MUBI

The purpose of the cipher is concealment. David Fincher’s new film Zodiac demonstrates this in cinematic terms.

It’s a brave director who returns after an extended absence from cinema and then subverts the very film that made his career. But that is exactly what Fincher has done with Zodiac. Where his first masterpiece, Seven, was a frenetic, angry take on the serial killer film with a uniquely urban aesthetic, his new film is almost the polar opposite. Though the acute, almost obsessive, attention to detail flows from one scene to the next, it’s the subtle, low-key aspects of the filmmaking that shows it for what it is: a filmmaker maturing before our eyes.

Where Seven had an energetic young pup Detective Brad Pitt, Zodiac’s centre is the introverted Robert Graysmith (played here with wide-eyed fervor by Jake Gyllenhaal), a political cartoonist on the San Francisco Chronicle who befriends crime beat reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr., beautifully channeling a foppish Doctor Who) while building an obsession with the very real Zodiac case from the 1970s that has stumped lead investigator Inspector Dave Toschi (the compelling Mark Ruffalo).

The technician in Fincher is still vibrantly alive in the powerful time lapse photography showing the construction of the Transamerica Pyramid and the digital mapping of the Zodiac’s letters to the Chronicle onto the audience’s perspective, but these are parts of the puzzle conceit. Time moves on, blocks fall perfectly into place elsewhere, but the worlds of Graysmith, Avery, and Toschi are separate, crumbling into the same ciphers they are meticulously working to solve.

Their lives have become as muted, and as sickly, as the jaundiced colours of Harris Savide’s potent cinematography; lives wound up dangerously tight, yet adrift in the cruel wide spread of San Francisco Bay and the open plan offices of the Chronicle that recall Pakula’s All The President’s Men, and enveloped in a menacing soundscape of shrilling telephones, pounding machinery, and departing planes. Even nature is adulterated in the sunlit lakeside setting of the most horrifying scene in the film that also contrasts nicely with the enveloping darkness of Seven’s more gruesome moments.

This is a work that requires the utmost concentration and patience on the part of the audience. Just as he did with Seven, The Game and even Fight Club, Fincher confronts us with a conundrum, but in this case one that has no solution. In lesser hands, with less restraint, a more bowdlerized ending would be the result, but instead Fincher leaves us on a chilling note of success just out of reach. It’s dark and pessimistic, but just as Graysmith stares into the face of evil and lives, so do we, but changed by both a fine tribute to the paranoia films of the 1970s and a perfect example of growth in a filmmaker.

Zodiac starts out nice and creepy with depictions of some of the murders. It remains interesting as the news media starts getting cryptic letters from the killer and different entities attempt to solve the crime. We get a notion of how the investigation was stymied by the technology of the times, the lack of communication between the different jurisdictions, and the expediency of people who simply wanted to gain names for themselves through the investigation. However, the film eventually settles upon characters who aren’t that compelling, with Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) being key among them.

I was completely uninterested in the attempts to show how Graysmith’s obsession with the crime had a devastating effect on his personal life. I would have preferred to see more about the actual suspects. It turns out that each of the key figures in the investigation—Ruffalo’s cop, Downey’s reporter, and Gyllenhaal as a political cartoonist who loves puzzles—has his own “favorite” suspect. I would have loved to see those suspects in action so that as a viewer, I could get a sense of why each one seemed to fit the bill.

Lastly, the film was told in a straight, chronological order that necessitated a succession of time cues (e.g. “12 hours later” or “4 years later.”) The use of strategically orchestrated flashbacks could have effectively alleviated some of this and possibly improved the movie’s overall pace (I should mention that at 2 hr. 38 min., the movie’s run time is way too long). Summer of Sam and Monster are shining examples of films that dealt with their true life murderous subjects much better.

