wearing a gaudy floral jacket. The poster also places Carter's shotgun in Eric's hands, and features a grappling man and woman who seem to belong to a different film. The poster also places Carter's shotgun in Eric's hands, and features a grappling man and woman who seem to belong to a different film. There was another poster that showed carter holding a pump action shotgun but in the film carter has a double barrled shotgun. There was another poster that shows carter on the phone holding a pistol. There was a French poster produced shwing the person that killed carter pointing a sniper rifle at carter and above it shows the sight of the sniper rifle. There were so many posters made to promote the film because that was really the only way they could promote the film unless that showed a film trailer which would be rare unless people saw the trailer at the cinema. The Get Carter remake was marketed and promoted by Warner Bros because of how big the company is and how high the budget for the film was the film would have been promoted a lot. Film trailers would of appeared all over tv proably about twice a day on peak times. There was also a poster made for the remake which differs from the original posters quite a bit. The posters were proably show on buses, bus stops and billboards. The trailers were the main way they promoted the film. Slide 3 The exhibition circumstances of the original get carter and remake differed quite substantially because even though they were both exhibited in the cinema the original was never broadcasted nationally on tv until 1986 on a post water shed bbc. It was however broad casted on some other minor channels It was shown in LWT in 1976 and in 1980 where they showed the edited version and once on westward television. The original was not exhibited on vhs until 1993 after warner bros acquired the distribution rights. The film was then reissued on special edition dvd on October 2000. The remake of get carter was released in cinemas on 6 October 2000. Get carter was also exhibited on video in the uk on 24 june 2002. The film get cater would of also been shown on tv. The remake of get carter was released on February 13 2001 us. Slide 4 The stars in the original film were mainly all british actors all with British/ northern accents. That weren’t necessarily big time actors. Where in the americian remake most of the actors were all americian with a few exception and they had bigger actors e.g. stevsta stallone. The main actor in the get carter original was Michael caine who is English born and is from London with a cockney accent who was the biggest star in the original. He wasn’t as big as an actor as now. Where in the remake the main character was stevsta stallone a big shot americian actor that was born in America with an American accent who is really famous. Slide 5 With the original get carter it was received socially as quite shocking to a degree because of the amount of violence, drug taking, and sex scenes in it. People simply just weren’t use to films like that so it a shock to the system so to speak. This was due to a relaxation of censorship. Socially the film highlighted some key issues that had not been previously addressed in this way e.g. drug taking, violence and prostitution/pornography. Politically the film highlighted how the mob underworld worked in places like Newcastle and showed potentially problem with organized
crime getting out of control. The British audience was grudgingly appreciative of the film's technical excellence, but dismayed by the complex plotting, the excessive violence and amorality, in particular Carter's apparent lack of remorse at his actions. Politically there is nothing directly linked to get carter but around that time there was a lot of economic depression and unemployment rose. Caine and Hodges had ambitions to produce a more gritty and realistic portrayal of onscreen violence and criminal behavior in a British film. Caine incorporated his knowledge of real criminal acquaintances into his characterisation of Carter. Hodges and cinematographer Wolfgang Suschitzky drew heavily on their backgrounds in documentary film. This, combined with Hodges' research into the contemporary criminal underworld of Newcastle in particular the onearmed bandit murder. In the remake of Get Carter they changed the setting to Seattle but in the present day they also changed Carter into a New Vegas mob enforcer working in the casinos. Where previous Cater was a London gangster who did some work for some organized mob bosses the Fletchers. They changed Brumby into a loan shark, who was previously some rich business man who aimed all the arcades on the east coast. Kinnear was changed to a wealthy computer mogul who was previously a mob boss. Paice is changed into a local boss, who was previously a chuffer for Kinnear who was an old associate of Caine’s. In the original film Get Carter Get cater is killed by a hit man because he was shot through the head with a sniper rifle but in the original Carter Lives and gets into a car and drives to las vegas. All these factors are changed in the remake so the film can appeal to modern audiences, who have adapted social over the last 30 years since the original. People now a days don’t want to watch a film that is about a small time gangster from Newcastle they want to watch a film about some big shot mob enforcer who just goes