Diário de um Gângster

A pulp novelist (Michael Caine) goes to Italy to ghost the autobiography of an old time Hollywood film gangster (Mickey Rooney), but maybe not everyone wants to see the book written?

One of these films that was under regarded upon release, but has more going for it than you might imagine. The real Italian locations and Caine's dry understated voice-over play well against the gags and situations. Rooney sends himself up something rotten as a George Raft style figure; and we keep on watching wanting to know how it all turns out.

While far short of a classic, I got dragged in and was very well entertained during its 90 minutes. However it's slow nature and lack of pyrotechnics might alienate the modern audience. Worth giving a go with if it is playing on late night TV, especially if you like a bit of black humour.

Mike Hodges' GET CARTER (1971) is, supposedly, a realistic gangster flick about a hit man, played by Michael Caine, who murders without demur and, indiscriminately, screws every bird in sight; yet, wells up at the thought that - is it his niece? - has been snatched up by a porno-movie ring. He systematically knocks off mob kingpins and we are invited to watch him do it - with cold-blooded relish.

PULP is gangster related too, but pure Lewis Carroll in narrative plausibility; nevertheless, Caine's Mickey King is amusingly credible in the manner in which he drinks in the dream world that happens to him.

PULP pulls off something that few films (including SUNSET BLVD., with the marvelous William Holden) are able to do. It makes an author its central character and you believe, from start to finish, that he is, in fact, a man of curiosity and invention, who makes his living by the employment of words.

Among Hodges' other films, CROUPIER (1998) is closer to PULP than GET CARTER is because its protagonist's literary pretensions resemble King's habit of describing a shady milieu which operates in moral twilight. Both pictures suffer from direction too tightly melded to intriguing fictional conceits. However, the phlegmatic understatement of Caine's voice-over commentary (written by Hodges) is maintained impressively, the Malta locations and surprising russet colors - not to mention the freak-show supporting cast of Mickey Rooney, Lionel Stander, Lizabeth Scott, Dennis Price, Nadia Cassini's mile-long legs and, Bogart look-a-like, Robert Sacchi make it a must for connoisseurs of the truly offbeat.

Was this comment useful to you?

This starts of with quite a few good laughs some visual, some slapstick and a few situation based but gets a little more serious as it progresses.

The acting is good with Rooney as the slightly mad client being especially good and Caine is his usual self in the lead.

The one liners are delivered well and the occasional difference between what is narrated and what is acted out is amusing.

The plot is a little thin and when it gets serious it doesn't do it too well.

It's a watchable film with no bad bits and a few good ones but it's nothing special.

While Hodges and Caine's 'Get Carter' has long since become a classic movie, it's follow up, 'Pulp' has been largely forgotten about. This is a shame, as, on it's on its own terms, and 'Pulp' is as rich a film. Like the previous movie, 'Pulp' is influenced by such noir writers as Chandler, Hammett and MacDonald (all three are referenced during the film), however, the big difference lies is the amount of comedy used. The first half is full of comic moments and (even though it does turn darker) comedy is ever-present.

Most obviously, it's in the way the movie parodies such clichés as voice overs (people who complain of it's over use are, I think, missing the point, as the tension between King's voice over and the actual events help give the movie it's kick).

Michael Caine's 'Micky King', is light-years away from his role as the vengeful 'Jack Carter', slightly pathetic, constantly trying to keep up with the plot, is an enjoyable performance, as is Mickey Rooney's over the hill movie star.

The 'Loaded' generation who took 'Carter' into their hearts are never, ever going to understand this movie, but in its own quirky way, it's up there with such key 'seventies movies as 'The Long Goodbye' or 'Chinatown'.

Mickey King is a jobbing writer, spitting out lurid gangster novels under various fake names with the usual mix of violence and sex making them sell. He is approached to ghost write for an unnamed Hollywood "legend" and, pocketing a nice advance for his troubles, he agrees. He travels by coach to meet his subject and meets several strange characters along the way. One of them ends up dead and King steps into the background to let the police find the body but keep himself out of it – however when the body seemingly disappears he is at a loss to explain it and unable to report it.

A misfire this one but one that does have some reasonable ideas within it. The gimmick of king's narration versus what is happening and the simple view of his books versus the complex unfairness of reality is a nice idea but it does not translate into a good film. Those that really like the film (both of them) claim that this is not given enough credit because the majority of viewers don't "get" it but I beg to differ – I think it is rating "average" and remembered as such because of the film itself being just that – average. The gimmick wears thin when you realise that there is nothing else than a poorly delivered mystery. Towards the end there are themes and things of interest that vaguely start to drift out but by then it is too little too late. Comparing it to things like Chinatown is a joke and those that have suggested this have offered nothing by way of justification.

The cast are mixed. Caine plays to play into his character and indeed he does get some moments of interest with his essentially harmless character, but as the material thins so does his performance. Rooney is interesting for playing an unusual character but offers little more than novelty value. The rest of the cast fill in around the edges in strange turns here and there. Malta as a setting is filmed with a real lack of interest and comes over as dry and colourless – a visual impression that does not help the material one little bit.

Overall then an OK idea falls flat as it brings nothing else of interest to the room. Caine tires of it long before the end so it should be of no surprise if you the viewer do as well.