‘Serpico’ Film Draws Fire From ‘Cast’

By Michael T. Kaufman

The New York Times - Dec. 19, 1973

Credit...The New York Times Archives

See the article in its original context from

December 19, 1973, Page 58 - Buy Reprints

The popular new movie “Serpico” has been generally praised for its authenticity, for its feel of truth, Yet many of the real‐life characters who took part in the events upon which the movie is based are openly angry about what they consider to be distortions, misplaced emphasis and outright inventions.

The film deals with the events that followed the decision of Frank Serpico, a former detective in the New York City Police Department, to resist what he saw as the systematic pattern of corruption. There is general agreement that—in bare outline—the following events took place between 1966 and 1971:

¶Mr. Serpico sought transfer from the command, where, he said, he observed payoffs taking place. He brought his information to the attention of superior officers who did not act upon it. He confided his information to a young detective, Sgt. David Durk.

¶Sergeant Durk had connections in City Hall. Together the two men unsuccessfully took Mr. Serpico's story to a Mayoral assistant. They then went to the City's Commissioner of Investigations and they came to The New York Times.

¶David Burnham, a Times reporter, wrote a series, in part based on. Mr. Serpico's and Durk's information. Mayor Lindsay responded, eventually appointing the Knapp Commission to inquire into police corruption.

¶Mr. Serpico later was shot in the head in the line of duty in a drug raid. He survived, resigned from the force and now lives in Switzerland.

These episodes formed the basis of a book, “Serpico” by Peter Maas. The book, a nonfiction best seller, was sold to the producers of the movie for $400,000 shared by the author and, Mr. Serpico. Both men also have a percentage of the receipts from the movie, already a financial success.

Cooling of Friendship

Grumbling about the book by the real‐life characters has grown with the opening of the movie. Mr. Serpico is said to feel distant from the film. Sergeant Durk will not speak for the record about his feelings, but in his silences and long elliptical explanations of what he perceived to be the truth of events, he reveals his hurt. Mr. Serpico and Sergeant Durk, once good friends, no longer talk to each other.

Former Bronx District Attorney Burton B. Roberts, now a State Supreme Court Justice, said the movie “bears absolutely no relationship to the truth.” He also said the portrayal of him is false.

That egos may have been damaged by the film, while titillating, is hardly surprising. What is more troublesome is the question posed by some of the criticism the film has engendered: What, if any, limits should there be on the transmuting of fact into fiction?

This is a point that goes beyond the film, touching on such other films as the dramatized documentaries of Constantin Costa‐Gavras, authorized biographies, in general, and the extensions of socalled New Journalism.

Sidney Lumet, the director of “Serpico,” said he felt that whatever license was taken was justified in dramatic terms. “We wanted to make a movie that people believed in. From my point of view I wanted to be honorable in terms of Frank.”

Mr. Lumet said he viewed the story as a dramatic vehicle to portray a maverick who challenges a prevailing evil that is generally condoned. “I don't think we exploited the situation,” he said.

Central Figure Discussed

But this view has been countered by a few critics and by Sergeant Durk, who suggested that the movie depicted a larger‐than‐life figure who, wounded and frustrated at not effecting change, left for Switzerland.

“It's going to be just that much harder to get people to come forward after this film,” the sergeant said. “They will assume that the cost of honesty is martyrdom and no one should he a martyr and get shot. But that wasn't true. Sure, there were cops who hated Frank [Serpico for what we did, but there were others who cheered. And you can make changes,”

Probably the most blatant mélange of fact and fiction in the movie concerns the names of the characters. Serpico remains Serpico, of course, and there are references to Mayor Lindsay, Whitman Knapp and David Burnham. But the book's Sergeant Durk appears as Bob Blair. Mr. Roberts, Jay L. Kriegel, the Mayoral assistant, and a number of police officials all undergo name changes in the film.

Martin Bregman, the film's producer, thinks that the criticisms a lout the name changes are overblown. “There were some legalities involved hut more importantly, it's not necessary that the names be real. What difference does it make to people in Dayton? Most people in New York don't even know who Jay Kriegel is.”

But the argument here hiuges on more than just names, Are these people portrayed as they actually were? Are fictive details used to enhance stereotypes? Are characters merely symbols, or are they presented to an accepting public as men who did and said what the peopie in the movie do and say? In terms of the movie as an artistic work, this is insignificant. In terms of the way the public gains and processes information, it is, at least, confusing.