Wow, I never thought I’d use the names Pakula and Fincher in the same sentence. Call me patronizing, but having found most of his previous work to be lionized shlock or little better, I really think Fincher matures here. This is a moody procedural executed with impressive restraint. Extraneous detail is minimal to nonexistent, and the requisite moments of comic relief don’t stink of a producer’s quota. Granted, the subject entails quite a bit of exposition, but Fincher wrings the eerieness out of every moment that admits of it, and there’s a lot to unsettle you here. I sympathize with the reviewer who felt alienated by the absence of intimate character detail, but it’s not a lack I felt. I found the characters sketched adequately, and the plot has such momentum and intrinsic interest that more scenes of the detectives’ home lives or patrol car conversations might have risked making an already long film feel bloated. I enjoyed the subtle satirization of departmental bureacracy that went on (though nothing matches The Wire for that sort of project), and there’s a nicely acidic aftereffect created when you realize that those miscommunications and trivial obstructions may have destroyed a homicide case. I’m skeptical that much more can be said in our era about ethics and (print) journalism, but it’s heartening that Fincher opts for the chisel over the hammer, even if he isn’t breaking much new ground with his inquiry into the business angle of murder investigations. Oh, and Donovan has never sounded so satanic! (Fincher does for “Hurdy Gurdy Man” what Lynch did for Orbison.) One of the few recent blockbusters I’d actually class with a film like Klute, thematic differences aside. We need more thrillers that’re this thrilling.

This is an example of how a film can flounder and fail even if the execution is skilled. I like Fincher’s style a great deal, but I find his project selection process to be a bit questionable. There are more duds than masterpieces in his filmography which leaves me puzzled because I find that his talent is clearly evident. My thoughts at this point is that he is brilliant at sculpting individual scenes but he is sometimes lacking in maintaining a holistic view, bringing a cohesiveness to all the separate parts.

“Zodiac” has a lot to like. It boasts a dream cast and a lurid, open-ended, true crime case full of sinister twists. Individually, all the actors are superb, especially Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr. The feeling of dread incited by the Zodiac killer’s games are intensely chilling. Despite all of this, the film doesn’t seem to know what it’s trying to be. Is this Robert Graysmith’s story about how the case became his obsession? If so, why do Gyllenhaal’s scenes feel less than integral to the momentum of the film except for the last quarter of it? Is this a film about the Zodiac’s overall impact on the people ensnared in the hunt? Then why do the characters fade out from the story without any intimate examination of how they felt about the case?

It’s worthwhile seeing this for everything that it does so well, but it will leave you hollow, having gained so little from watching it.

From the opening scene which included Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man,” one of my favorite songs, I knew that I was going to at least somewhat enjoy this. I’ve never been a tremendous fan of David Finchers, even in high school while being exposed to my first films with a sense of “otherness” (I suppose.) I always really liked Se7en though, and I see a lot of positive similarities between it and this film. Both films suck you into an air-tight and unique mystery, as well acted characters are asked to think outside the box to solve it. Both films slowly absorb the viewer into the peculiar game of cat and mouse rather easily. Both films use dreary, dark imagery with a sense of uncertainty and hopelessness attached, only being illuminated by a few beams of light generally coming from ceiling lights, and a few bursts of lush bright coloring here and there. Fincher’s transitions from scene to scene, use of sound and music, delicate camera movement, and editing are his clear strengths as a filmmaker, and they’re skills he’s taken advantage of in both films as well. “Se7en” and “Zodiac” feature two downright perfect soundtracks, and I aside from Donovan I also loved hearing Miles Davis’ “Solar.” Both films also have above average acting from above average actors. The acting delivered from Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo is as good as they’ve ever been, Robert Downey Jr. once again succeeds at playing himself, and there’s a large arrays of extras who also do their job in adding a certain genuineness and authenticity to the picture. Chloe Sevigny even managed to not completely annoy the shit out of me, which I don’t think she’s done since her seminal role in “Kids.” I found the pace consistent and not overly dragged out, even at over two and a half hours. I didn’t particularly care for was the ending. Endings, much like any other aspect of film, is very debatable and how I would have liked to see it play out is irrelevant. Its not nearly as stylistically inspirational, or mentally stimulating as the films made by the greats of the genre, and if you wanted to be picky there is a noticeable emotional detachment from the view and the characters. Overll though, this is a great effort from Fincher, and shows that his calling is not stupid movies about old-man babies, but rather noir influenced crime mysteries and thrillers, similar to the direction which Jean Pierre Melville chose to take in his brilliant career. The pretentious people found it too simple, the people who don’t know what they’re talking about thought it was slow and boring. That’s another way I can tell a movie is for me. 4 stars sounds about right.

