Cops- By Terry Curtis Fox
- Directed by Stephen Jarrett
- Presented by American Century Theater
- Reviewed by Steven McKnight
News flash! Police officers can be complicated, flawed, and even corrupt human beings at times. While that revelation may not strike you as particularly compelling or controversial, it had more force in 1976 when Cops, the new production at American Century Theater, was first staged. Absent that impact, the audience is left with an earnest and professional production of a flawed play that, while containing moments of humor and tension, ultimately amounts to a misfire.
Cops aspires to be a realistic, gritty, and ultimately shocking portrayal of police officers Set in a Chicago diner, the first half of the play consists of a long character piece revolving around two cynical and world-weary detectives, Jack Rolf (Regen Wilson) and Bob Barberson (Brian Razziono). We see them bullying, cursing, drinking, gambling, and engaging in bigoted discussions using the realistic yet stylistic form of street dialogue often associated with David Mamet. While Mr. Razziono shows some balanced restraint in handling his role, Mr. Wilson’s portrayal is so broad that it approaches caricature.
The opening section of the play has some entertaining scenes, especially an initial confrontation with a comically frustrated cab driver (Bill Gordon) who is the victim of police abuse. The long setup starts to drag despite some fine supporting work by Rob Heckart as George, the diner’s owner and detective admirer, and John C. Bailey, who nails his role as a uniformed patrolman.
In the second half of the play, events in the dinner suddenly spiral into a violent confrontation with a suspicious loner. Gunfire ensues and a hostage-taking standoff results. While this portion is initially gripping, the play descends into contradictory dialogue and illogical actions that undermine the dramatic force of the story.
Cops was written by Terry Curtis Fox, who later gained fame as a writer and story editor for the acclaimed TV series Hill Street Blues. The original Chicago production, with cast members including Dennis Franz and Joe Mantegna, won considerable acclaim and traveled to New York.
While the Artistic Director defends Cops as a “worthy” play because of its influential role in ushering in a new era of realism in handling police stories, this claim is overstated. A few years previously movie audiences had already seen a police protagonist portrayed as an alcoholic short-tempered bigot [Popeye Doyle in The French Connection (1971)] as well as a story featuring rampant police corruption [Serpico (1973)]. On TV, Joseph Wambaugh’s classic anthology series Police Story (1973-77) had already torn down most of the barriers to realistic portrayal of police officers in an urban environment.
Once the value of the play as a historical piece is put aside, the audience is left with an inconsistent work that feels padded and ultimately contrived. Absurdities include a long distance exchange of cigarettes and lighter early in the shootout, crouching behind chairs that offer no protection or disguise, some contradictory dialogue, and a final resolution that is unrealistically written. When one of the detectives argues with the gunman in a way that makes him less likely to surrender peacefully, it’s hard to avoid rolling one’s eyes.
Director Stephen Jarrett does his best to cover up the flaws in the script and he is aided by a talented production staff. The Chicago diner created by set designer Trena Weiss-Null is utterly convincing and Michael Null’s sound design enhances the work. Still, police stories are rare on stage because they aren’t nearly as well-suited to a single set piece as mysteries or legal dramas.
Ultimately, the best audience for this work might be the type of people who enjoy horror movies. If you can overlook the absurd ways victims put themselves at risk and you enjoy the tension and violence, even when you can see the “surprise” ending fifteen minutes in advance, Cops has some entertainment value. On the other hand, if you have a relentlessly logical mind that makes it hard to enjoy implausible actions, you should probably stay home and watch some of the superior police dramas available on television.
Warning: Play contains harsh language, loud gunfire, intense onstage violence, and smoking.
- Running Time: 1:05 (no intermission)
- Where: American Century Theater at Gunston Theatre II
- When: Now thru Jan. 26, 2008
- Tickets: $26-$29
- Contact Info: Order tickets from ACT by phone, (703) 998-4555, or by email: [email protected].
Sorry that should say.
“The one thing in the review that I do disagree with that I want to respond to is this statement.
Having now seen Cops I wanted to throw my two cents into the mix here.
While I disagree with some of the things in this review I wont go into that here as it’s just a difference of opinion. I also had some problems with the play but then again they there are minor and I wont go into them here.
The one thing in the review that do disagree with that I wont to respond to is this statement.
“crouching behind chairs that offer no protection or disguise”
In the play when the gun battle begins the first thing the two cops do is turn over the tables and push chairs out to the side of them. While to most people this may seem absurd it makes perfect sense.
There are two different ways to protect your self while engaging another armed person.
The first is to take “cover”. Cover is defined as any object that protects you from being hit. Such things as a building, cars and brick walls. You get the idea.
If you cant take cover the next thing you should do is “concealment”.
