He should have taken the money

Perhaps he should have taken the money. Perhaps he should simply have given in immediately and become part of the system. I believe the point is well made throughout the film that his life would have turned out much differently had he bought into the rampant, endemic, systemic corruption that is presented in the film. But then there would have been no point in making the film 'Bad Lieutenant' years later, and that would have been a shame, since Harvey Keitel plays a corrupt cop much better than Al Pacino ever could.

I believe the point of the film is to show what happens when one man says 'No' to a system with which he disagrees. Unfortunately, disagreeing with Serpico's disagreement says more about the viewer than it says about the film or its characters... agreed?

Agreed. In many ways money is power. The wrong kind.

Send lawyers,guns and money/The *beep* has hit the fan

That's true enough, willjohn.

Serpico was a guy who had a conscience, and used it, to stand by his position, which is admirable. Too bad the guys he worked with didn't back him up when he needed backing up, and ended up almost losing his life as a result.

Your post succinctly points out another thing, willjohn: That people who cave into the temption to do bad, corrupt stuff end up not only losing all self-respect, but they end up losing the respect of their workmates or whoever. Even if Serpico had taken the money, he probably would've been screwed up the ass by his fellow coppers anyhow.

You absolutely do not take that money.

Where do you think that money came from? Thin air? That it doesn't serve someone to pay you?

You take that money, it buys your silence. Even if you claim otherwise later, you're a corrupt cop, they rat you out, you go to jail. They own you. You're not a cop anymore, you're just playing one. It's not about morals - it's a fact. You take a single dollar they get you on the company line and you can't ever fight back.

They buy your silence and then they run the streets that's how it works. That's where that money was coming from - the drugs, the prostitution, the violence, the organized crime, fraud on so many levels. You take that money you can't fight it and then you get nothing done.

That's how it goes. You put it in your pocket, it's done. It's not even evidence at that point - it's just a bribe you're holding that nobody wants to acknowledge.

On another level, you have to fight this ideologically. These people didn't murder him, they threatened to, they probably tried to smack him around plenty of times, but no, they'd never murder him. Their conviction was too weak. He represents a higher calling, one that they'd all suppressed.

Even if he'd done his job and didn't take a single dime, it's enough to make everyone nervous. They'd say it's because they're worried about him ratting them out and sure, that'd be true.

But what they're really scared of, is that he'd rat them out and he'd be right to do so, and they'd be in the cell knowing what they'd done all along was wrong and they did it because they're lemmings.

I'd have kept my mouth shut. Gambling , prostitution and soft drugs are victimless crimes anyway.

Excellent post.

You can't be just a "little bit" dirty or corrupt. It's like the old saying about being a "little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't.

Sure he could've donated the money to charity. But then he would have always been "on the take". How could he prove he was doing something noble and giving the money away?

Not financially.