I think David Fincher’s Zodiac is his most under-appreciated film. Note how I didn’t say underrated, as that wold go to Panic Room (in my eyes). Zodiac garnered great reviews and all the Fincher fans I know adore this movie, but everyone can agree when it deserved something more (perhaps some Oscar nominations?). I don’t really care about the Oscars, but it would have been nice to see Fincher recognized for something (until Benjamin Button).

Zodiac is a continuity editor’s wet dream come true. I forget how much time passes by in this film, but I think it was upwards of, say, nine-teen years? Towards the end of the movie you can literally see the gray hairs on top of Mark Ruffalo’s head, the pot belly of Robert Downey, Jr.‘s Paul Avery, and the sunken eyes of Jake Gyllenhaal’s overtly obsessive Robert Graysmith. The film chronicles the rise and fall of the monumental manhunt for the notorious serial killer who has murdered around regions of the San Francisco Bay area, Zodiac. He would murder his victims and then, a short while after, mail the top three newspaper companies in the area with mocking letters and ciphers that contained clues, if they could be solved. Real-life Robert Graysmith is a cartoonist at one of these papers, and soon grows from being mildly interested in solving the puzzles to excessively neurotic as he tries to solve a case that he thinks everybody has gave up on.

David Fincher is, perhaps, one of my favorite American contemporary filmmakers. He is such a technical mastermind that his films are just mouth-watering to view. He is also one of the very few people who I think uses CG right. Remember that opening shot of the swooping landscape of San Francisco at night? OR the time lapse shot of the building being constructed, to show how much time has passed? Fincher manages not to go completely overboard with his use of CG and, in a way, it looks astounding. I love his swooping city shots in CG. The only other bits of CG that I can think of would have to be the blood spurts after the victims are shot. Sure, you can obviously tell it’s CG but it helps give the film a rather vintage, glossy feel. This could be the fact that most of the film was shot on digital video, but high speed cameras were used for the actual murders. And this film was edited on Final Cut Pro, not Avid. Score.

The big thing I really love about Zodiac is that it isn’t gruesome serial killer torture porn. We don’t have shots of the Zodiac in his lair masturbating to birds nailed on his walls, and the killings (while violent) aren’t over the top and aren’t meant to disgust the audience (just listen to the music in some of these scenes). One killing that stands out most to me is the couple laying on the hillside by the beach, where we first see Zodiac in his outfit. He saunters over, ties them up and then proceeds to stab them. After stabbing the man he moves on to the women, mainly because, “he gets so caught up in the women that he forgets about the men.” What makes this stand out to me is that once the Zodiac starts going to town on this lady, we cut to a close up of the male’s face, twisting in pain from his body, and more importantly, the fact that he can’t do anything to save the girl that he loves. It’s from these angles that the scene was shot that gave me a National Geographic sense, like a documentary showing you what happened back in 1970 (?).

The script is tight and contains everything you would want to see in a film. It balances the right amount of lighthearted comedy with enough suspense and dread that each corner the film moves around leaves you stunned and, unexpectedly, craving more. I would love to see Fincher’s original cut of the film, which ran over three hours. I have the director’s cut on DVD, and that’s the closest we’ll ever come to seeing the full version. Zodiac is an investment that will reward its very patient viewers. Many people may be put off by the running time or from watching Jake Gyllenhall run around for over two and a half hours, but Zodiac is a real treat and bound to become a secret gem in contemporary cinema. Rarely recognized, but absolutely breathtaking.

Ao contrário do que aparenta, ZODÍACO não é o filme contido e convencional que a crítica vem apregoando ao diretor David Fincher, dado a arroubos de experimentação técnica em filmes como CLUBE DA LUTA e O QUARTO DO PÂNICO. Nem é uma releitura de SEVEN – OS SETE CRIMES CAPITAIS, ainda o maior sucesso do diretor e também focado em um serial killer. Fincher consegue voltar ao tema daquele filme, mantendo a experimentação que lhe fascina, só que não a colocando em primeiro plano como fez em seus trabalhos anteriores.