around reaping havoc, causing problems and beating people to a pulp who get in their way no matter the consequences. In the original it is more about revenge and bringing his brothers killers to justice but Carter gives them the old style justice where the punishment is death for killing the people he cares about. It is more about treating the killers how they treated his brother. Where with the remake its not even really about revenge sure the people killed Carter’s brother but Carter kills them and beats them to a pulp not for revenge but because he enjoys it the fact that they killed his brother is irrelevant it just gives him a good excuse to do something he would do anyway because he enjoys it. Films like this sell as now a days we care less about the script and are more interesting in seeing big explosions, gun fights and fights to the death which are fast action packed and never stop which is exactly what the remake does except it turned a good film into a pile of s**t. Slide 6 The film didn’t have many censorship issues the only thing that worried the censor was a stabbing scene and in some countries like south Africa a sex scene was edited out. The target audience for the original get carter was mainly adults at first it was rated x then it got changed to an R meaning people under 17 could view it if with an adult. “In the late 1960’s film censorship relaxation, produced an increase in dark, uncompromising films, with many directors pushing the boundaries of acceptability. Get carter was a film they explored this freedom.” Quote from
Wikipedia Get Carter page. There was a 9 minute shorter version that was edited due to censorship in West Germany. In South Africa the phone sex scene with Britt Ekland was edited out due to censorship. The original was rarely shown on TV but when it was shown on the LWT channel in 1976 and 1980 a bowdlerised version was shown that again edited out the phone sex scene. In terms of censorship issues with the remake there wasn’t really any this is mostly because what is deemed socially expectable to be shown on the screen especially to increasingly young audiences has changed over the past 30 years. In films they are rated 15 it is now commonplace to see drug taking, violence, and mild sex scenes as long as it is not glamorised, this is why Get Carter did not face any censorship issues. If you look at the original the sex scene and the stab scene were censored because it wasn’t deemed morally right or acceptable to show these events occurring but because attitudes have changed towards this a lot of scenes similar to these are not censored in modern day. You have to remember that with censorship in films it is controlled by society’s views and morals of what the public feel are acceptable to show so when these boundaries of what is deemed acceptable change in society then censorship changes. Slide 7 Audience Research and reviews for Get Carter The reviews vary widely in terms of the original, compared to the to remake of Get Carter. The remake received mainly negatives reviews where the original received mainly mixed reviews. Get Carter original Reviews and Audience Reactions “Initial UK critical reaction to the film was mixed, with British reviewers grudgingly appreciative of the film's technical excellence, but dismayed by the complex plotting, the excessive violence and amorality, in particular Carter's apparent lack of remorse at his actions. Despite this the film did good business in the UK and produced a respectable profit (exact figures for the gross are not available). Conversely, US critics were generally more enthusiastic and praised the film, but it was poorly promoted in the States by United Artists and languished on the drive in circuit while MGM focused its resources on producing a blaxploitation remake, Hit Man” quoted from Wikipedia Describing the initial critical response to the film, Steve Chibnall wrote "Initial critical vilification or indifference establishes the conditions in which a cult can flourish. Get Carter had to make do with ambivalence." He thought the general stance of British critics "was to admire the film's power and professionalism while condemning its amorality and excessive violence."[101] Geoff Mayer observed that "Mainstream critics at the time were dismayed by the film's complex plotting and Carter's lack of remorse."[102] In Sight and Sound, Tom Milne said the film was well constructed and had good characterisation, but lacked the mystery and charisma of the earlier American crime films it attempted to emulate. He found
Carter's motivations were inconsistent – either being an avenging angel or an “authentic post-permissive anti-hero, revelling in the casual sadism”. In contrast Nigel Andrews found the characters clichéd archetypes of the criminal underworld, such as the “homosexual chauffeur (sic), bloated tycoon, glamorous mistress”, describing the film as “perfunctory."