MovieChat Forums > Street Kings (2008) Discussion > Surprised they got Chief Gates involved ...

Surprised they got Chief Gates involved in this

posted 15 years ago by Liquidon_Snake
5 replies | jump to latest

Each time I watched this movie and got to Washington's funeral scene, I kept seeing Daryl Gates there, and I kept asking myself, "How the hell did they get him to take part in this movie?"
Daryl Gates is one of my own personal heroes for many reasons, not the least being that he is almost undeniably one of the best police officers to walk this earth, and cleaned up and improved the Los Angeles Police Department in more ways than any two police officers ever have. I digress, though. I wonder how David Ayer was able to get such a decorated and successful police chief to take part in a movie that characterized his very police department as one plagued by elaborate and far-reaching degrees of corruption, with bribery and blackmail being used against all levels of the LAPD, including the Chief himself (I quote Cpt. Wander: "I own them, even the Chief."). You'd think that someone of Gates' status would want to keep a negative image of his department from being perpetuated. Now, we all know that he can't very well prohibit such a movie from being made, but why would he contribute to its production in any way, if it spoke so ill of the LAPD? Granted that this is recognized as fiction, it would still have some negative effect on the public image of the department.

Also, and this is just a side thought, but it's relevant as well:
In movies that feature police or military personnel, the production team must ensure that all non-officer actors do not bear the uniform exactly as it is meant to be worn by real-life officers so as to prevent any technical "impersonation of an officer". Obviously, they would have had Mohr, Whittaker, and Reeves intentionally mis-arrange proper uniform for this purpose during the funeral scene, in which they all wore class-A uniform, but I wonder if they had Daryl Gates do the same. On one hand, if he were to mis-arrange his uniform for this scene, it would be consistent with the other "officers" depicted in the scene, but on the other hand, he would be misrepresenting his earned rank. Unfortunately, I didn't examine the order of his uniform in that scene, so I couldn't say one way or another if he wore it properly. Could anyone shed some light on this?

[–] Brennan-8 15 years ago

Maybe the reason he did it is because - and I don't mean this in a harsh way - people in L.A. are so impressed & awed by movie people. Everyone wants to be involved in the biz it seems, regardless of how they're portrayed.

[–] soulthinker 15 years ago

I knew that was him when I saw that flick. Good actor and a police chief who was unable to be considerate when it comes to minority members of the LAPD.

[–] joolztoolz 15 years ago

Maybe the reason he did it is because - and I don't mean this in a harsh way - people in L.A. are so impressed & awed by movie people. Everyone wants to be involved in the biz it seems, regardless of how they're portrayed.

It must be a really creepy place to live. Must be quite the air of desperation in that place.

--------

About the OP:

On uniforms--I highly doubt that there is a prohibition on wearing the authentic uniform. Its ridiculous to suggest it. The legal system isn't made up of a bunch of idiots.

Its a crime to pretend to be another individual in order to deceive others and gain some advantage. You have to have intent to deceive. Movies are exempt from that--since its highly likely that the actors aren't running around issuing parking tickets on their lunchbreak.

[–] nakedsteve 15 years ago

1st thing,

"In movies that feature police or military personnel, the production team must ensure that all non-officer actors do not bear the uniform exactly as it is meant to be worn by real-life officers so as to prevent any technical "impersonation of an officer"

This is not true, at least as far as the military goes. theatrical productions are exempted. when you see a uniform mistake in a movie its just a mistake.

LAPD may have its own policy on the matter. I remember reading somewhere or maybe it was directors commentary but after a few episodes of season 1 LAPD, pulled all support for The Shield. Can you blame them? A movie is one thing but who would want to be associated with Vic Mackey week after week for years. After that they changed the uniforms so they were longer a direct copy of LAPD.

As to chief Gates, He came up through the ranks in the 50'sa and 60's. back when outfits like the hat squad really were beating the crap out of mobsters. He might have known a Tom Ludlow, he might have been a Tom Ludlow. Maybe the story rang true to him.

If a day does not require an AK, it is good
Ice Cube
Warrior Poet

[–] taifunu 15 years ago

Q: How did the LAPD officers react? Did they have concerns?
David Ayer: You have to realize that at the end of the day, everyone knows this is just a movie. And you have to separate the official department attitude from the individual policeman’s attitude. On an individual level, every cop I have talked to is excited about the project. We have Daryl Gates, the former LAPD chief actually in the movie. He read the script and liked the redemptive qualities it expressed. The police officers’ concern is about getting the details of their culture correct and that is where those relationships with the police came in. We had a lot of police cooperation on an individual level but nothing on an official level.

http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/street-kings-david-ayer-inter view

Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday’s nut that held its ground.