Warning Shot (1967)

January 18, 1967, release date

Directed by Buzz Kulik

Screenplay by Mann Rubin

Based on the novel 711: Officer Needs Help by Whit Masterson

Music by Jerry Goldsmith

Edited by Archie Marshek

Cinematography by Joseph F. Biroc

David Janssen as Sgt. Tom Valens

Joan Collins as Joanie Valens

Ed Begley as Capt. Roy Klodin

Keenan Wynn as Sgt. Ed Musso

Sam Wanamaker as Frank Sanderman

Lillian Gish as Alice Willows

Stefanie Powers as Liz Thayer

Eleanor Parker as Doris Ruston

George Grizzard as Walt Cody

George Sanders as Calvin York

Steve Allen as Perry Knowland

Carroll O’Connor as Paul Jerez

Walter Pidgeon as Orville Ames

Vito Scotti as the fashion designer

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Produced by Bob Banner Associates, Inc.

Warning Shot is one of those quirky films that reflect the fashions and the customs of the time in which it was made, in this case, the 1960s. It features a jazzy, hip soundtrack and women sporting beehive hairdos. It seems even more dated to me in some ways than films from the 1940s. Everything about Warning Shot feels a bit far out and groovy, but the story itself holds up well because it’s familiar, especially to noir fans. It’s just the hairstyles and the fashion that are so different.

The main character is a police detective who shoots a respected doctor in self-defense and must repair his reputation in the aftermath. The police detective, Sgt. Tom Valens, is a sympathetic character for viewers, if not for the other characters in the film, because he believes in himself and must prove himself to others. The film starts from his point of view, and viewers mostly stick with him through all his setbacks.

The film is based on a novel by Whit Masterson, which is actually the pen name for two writers who wrote several novels that were adapted into many famous films noir. Click here for more information about the pen name Whit Masterson and here for a complete list of the books published under the name.

The opening credits appear over a fuzzy, out-of-focus background. The narrative starts with the camera coming into focus, with a shot of what looks like a backyard patio at night, in Los Angeles. It’s very foggy, which makes it even more difficult to see. The camera pans right to a man hiding in the bushes at 11191 Seascape Apartments. When he leaves the premises and approaches a squad car, viewers realize that he is a police detective (Sgt. Ed Musso) and not a prowler or a criminal. Musso wants to quit for the night, so his partner, Sgt. Valens, calls in the request. Their police captain tells them to remain on the stakeout for another hour.

Valens gets out of the squad car to continue the surveillance. He and his partner are on a call about a prowler; tensions are high because a killer has already struck several times and is still at large. Someone comes out of the apartment building, and he starts running when Valens calls out to him, telling to stop and that he is a police officer. When the man is cornered, Valens tells him to drop his bag. The man does, but he pulls what looks like a gun from his coat pocket. Valens shoots and kills him in self-defense. He and Musso subsequently learn from searching his pockets that he is Dr. James B. Ruston of Bel Air.

Later, when they search the premises of the Seascape Apartments, Musso and other officers cannot find Ruston’s gun. Valens is put on desk duty until after the inquest into the events surrounding Ruston’s death is complete. His captain, Roy Klodin, thinks that Valens may be suffering from memories of being shot on the job several months earlier; in other words, he thinks that Valens is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that it may be affecting his judgment.

At the inquest, Paul Jerez, the man leading the inquest, brings up the topic of warning shots. He asks Captain Klodin when he is on the stand to explain police procedure regarding warning shots for the jury:

• Jerez: “. . . Maybe you can tell us why he [Valens] failed to fire a customary warning shot when he tried to stop Dr. Ruston.”

• Klodin: “You know we don’t fire a warning shot.”

• Jerez: “Yes, I know. Tell them [the jury panel].”

• Klodin: “Our officers are instructed never to shoot unless it’s absolutely unavoidable. This is to prevent hitting some innocent bystander.”

It’s a bit odd that Jerez uses the word customary because he knows that warning shots are not customary police procedure. But he does allow Captain Klodin to make this point clear for everyone in the courtroom. This is an example of the quirky contradictory nature of the film, but in this case, the information is also serious. A warning shot might have saved Dr. Ruston’s life, but it might have killed an innocent bystander and it is against police department policy.

Warning Shot also reflects the political and cultural issues of the 1960s. People protest Valens’s actions—and police brutality in general—outside the building where his inquest is held. They are angry that a police officer killed a prominent citizen like Dr. Ruston, one who traveled to Baha, Mexico, to provide charity medical care to the residents there. Picketers chant, “Valens, no. Valens, no. Police brutality must go.” A few individuals are interviewed in front of television cameras, for example:

◊ A white woman interviewed near the picket line says, “When I was young, a policeman was always a friend, someone to be trusted. But now it’s different. Police are different. And how do I explain Sergeant Valens to my children? How do I say to them, ‘Trust him, let him help you across the street, even though his hands are bloody’?”

◊ A black man interviewed near the same picket line says: “I’m just here to see if the same punishment they would have used on me if I had killed an innocent man will be applied to this Valens case or will he get the usual coat of whitewash?”

The protesters could be talking about current events today. In these examples, their protests and arguments don’t sound dated at all.

(This blog post about Warning Shot contains some spoilers.)

The inquest jury panel is not very sympathetic to the police and decides to indict Sgt. Valens on charges of manslaughter. The prosecutor, Frank Sanderman, is on a vendetta. He’s happy to prosecute any cop who crosses the line because his own father, “a honkey,” as he calls him, ventured into the wrong neighborhood and was killed because he didn’t understand. The implication is that an officer shot an innocent man simply because the man didn’t understand the instructions to stop when the officer spoke to him.

Orville Ames, a famous and successful lawyer, won’t represent Valens unless he pleads guilty and says that he made a mistake. Valens won’t plead guilty to something that he didn’t do and because he is sure of what he saw. He decides to investigate the circumstances around his meeting with Dr. Ruston himself. Valens has only ten days to pursue his investigation, which he is not authorized to undertake, before he has to report for his next court hearing.

During his unauthorized investigation, Valens talks to Perry Knowland, a television host who likes to stir up trouble by taking unpopular sides in local issues. Knowland is a character who would fit in today: He would probably be an online podcaster advocating several conspiracy theories and stirring up millions of followers. He is paid to spread rumors and innuendo because it increases television ratings. The unpopular side to the Ruston case is Valens. The public thinks that Valens is a rogue cop who acted hastily and killed an innocent man and that he is making up the story about Ruston having a gun. Valens begins to realize how unpopular his cause is simply by talking to Knowland and learning about his methods.

Valens discovers the truth about Dr. Ruston. He tracks down the missing gun. And he finds the person who killed Dr. Ruston’s secretary, Liz Thayer, and attempted to kill him. It is obvious in the final sequence that Valens was right all along. And this sequence also ties in the theme about a “warning shot.” Valens doesn’t deliver a warning shot; that’s not part of police protocol after all. But he does deliver a verbal warning to the killer, who decides to disregard it.

David Janssen gives a great performance as Sgt. Valens, the cop who seems to be a victim of the times and public opinion. The film starts from his point of view, and viewers stick with him through all his setbacks because they are in the same position that he is in: trying to figure out what happened and why. Janssen has a world-weary yet stoic persona that works well in this role. I found it very easy to root for him as he searched for the truth in a world he feels has been turned upside down.