[105] Richard Weaver in Films and Filming praised the realism of the film, describing it as “crime at its most blatant”,[103] [106] whilst George Melly writing in The Observer confessed to vicarious enjoyment of it, but admitted it was "like a bottle of neat gin swallowed before breakfast. It's intoxicating all right, but it'll do you no good." “Steve Chibnall writes that "America was rather more used to hard-boiled storytelling" and that reviewers there were "more prepared than British criticism to treat Get Carter as a serious work", Pauline Kael admiring its "calculated soullessness" and wondering if it signalled a "new genre of virtuoso viciousness." US publication Boxoffice magazine gave a cautiously approving review, describing the film as "nasty, violent and sexy all at once." They predicted that "It should please in the action market, but won't win any laurels for Caine although his portrayal of the vicious anti-hero impresses." They also thought that "Tighter editing would help considerably." Roger Ebert was less reserved in his praise, writing that "The movie has a sure touch." He noted the "proletarian detail" of the film which is "unusual in a British detective movie. Usually we get all flash and no humanity, lots of fancy camera tricks but no feel for the criminal strata of society."[112] Of Caine's performance he wrote, "The character created by Caine is particularly interesting. He's tough and ruthless, but very quiet and charged with a terrible irony." Judith Crist in New York Magazine gave a glowing review, saying "Michael Caine is superb, suave and sexy" and describing the film as "a hard, mean and satisfying zinger of the old tough-tec school done in frank contemporary terms." Variety also praised the film saying it "not only maintains interest but conveys with rare artistry, restraint and clarity the many brutal, sordid and gamy plot turns." However, Jay Cocks writing in Time was disparaging, calling the film "a doggedly nasty piece of business" and comparing it unfavourably to Point Blank The film appeared on several US critics lists of best films of the year. Quoted from Wikipedia as secondary source This is one of Caine's best roles and undoubtedly one of the greatest gangster/crime films ever made. It is unrelentingly harsh, gritty, and bleak in showing the nasty world of Carter. Few characters are truly likable or admirable and most have a mix of good and bad. This applies to Carter himself and even the bystanders or victims. Everyone is portrayed as flawed somehow, even those who are tragic. This is one of many aspects that adds to the realism of this film.This grittiness is true not only of the world of crime, but the entire world of the early post-industrial Northern England, once at the forefront of the industrial revolution but by then a depressed backwater that had yet to feel the true benefits of recent social and economic changes. It thus provides some subtle social commentary as well, although one may easily miss it. In
addition to its raw grittiness, the film is also very intense. There is a building tension throughout, and a palpable that things are not right. At the same time, the events, in particular the action and violence are rather slow but relentless.In fact, the way the film presents the violence and action is one of the keys to its greatness. It is an unusual, fascinating, and very powerful depiction. There isn't gore or even lots of blood or the like and, like the rest of the film, it generally progresses slowly and calmly. It's not exhilarating or glamorous, but instead deliberate, relentless, and, above all, cold. The coldness of the violence and how Carter in particular, but others as well, kill and hurt in an unfeeling, perfunctory manner makes it seem all the more harsh.Another interesting aspect of the film is the juxtaposition of the idea that someone can force or change events around him against the feeling that one can merely react to events beyond his control. Both of these themes seem to clash in Carter and his actions, for one of these themes may at times appear to be what's happening, yet in the end it seems that the other exerts its dominance. Ultimately, this is superb, extremely gritty, and powerful drama. It contains action and violence, but it is not an action film and most expecting a non-stop action film, with flashy fighting, "getting the bad guys," etc. may well be bored. (like the remake is) "Get Carter" is often said to have inspired the current crop of British gangster films. If this is the case, Guy Ritchie et al must have well and truly got the wrong end of the stick. I haven't actually seen "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or any of the "Right Royal Cockney Barrel O'Monkeys" type films which followed it, but I get the impression that these are merely dumb entertainment for "new" lads. In contrast, "Get Carter" is unremittingly bleak. If Samuel Beckett wrote a gangster film, it might come out something like this. The grim Newcastle locations add to an atmosphere of decay and despair. The naturalistic camera work avoids cliches and adds effectively to the atmosphere. Long, static shots give the impression of actually being present as a bewildered bystander as the gangsters go about their "business". Although the long tracking shots of people walking/running are almost pythonesque at times, this only serves to emphasise the down to earth realism of the film. After all, even violent gangsters have to go through banal routines such as walking down the street. The score is minimalist but very effective, in contrast to the modern British films which seem to be conceived as a gravy train for music publishers and second rate "indie" bands.There are few, if any, sympathetic characters. Jack Carter, the central character, is not at all pleasant or heroic. The only people for whom he shows any affection are Frank and Doreen, and he is unable to express this affection except through money and violence. Keith thinks he is Carter's friend, but when he is let down and beaten up he realises that he is being used. Carter does not appear to love Anna, and it is not certain whether she really loves him, although there is a genuine sexual attraction between them. Carter belongs to a misogynistic and hypocritical culture which the film scathingly exposes. The only scene in which he shows any genuine emotion is when he discovers a porn film
