Zodiac — he said, she-said — movie review — screener!
SHE SAID:
@$)^(*)!+ That’s the Zodiac killer saying the movie is really good. Or else that’s him saying dammit, you almost caught me.
David Fincher’s stab (eh) at the Bay Area’s gruesome Zodiac serial killer is decidedly un-Fincher-esque. If you’re a salivating fan of the director’s previous slick CG swoops or gloomy moodiness (i.e.: Se7en, Fight Club), you may find this movie to be a bit blithe. Awash with a capable cast and droll dialogue, Zodiac refuses to be pigeon-holed into the indecently suspenseful prevalent psycho-thriller with an awful twist thrown in at the end. The murder scenes are short and sweet, grim and memorable. If you’re expecting prolonged barbarous bloodlust, think again. It is far from predictable.
Shot in an overcast palor, Zodiac is about the people involved in the investigation, portrayed in a relaxed, realistic setting. Because the characters are so accessible, so charming, we don’t necessarily feel their obsession, but we know it’s there. Paul Avery (the ever-awesome Robert Downey Jr) is the charismatic San Francisco Chronicle reporter who loses his job over it. Robert Graysmith (the also awesome Jake Gyllenhaal) also loses his job over it. In fact, none of the major players get to keep their jobs. Why is this wonderful? Because it’s real. People do silly things; Paul Avery appeases his ego by publishing a seething article, even going so far as to accuse the serial killer of latent homosexuality, which thwarts a death threat, menacing his psyche. Robert Graysmith (SF Chronicle political cartoonist) puts himself and his family in jeopardy during his inexaustible research. Homicide Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is demoted in a scandal by his silly peers. So perhaps sending handwritten confessionals to major newspapers is also a very silly thing.
What intrigues me about the Zodiac killer is that he was initially perceived to be a pretty clever guy. Aside from his juvenile scrawl and misspellings, he was clever enough not to leave any fingerprints and eluded police for years. To this day, no one knows who the real Zodiac killer is. Plus, he submitted cryptic messages to the newspapers as a sort of a “catch me if you can” puzzle. But perhaps he was just a dopey mama’s boy/man-child prankster screwing around with decoder rings and stolen library books, unfortunately trained for tactile armament and disposition in our country’s military. Besides, you wanna get cryptic; the double L’s in the suspect and victim list are juicy enough to appear pulp. Even the criminal graphologist was named Morrill and the celebrity lawyer/one-time Star Trek actor enlisted to draw out the Zodiac (on his request) was Belli. Don’t even get me started on the gigantic address markers (thank you Art Direction, those were great!)
Following textbook psychological examination, one could say that the coded notes were a cry for help, and that all serial killers secretly wish to be caught. Maybe he was reacting to the turn of the tides when the libertine 1960s rolled over to the hedonistic 70s, nicely captured by the CG erection of the Transamerica Building. Maybe he was reacting to the Vietnam War. Maybe he was reacting to the (then fashionable) seersucker shorts and plaid polyester pants (hard to imagine, isn’t it?). Whatever reason, it was much more difficult to pin down and analyze a suspect even just thirty years ago. There were only land lines, no DNA testing, no extensive ballistics matching, none of that trippy CSI stuff. The fax machine had just been introduced but not implemented in lesser counties; records had to be snail-mailed. Hard to imagine, isn’t it?
So maybe it was impatience that caused Robert Graysmith to step up. His almost completely sole investigation began as a novel idea to write a book about the serial killer, enduring prank calls supposedly from the Zodiac himself. While his findings were never affirmed, they have spurned a compelling screenplay where the audience makes discoveries alongside its characters. The only thing you’ll have to endure is the time (2 hrs 40mins). That and Toschi’s fashion sense.
** I have to repeat: DO NOT expect this to be signature Fincher. In fact, try to forget Fincher directed it.
HE SAID:
I really really liked this movie. And really, that’s not my inner Fincher fan-boy speaking. Zodiac is Fincher’s most mature work, and one of the most intriguing investigative films I’ve seen.
Straight off, Zodiac is not your usual Fincher fare. Though it concerns a serial killer, it’s not SE7EN — Fincher already made his neo-noir masterpiece, so there’s no need to do it again. Furthermore the film is based on real events. There’s no need to sensationalize them. The film’s tone is also different from his other efforts. Gone is the trademark Fincher nihilism, replaced by a sense of determination and amateur gumshoe excitement. It’s much more in line with late 60’s and early 70’s cop and detective tales (note the constant references to uber cool Bullitt). And what an intriguing tale it is. For the entire runtime I was hooked to the screen (I didn’t even take a bathroom break). What makes the Zodiac tale stand out from other police/detective procedurals is that the you follow the whole detection process, from the first letter, to the discovery and pursuit of subsequent leads (both real and false). It’s as if you’re part of the detective team, piecing together the case along side them in real time. While a point of contention with some viewers, I absolutely loved that the film follows the various red herrings. Never is a case as clear cut as the movies make them out to be. And, at the time the false leads seem quite plausible.
Fincher also ups the confusion and apprehension by having not one, but three actors play the Zodiac killer. There’s nothing more unreliable than an eye-witness testimony, and this helps cement that notion. “Could that suspect be the killer? I thought the Zodiac was smaller…maybe older…But he walks like they describe…Could it be remembering wrong?” Even when the final, most plausible suspect is fingered you’re still not quite sure. It’s absolutely brilliant.
Fincher’s treatment of the Zodiac murders themselves is also exemplary. Many start off as slightly awkward, or even absurd, but quickly descend into utterly shocking violence. The lakeside murder alone had me initially laughing, then feeling a bit of discomfort, and finally violently slung into the realm of utter shock.
Being a Fincher film, you know the camera work is going to be top notch, and you know that the acting and editing will be comparable. Robert Downey, Jr. knocks it out of the park, as usual. Jake Gyllenhaal is great as well. Even Mark Ruffalo and Elias Koteas do an excellent job (who knew?!). Rounding out the package are Fincher’s use of music (Donovan’s Hurdy Gurdy Man book-ending the film), his concrete sense of space and time, and the humanity he brings to all characters involved.
With Zodiac Fincher has grown up. I still am a big fan of all his films (I’m proud to say I have attended all his films in their theatrical runs), but Zodiac has to be his smartest, most disciplined, and most thought provoking film yet.
Zodiac opens in theatres March 2, 2007.
About the Authors