Bregman Replies

As to critical contentions that historic events were altered in small details or, that one character was presented in the film as the embodiment of three actual police officials, or that some scenes were purely dramatic inventions, Mr. Bregman said that these critics were not aware of what the film attempted to do.

“It's not a documentary,” he said. “Obviously we were editorializing. We were making a statement about a lone man who came forward. It told the events from Serpico's point of view. I'm sure there are other points of view that could have made a good film, Durk's, Burnham's, Robert's, but we bought Serpico's story.”

Still, despite this disclaimer there is much about the movie that conveys a documentary feel. The film ends, for instance, with a legend on the screen saying that the real‐life Frank Serpico is living “somewhere in Switzerland.” In addition, its use of police stations, hearing rooms, and even the news room of The Times as locations heightens the apparent authenticity of the entire film.

In addition, the story is told from the point of view of the camera's eye. Though Mr. Serpico, as portrayed by Al Pacino, is the main character, there are no voice‐over effects that would indicate that what the audience is watching is a reconstruction of his perception of events. Rather the movie unreels as a historic narrative.

Specifics Challenged

The specifics in the film that have been challenged include a scene where the Durk character meets the main character at plainclothes school. The two get high after smoking marijuana in a demonstration and the Durk character reveals that he has well‐placed friends. The real life Sergeant Durk said it never happened.

There is a scene where the character based on Mr. Roberts prevents Mr. Serpico from testifying before the grand jury on the cover‐up of the corruption inquiry by high police officials. The real‐life Justice Roberts insists this is complete fabrication, that far from holding back Mr. Serpico's testimony, he actually browbeat and persuaded a reluctant real‐life Serpico to bring his evidence to the grand jury, gaining the plainclothesman's aid in an ongoing investigation that ended with the conviction of five police officers.

Mr. Lumet said that at one point during the filming, the real‐life Justice Roberts asked the producer if he could play himself. When he was told not‐he submitted a revision of the script, and when that was Overruled, he asked that his name be changed.

But for many of the real persons, what rankles much more than deviations, from the facts they remember is the use of these details to present characterizations they consider to be unfair. The character, Inspector McClain, who was based on the real person of Cornelius J. Behan, an inspector who befriended Mr. Serpico, is shown as a vacillating ally.

But it is the portrayal of Sergeant Durk that has raised the most questions. That portrayal led one reviewer to write: “Serpico's confidant, Bob Blair (played by, Tony Roberts and based on the real detective David Durk), is an over‐achiever who knows that the top is gained as easily over the backs of crooked cops as of crooked crooks.”

Justice Roberts thinks this is a gross distortion. “Durk was by far a bigger hero than Serpico was in forcing him to come forward.” Others who knew both men at a time when they were colleagues say that Sergeant Durk was aggressive, articulate and perhaps even patronizing to Mr. Serpico, but they insist that he was motivated to a large extent by idealistic objectives. They also say that Mr. Serpico, while obviously heroic, was a far more complicated and conflict‐ridden personality than that portrayed by Mr. Pacino.

Tony Roberts said that after signing for the role he had several conversations with Sergeant Durk.

“I was not familiar at the time or even now with the real truth of the story. Everybody has a different version and I don't pretend to know what is true. I am not happy that he is hurt by this. I have nothing but the greatest awe and respect for everything he did and he is entitled to have his own story told.”

The actor said that when shooting on the film first began he was told by Joseph Avildsen, the director who preceded Mr. Lumet, to “play the character like the guy that tells someone to go in and break up a pillbox while ‘I cover you from here.’ ”

As he researched the role, reading other sources in addition to Mr. Maas's book, he said he came to the conclusion that the Durk role was more significant. “I gradually got mild consent from other people that Durk was not the bad guy. I tried to paint him wore favorably, but he did gets the short end of the stick.

Mr. Serpico himself not respond to messages asking him to call. Mr. Maas said that his collaborator told him he hid felt “distant” and “estranged” from the events he saw on the Screen.

In an interview with Pauline Kael, the film critic for The New Yorker, however, Mr. Serpico, evinced despair that his coming forward had not really changed anything. As to the film, Miss Kael quoted him as saying that he was sorry that the movie didn't give a sense of frustration you feel when you're not able to do anything. And he criticized one small scene showing pollice brutality as, an invention. “The truth was so much better,” he told Miss Kael.

Discover The Times. 7 days free, then original price: €3sale price: €0.50/week.

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.