featuring his niece, Doreen. The cruel irony is that in the opening scene, he was seen looking at dirty pictures with his cronies, and his disgust must be partly directed at himself even though he refuses to acknowledge it. He then expresses his shock and outrage by going straight upstairs to assault and humiliate the nearest woman! And she just happens to have appeared in the very same film as Doreen: a clear case of men projecting their own sexual guilt onto women. The makers of the film cannot have been unaware of the implications of this sexual hypocrisy. The scenes are deliberately juxtaposed to emphasise Carter's ambivalence and double standards.The certainties of a linear narrative have been bravely eschewed. Carter is only able to react to events which are beyond his control and is sometimes led up blind alleys, taking a long time to realise what is really going on. This, again, is realism at its best. Real life does not have a coherent plot and nobody has complete control over their own life. Carter's lack of control is a central theme of the film. He likes to think that he is big, hard and clever, but his acts of revenge are ultimately pointless. Like Frank Machin in "This Sporting Life", he is emotionally shallow and able to express himself only through futile acts of aggression. He is cruelly exposed in the final scene as the smile is wiped off his face, the closing shot of the sea emphasising man's powerlessness.The film also contains elements of social comment and class politics. Frank is portrayed as a decent, honest, "salt of the earth" working class type, while the slimy and sinister Kinnear has a chauffeur and lives in a big house in the country where he hosts decadent orgies. These themes come to the fore in the (often overlooked) funeral scene. As Frank's small cortege pulls through the gates of the crematorium, we see an endless stream of cars leaving from the previous funeral. The message is that the "liberation" of the 60s brought few practical benefits for working class people in the north of England. Again, this relates to the dominant theme of control, or lack of it. The "swinging 60s" are exposed as a dead end of pointless hedonism. The extent of women's liberation is also questioned. "Get Carter" portrays a society in which women are not at all liberated except in a few superficial ways. The female characters in the film are all victims, owned and used by men who see them as sex objects and little more. It is implied that the sexual freedom brought by the contraceptive pill has benefited men more than women.It's not all angst and depression though. There is some good fighting, swearing, shooting and dangerous driving. There are also many subtle touches of black humour. Nevertheless, this is not a mindless action film. The consequences of violence are never ignored or glossed over. We are shown Keith lying on his bed in agony after getting a severe beating, leaving us in no doubt that his brief flirtation with gangsters has ruined his life."Get Carter" is a masterpiece, although it will not be to everyone's taste. If you want non-stop action, try a mindless Arnold Schwarzeneger film. There is nothing for you here. However, if you are prepared to approach "Get Carter" with an open mind and think about it rather than be a passive observer demanding to be entertained, you will find a rewarding work of art with hidden depths. Forget Guy Ritchie. The only worthy successor of "Get Carter" is Neil Jordan's "Mona Lisa", which addresses similar themes and is equally bleak and disturbing. User reviews from imdb
Get Carter remake audience research and reviews Critical reaction was negative. The film received a 12% favorable rating among the critics tracked by Rotten Tomatoes. It did not do well at the box office, with worldwide takings of approximately US$19 million, less than the production budget of nearly $64 million. Among the positive reviews, JoBlo.com praised "the sharp turn given by Sly Stallone, its groovy tunes, and its generally dark and gritty nature." Rob Blackwelder of SPLICEDWire called the film "a stimulating visual showcase of stylish film making that keeps a viewer's attention." Chuck O'Leary of FulvueDrive-in.com said that "the original Get Carter is better, but this is quite watchable as far as modern-era remakes go". Shawn Levy of the Portland Oregonian gave an average review, saying that while "the film doesn't touch the original, it doesn't hit rock bottom, either." Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times said the film is "not a terrible movie" but "too routine for its own good." Marc Savlov of the Austin Chronicle said that "the film itself is a muddle, [but] what is good is Stallone". Bob Graham of the San Francisco Chronicle said the film "is murkier than it needs to be, through no fault of Stallone's". Among the negative reviews, Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film "a useless remake." Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times said that the film is "so minimally plotted that not only does it lack subtext or context, but it also may be the world's first movie without even a text". Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News called the film "a throwaway story hidden beneath a messy jumble of weird camera angles, worthless editing tricks and an illplaced, obnoxious score". The film was nominated for Worst Actor (Sylvester Stallone) and Worst Remake or Sequel at the Golden Raspberry Awards in 2000.[ Quote from Wikipedia boring, lousy...take your choice of adjectives. Thank heavens...I wasted only $4.00 on the video, instead of double that at the theatre! I wouldn't even put this one on a list of choices when you're bored and don't know what to choose at the video store! Bad script, bad acting....Stallone at his "cheesiest" best, just all add up to a real stinker. I gave it a 3 out of 10...which really, is too generous. In its first few moments ''Get Carter'' worms its way into the small but select sub-phylum of vacuous and overdirected minor classics like ''Kalifornia'' and others that inhabit the recesses of the Movie Channel in the predawn hours on a weeknight. It's so minimally plotted that not only does it lack subtext or context, but it also may be the world's first movie without even a text. Sylvester Stallone, dragged into the 1990's by the dazzling and incoherent hand of the director, Stephen Kay, is Jack Carter. Though he comes from Las Vegas, he's not Jack Carter the motormouth stand-up comedian, but rather a man with an even more lethal specialty: he's an enforcer for the Vegas mob. He is shown applying his bruising touch to a customer and muttering a last-
resort retort: ''This is going to another level.'' If the picture bothered to do this, the audience members filing out barely half an hour into the movie might have been enticed to stay. Carter wears what must be some new kind of miracle fabric version of shantung silk impervious to bloodstains and tears despite his strenuous forays into beatdowns. He spends much of his time storming from one seamy room shot from too many showoff angles to the next, trying to get to the heart of his brother's murder. Carter flies to Seattle, even though the strong-arm business in Vegas suffers so much from his absence that he's warned by his brother-inpunishment (John C. McGinley) that if he leaves it's going to cause him trouble. (McGinley is even more hyperactive than usual; perhaps he was afraid he couldn't be seen in all the 40-watt-bulb darkness. The film is lighted like the lobby of an Ian Schrager-Philippe Starck hotel, with so much shadow that it deserves an above-the-title credit.) That doesn't stop Carter, because he has to make up for having disappeared from his brother's life for five years. He feels a debt of honor, and although no one ever says it, the B-picture motto -- ''somebody's got to pay'' -- reverberates through what passes for a plot. This includes Carter threatening sotto voce and a number of actors doing some of their most baroque work. The group includes Mickey Rourke as a computer sleaze merchant and Alan Cumming as a computer ''gazillionaire,'' in a turn so fey and peculiar that his work as the Great Gazoo in ''The Flintstones Viva Rock Vegas'' was a note of subtle understatement by comparison. The movie credits the novel ''Jack's Return Home'' as its source, but it is an attempt to remake Mike Hodges's sleek 1971 British film noir ''Get Carter,'' in which Michael Caine was a post-mod, vengeance-minded gangster. (Mr. Caine appears here in a role that will increase regard for the original. Maybe that was his intention.) And like last year's ''Payback,'' which featured another marquee name essaying a seminal tough-guy vehicle -- Mel Gibson in what was a remake of ''Point Blank'' -- ''Carter'' is bloody and incoherent. Mr. Stallone's new slimline ensemble makes him look like the guy at this week's hopelessly trendy new club who says, ''I don't think you're on the list'' without even bothering to check the clipboard. (That makes the scene when he beats up on just such a guy to gain admittance to a club unintentionally funnier than it should be.) Of course Mr. Caine's preening caginess made the outbreaks of violence in the original ''Get Carter'' all the more stunning, whereas with Mr. Stallone they're simply inevitable. The big difference is that Stallone doesn't shoot as many people, which may strike the filmmakers as revolutionary, given their star. There are many worse Stallone films, as anyone who caught the actor during the late 80's can attest. Obviously he wants to be different, which he does here by wearing a little beard and not raising his voice. The latter has the effect of making it seem that he gets into so many fights because no one can tell what it is he's saying. Had the movie played a bit more on his Man That Time Forgot
discomfort, it might have been effective. The stylish murk seems to signal that everyone on the technical crew had his own agenda, each trying to outdo the others. When Mr. Stallone demands that Mr. Rourke peel off his sunglasses so he can see his eyes, the shot is so dark that the moment is pointless. That's O.K., though; so is the rest of the movie. Quoted from imdb reviews