Moral Relativism For Social Conservatives
It's always a little troubling when a movie reminds the viewer a little too much of series TV. Worse, when the film suffers by comparison. ONE GOOD COP came out two years before the debut of NYPD BLUE, so although it reminded me uncannily of that show (with its mix of gritty police procedural and sentimental family drama), you can't really call it a rip-off of that seminal TV series.

Or maybe that series was not so seminal. It was certainly maximally gluteus, but were the bare bums the sole innovation? I don't recall it well enough to say for sure. In many ways it seemed to be an 90s extension of and elaboration on the equally gritty HILL ST. BLUES (although with an actually recognizable geographic locale and earthier, less glamorous character).

Why go on and on about the TV series that cover the same terrain at ONE GOOD COP? Well, it's interesting to me that such dramas made for better than average TV fare, while this particular film seems to be average at best. The two above cited series and any number of other shows (especially Stephen Bochco's) occasionally tackled the question of good cops occasionally doing bad (or at least, morally ambiguous) things for a good cause. And quite often, they kind of got away with it.

In the last analysis, these inherently conservative dramas have at least toyed with the notion that it's OK for cops to do corrupt things for a good end. They suggest that the world is indeed morally grey--at least on occasion. And that's an argument that can be made (that it appeals oftentimes to the kind of social conservative who is also likely to speak in grandiose terms about "moral absolutes" in dealing with matters such as abortion and gay marriage is another issue). But that argument can indeed be made and framed in human terms, ONCE YOU GET TO KNOW THE CHARACTERS.

And here's where series television actually has an advantage of movies. These characters are coming into home every week (every NIGHT in reruns). Because loyal viewers get to know these characters fairly well they can forgive them more readily their human flaws, just as they can forgive the series creators their dramatic flaws.

But even though the police drama and the family one are dramatically linked in ONE GOOD COP, there really isn't enough time in the space of two hours to develop either satisfactorily. Other reviews on this site and elsewhere give a fairly comprehensive summary, so let me dispense with that and get right to some core questions.

Movies and TV shamelessly attempt to manipulate their viewers, and that's nothing new. Would we feel a little less manipulated, say, if the events in this thriller-cum-family drama had been spread out over the course an entire TV season say. I think so, actually. We might have gotten to know Anthony LaPaglia's character instead of seeing him get offed within the first twenty minutes of screentime. The buddy-buddy relationship between the two partners would have been established and not just suggested. (And the then up and coming LaPaglia would have gotten that much more screentime and promotion--not a bad thing for someone so talented).

And wouldn't Rene Russo's fervor to become a mother and her eagerness to adopt the children of her husband's murdered partner become something a little more emotionally resonant--and less of a transparent plot device--in a more leisurely paced dramatic format such as a series? Viewers are asked to take too much on faith in this movie. Since it can't decide which it wants to be, the film never becomes much of a thriller or of a drama.

It does have a very good cast, however, including the children. Ever notice how much better child actors have become in recent decades. No Buffy and Jody awkwardness these days. Of course, the fact that the kids are all so preposterously adorable doesn't hurt. (Would Michael and Rene have been as eager to adopt Anthony's kids if they hadn't come directly from central casting?)

Many reviewers have called this movie to task for being a little on the preposterous side. And when you list them out, it does start to become obvious how the filmmakers are trying to manipulate us here. Some obvious questions are: how is it that Keaton's widowed partner could afford to raise three kids in the city, and Keaton and Russo (who is also gainfully employed) cannot?; in other movies where the "thin blue line" closes ranks, it is more often a done in silence, with tacit understanding that all lips are sealed, but does it make real sense that Keaton's colleagues cheerfully take up a collection for him; and lastly (and this is not an original point with me), hasn't anyone in this movie heard of Internal Affairs. A high profile crime involving a deadly shoot out could never just be handily hushed up, could it?

The questions only begin there. Dramatic license only goes so far. One may to stretch out those limits is to have the audience really get to know your characters. That proves almost impossible in this film and part of the reason is the time constraints of your typical cinematic release. ONE GOOD COP just does not work. But it might have made a pretty good TV show.

Review this book