THE FILM
FILM DIRECTOR: Richard Fleischer
SCREENWRITER: Stirling Silliphant, Robert Towne (uncredited)
FILM STARS: George C. Scott, Stacy Keach, Jane Alexander, Scott Wilson, Erik Estrada, Clifton James, James Sikking, Rosalind Cash, Ed Lauter, Kitten Natividad
COUNTRY: USA
THIS BOOK
AUTHOR: Joseph Wambaugh
TYPE: Novel
PUBLISHER: Sphere
THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1972
COUNTRY: Great Britain
COVER: Paperback
THE ORIGINAL BOOK
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above
YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1971
ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title
NOTES
GENRE: Crime
WORDS: Joseph Wambaugh was a cop, so he wrote books about what he knew and that made them that much more real. Wambaugh (born in1937) received an associate of arts degree from Chaffey College and joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1960 where he served for 14 years, rising from patrolman to detective sergeant. He also attended Cal State Los Angeles, where he earned BA and MA degrees. His books aren’t thrillers, mysteries or hard boiled detective stories but they they are police procedurals but ones where the crime (if any) is ancillary to the characters. The criminal activity dealt with is part of what the job entails runs parallel to life on the job with its high and lows.
The book was set in the early 60s and follows three rookie cops and their first five years, or so, on the job. It’s gritty stuff, and perhaps that’s why the books became so popular (this was a best seller and launched Wambaugh’s career in writing). Police procedurals and matter of fact police operations were nothing new, in literature or on television and film. The police procedural “Naked City” on TV ran from 1958-1963 and was popular and influential. Wambaugh’s novels in some way resemble the writing on the show, though with the NYC locale changed to Los Angeles (Wambaugh being a Los Angeles police officer set (most of, all of, I think) his novels in LA). Likewise he draws on films like “Detective Story” (1951) and “The Detective” (1968) as well as books like the aforementioned “The Detective” (1966) by Roderick Thorp and novels by Ed McBain. Where Wambaugh departs is by ging the characters more back (and side) story. They are people who are police but their jobs tend to define them, as jobs do for many people. Writing in the 70s allows him more grit, more street grit, and he can explore the back lives of the police with more frankness. There is professional stress, marital stress, alcohol abuse, PTSD, prejudice. The cops aren’t just knights in shining armour or flawed characters who happen to be cops, they are people with all the same problems and prejudices as normal people though theirs are modified and amplified through their jobs. The book (and the film) are episodic and devoid of a central story. It’s all characters and situations. This happens a lot now but in police literature and film it was relatively fresh in the early 1970s.Interestingly there is also a lot of dark humour (the off-colour humour you expect to hear from people within certain occupations which sound a little jarring to outsiders), especially later in his books. Having said that this book was written while Wambaugh was still a cop and is, perhaps, a little more restrained but it it still has a feel for the streets. This and what followed led to him being known as the “father of the modern police novel”.
The success of the book led to a film. The rookies played by Keach, Estrada and Wilson are fine but the old timer, played by George C. Scott, is exceptional (I hate to say it but they don’t make actors like George C. Scott anymore). Scott’s role is enlarged in the film (to fit his star power) and does give the film a focal point around which the rookies can rotate (the uneven though underrated and always interesting Stirling Silliphant (“Marlowe”, “Towering Inferno”, “Poseidon Adventure”) wrote the original script and when Scott came on board new scenes were written for him by Robert Towne (“Chinatown”, “The Yakuza”)). There are some differences between book and film. Some characters die in the film that don’t in the book and some of the (real world) events are different. The decay (social and otherwise) in Los Angeles isn’t as obvious in the book as it is in the film. Also, the book is written in the early 70s so Wambaugh is, perhaps, commenting on current issues but by setting the book in the past he gets some “distance” and some relief from criticism (important given he was still a cop at the time of writing). Richard Fleischer directs and I have always been a sucker for his films. He had done a few cop films (mainly early in his career) in the late 40s and early 50s but he had done dramas as well. His strength is in giving the action context and allowing his characters to have asides amidst the action. His films are thoughtful. Great music by Quincy Jones. Special mention to Kitten Natividad who has an uncredited bit as a go go dancer (her first film).
The title “The New Centurions” is, of course, brilliant and evocative though I’m not sure how it applies. In the Roman empire the man who was in charge of a century of infantry soldiers was called a centurion (they formed the backbone of the Roman legion and were responsible for enforcing discipline and received higher pay and a greater share of the spoils than did common soldiers). The police officers here are strictly patrolmen shit kickers.
A good read and a good film.
LINKS
TRAILER
I read the book as a teenager and it was theirs time that I read about what would now be described as PTSD. Quite an eye opener at the time.
It’s been many years since I saw the movie but I should rewatch it.
I haven’t seen the Onion Field, but it is supposed to be a very good movie. James Woods does an excellent job playing a psychopath.
No doubt you would have met similar characters through your work … both PTSD coppers and psychopaths.