Concealment is any object that limits your enemies ability to identify you quickly thus causing them to hesitate before firing. This could be a bush, a trash can, or as in this case, tables and chairs. This will cause the armed opponent to have to take longer to acquire you in their vision. That is exactly what these two characters were doing it makes perfect sense.
Ah I see that CW of the WP gave this show a well-desrved review. Just an interesting note that during the performance I saw the prop gun didn’t fire a couple of times. I thoght it was part of the plot because my small knowledge of guns is that they don’t always fire. Well, today I just happened to click through shows on the TV and wound up on a real cop video show. The policeman was in a losing hand-to-hand struggle with a criminal. The criminal got the cop’s baretta and pointed in straight at the cop, pulled the trigger and nothing. The gun jammed. The cop surely would have been killed had the gun fired.
Son of a gun! Kinda like the old joke: “It sounds like Mamet.” “It was written by Mamet.” Oh, that’s why it sounds like him.” That’s pretty fascinating. Thanks, Bill.
Having not seen this yet, and I will, I would like to point out that was co written by Mamet but he took his name off of it after a dispute with Mr. Fox
After further consideration, I take back part of what I previously said about “Cops.” I still don’t think it pioneered the ultra-realistic police drama, but it is true that Terry Curtis Fox’s frankly racist, sexist banter between the cops does anticipate the later, even rawer dialogue by writers like David Mamet and James Ellroy. If “Cops” was groundbreaking, it was that it didn’t flinch from the prejudices that often (but not always) come with seeing mankind at its worst on a daily basis.
That makes two of us. I’m also seriously considering seeing “Cops” a second time. (The last time I saw a stage show twice was Synetic’s version of “Faust,” but that was at two different venues.) One major reason to see this show more than once is that, with a running time of just a little over an hour, things move so fast it’s impossible to take in all of the details in just one sitting. This is the perfect introduction for people who think live theater is too dull and talky compared to movies and television.
I have no association with American Century Theater and I say, respectfully, that I do not agree with Steven’s review at all. The scenarios portrayed in the play seemed very realistic to me as an aficionado of the police drama genre. Wouldn’t it be great if everybody did exactly the right thing in all circumstances? Why could you roll your eyes over the arguing if the downed officer was dead or not? I can see that happening. Not to give away too much for those who haven’t seen the show, even though the shooter knew he was in deep trouble, he was never quite at the ‘nothing to lose’ place. He was still hoping the downed cop would live. On the other hand, we don’t know if downed cop could have been saved at some point. etc. etc. It was all riveting and I loved the banter at the beginning before the ‘action’ took place. Two words: Da Bearsh. Matter of fact, I’d love to see ‘Cops’ ageain even knowing the story.
I saw “Cops” last night and enjoyed it immensely, but there is one aspect of the show in which I must agree with some of the critics and respectifully disagree with Artistic Director Jack Marshall (nothing new with me and Jack). In no way was “Cops” a seminal work in 1976. Not only were there the 1971 films, William Freidkin’s “The French Connection” and Don Siegel’s “Dirty Harry,” but Siegel also made a critically acclaimed film in 1968 called “Madigan” starring Richard Widmark as a semi-corrupt New York cop. More than a decade before that there was the 1954 film version of “Dragnet” directed by and starring Jack Webb. Far from being a white-wash of police procedures, this was a vicious little film noir which begins with a remarkably graphic murder for the period where the victim is shot in the face with a sawed-off shotgun in detailed close-up and glaring Technicolor, and when Joe Friday and his partner correctly identify the killer, but can’t provide enough evidence for the DA to bring him to trial, they literally harass the perp to death. (He dies in the hospital of a bleeding ulcer, a condition that was obviously aggrivated by being constanly shadowed and bullied by the cops.) And long, long before this, there was an early 1929 talkie directed by criminally underrated (pun intended) filmmaker Roland West called “Alibi” (based on the play “Nightstick”), in which New York’s Finest are determined to pin a cop killing on ex-con Chester Morris, regardless of whether he actually committed the crime or not. So, no, Jack, although it has stood the test of time quite well, “Cops” is not a revolutionary play in terms of realistically portraying policemen; as documented above, that revolution took place several decades before “Cops.”
Come and get me, copper!
Hewy Jack,
Just becuase David has left TACT doesnt mean his advice isnt good.
Now put your hands on your head and step away from the key board.
Dear Steven: Not defensive at all. I love the fact that DC Theatre Scene allows responses to reviews. (Our wonderful retired PR whiz, David Siegel, forbade me from writing such in the past, but now he’s a reviewer himself.)
Eccentric takes on TACT shows and unfair,unjustified or just plain wrong-headed criticism has cost our company literally tens of thousands of dollars in lost tcket sales through the years. Here, at least, we can try to make sure readers know that one reviewer’s reaction to a particular production is not necessarily going to be theirs.
I think you over-analyzed what is essentially a play about a chaotic occurance in the wee hours. Sometimes the characters act reasonably, sometimes unreasonably, sometimes in a contradictory fashion. That’s realistic. The original play was vetted with real cops…WE vetted it with real cops. I think the people who know, work with and ARE the equivilents of officers Rolf and Barberson should be accorded priority in determining what is believable or not here. The typical audience member has exited “Cops” shaking or shaken. That wouldn’t be the case if they sat there calculating whether real gunshots would penetrate the wooden tables of the diner, because then they would not be experienceing the play the way it was intended and designed. The same, by the way, applies to horror movies. Which I like a great deal.
I’m sympathetic with the challenge to a reviewer of an essentially visceral play like this; I really am. You need to be watching it critically with an eye to details, but that risks pulling you out of the performance, and then you aren’t really seeing the same show as those around you.
Essentially the only “criticism” in the five other reviews–mostly raves!— that “Cops” has received so far was one reviewer scolding the director for “allowing two dead actors to breath onstage after being declared dead.”
Hmmmmmm….
When reviewers become this resistant to “suspension of disbelief,” (and I blame television for a lot of it), live theater has no chance.
I’d love to get together any time. And though it’s probably hard to tell from this exchange, I’m grateful to any reviewer who takes the time and thought to write about a TACT show.
Jack,
I normally don’t reply to posts, but want to set the record straight since you have misunderstood at least one of my comments.
(1) I only talk about the minor absurdities because the larger ones would require revealing plot points that would spoil the show for those who choose to attend.
(2) The eye-rolling moment to which I allude involves arguing with the shooter over whether a victim is dead or not (which is totally detrimental to resolving the standoff).
(3) Your reference to deliberate use of the “classic ‘good cop/bad cop’ strategy” imputes planning that is inconsistent with your “they are behaving irrationally under pressure” argument.
(4) The “everything is a hostage situation can be irrational” defense is, pardon the pun, a “cop out.” Even characters under pressure need to have a certain dramatic logic arising out of the characters and the situation.
(5) The ending itself is contraditory between the “irrational emotion” versus “deliberate conduct” theories of their behavior.
I’m sorry you feel so defensive about a play you didn’t write and a production that I generally praised, but I appreciate your passion and the general high quality of ACTR work. Maybe someday we can meet socially and discuss the merits of this work in more detail.
I guess I need to go see this one 🙂
Alas, I am responsible for the ID error in the photo…I sent the caption in wrong. Sorry Regan…sorry Brian.
I wasn’t going to do this, but now that I’m here…
This paragraph in the review is affirmatively annoying, and its been bothering me all day:.
“Absurdities include a long distance exchange of cigarettes and lighter early in the shootout, crouching behind chairs that offer no protection or disguise, some contradictory dialogue, and a final resolution that is unrealistically written. When one of the detectives argues with the gunman in a way that makes him less likely to surrender peacefully, it’s hard to avoid rolling one’s eyes.”
Hmmm. 1) It was not unheard of for GIs in WWII to toss cigarettes to each other similar distances during battle. 2) The cops in “Cops” crouch behind the furniture available, since there isn’t anything else there. Somehow I suspect that this is dead-on realistic, because I don’t see what alternative they have. But then, I don’t have that “relentlessly logical mind.” 3)I honestly have no idea what “contradictory dialogue” the reviewer is referring to, and neither does anyone I’ve asked who knows the show. I do know that a hostage stand-off is not judges by the same standards as a legal brief.
Finally, the alleged eye-rolling moment is when, late in the stand-off, the hostage-taker says that he won’t surrender because he thinks the cops will “waste” him. Razzino assures him that this isn’t true; Wilson replies, angrily/sarcastically, “That’s right, Jack! I’m gonna waste you!” Not only is the response in character (Earlier, Wilson also dares the guy to go ahead and shoot the hostage and Razzino at various times), but it is instantly recognizable as a classic “good cop/bad cop” strategy, or would be to anyone who actually watches those superior TV dramas made for relentlessly logical minds.
Regarding the photograph, that’s actually Brian on the left and Regen on the right. Definitely John Bailey in the middle, though!
I really enjoyed the show and I agree with Janet – I was totally drawn into all of the drama. …and what a terrific set!
Jack- I’m glad you picked this show and I agree – I think you nailed it!
The reviewer seems to be under the misconception that people always behave rationally in crisis situations. Alas, this is not true. Oddly, police who reviewed the script declared the reactions of the cops under the circumstances to be plausible and realistic. Sometimes a “relentlessly logical mind” will lead you to illogical conclusions.
[DISCLOSURE: I picked the show, and I think we nailed it.]
“News flash! ” Cringe. You could use that expression with almost any play that’s ever been written. That expresson reads very gratuitous.
I saw the play last Friday and was completely drawn in. Heck my heart rate even rose. I would say that this production is one that even people who don’t think they would like live theater would enjoy. I highly recommend this play!