Ao contrário de SEVEN, ZODÍACO fala sobre um assassino serial real, que aterrorizou a Califórnia nas décadas de 60 e 70. Só que foca menos no assassino em si, cuja identidade nunca foi comprovada, e mais no processo investigativo perpetrado por um repórter (Robert Downey Jr.) e um cartunista (Jake Gyllenhaal) do San Francisco Chronicle e por uma dupla de policiais (Mark Ruffalo e Anthony Edwards). Fincher faz assim o seu TODOS OS HOMENS DO PRESIDENTE, o filme de Alan J. Pakula que explorou o trabalho dos dois jornalistas do Washington Post para desbaratar a conspiração que culminou na renúncia do Presidente Nixon. Esta aproximação não é só temática. Fincher realiza um filme ambicioso, minucioso e se mostra tão obsessivo com os detalhes da investigação quanto seus personagens. Obsessão, aliás, é a chave do filme, e nesse ponto ZODÍACO não faria feio na filmografia de outro cineasta contemporâneo, Christopher Nolan (de BATMAN BEGINS e O GRANDE TRUQUE). Assim, Fincher se afasta de seu tema favorito, o de como o homem retorna ao estado pré-civilizatório em ambientes ou situações hostis, para embarcar em uma narrativa que reproduz o mesmo perfeccionismo e preocupação com detalhes que marca seu trabalho atrás das câmeras e que lhe deu a fama de um cineasta difícil. É devastador como a obsessão que se instaura nos personagens centrais vai destruindo suas vidas e sua relação com o meio ao longo do caminho.

Outro ponto em comum entre ZODÍACO e o filme de Pakula é a forma. Enquanto TODOS OS HOMENS DO PRESIDENTE é uma típica produção resultante da madura fornada da década de 70, ZODÍACO, produzido 30 anos depois, faz de tudo para parecer um filhote daquela época. É aí que entra o completo domínio que o diretor tem dos elementos cinematográficos e da tecnologia digital, mais do que nunca aplicados em função da trama e da ambientação. Fincher, como o Michael Mann de COLATERAL e MIAMI VICE, utiliza a captação digital de imagens não para simular ou copiar uma imagem em película e sim para explorar o potencial que o sistema oferece para a criação de cores e texturas únicas do processo digital. E o faz com tal elegância e discrição que passa em branco ao olhar mais desavisado, daí as tais críticas relatadas acima. Não se engane: por trás do visual setentista, propositadamente envelhecido, encontra-se o que de mais moderno existe em efeitos e câmeras digitais de alta definição.

Mas como o que se esconde nos bastidores interessa mais aos críticos e aos estudiosos, o que realmente importa aqui é a forma como o espectador capta o resultado das técnicas empregadas. E a sensação é de que este está vivendo aquele período, ou de que pelo menos se lembra dele com a mesma intensidade que o diretor. Este era apenas um garoto (o que nos faz imaginar que ele poderia muito bem ser um dos filhos do personagem de Gyllenhaal) na ocasião, mas se recorda vivamente do terror que se instaurou em toda a população. Como em O VERÃO DE SAM de Spike Lee (que também mostrava como os mesmos crimes afetavam uma vizinhança) e BOOGIE NIGHTS de Paul Thomas Anderson, as referências estão tanto nas cores e cenários quanto nos gestos e atitudes (repare também nas datadas aberturas da Warner e Paramount). É por tudo isso o trabalho mais maduro do diretor. E uma experiência fascinante mesmo para aqueles que ainda usavam fraudas na época retratada.

Two David Fincher films in two years? Is that even possible? With The Curious Case of Benjamin Button finishing filming this year for a 2008 release, we get the director’s sixth film, Zodiac. While we do get some vintage Fincher style throughout the proceedings, this is very different from his other movies. As much a real life story film as one can be, Zodiac goes through the years chronicling the hunt for the serial killer that got away. There isn’t the graphic gore quality we’ve become accustomed to with Seven and Fight Club, but instead a taut thriller that keeps the viewer on edge, not knowing what bit of history would be coming at them next. Usually this type of film bores me, especially being one I know going in that the killer is never caught, yet Fincher really has control of the pacing and delivers one of the fastest three hour movies I’ve seen in awhile.

Our main entry point into the story lies with cartoonist Robert Graysmith, the man whose books the film was based on, played perfectly by Jake Gyllenhaal. No one plays shy, boyish charm, naïveté like he does. What would seem strange casting for a man who ends up devoting his life to finding out who the Zodiac was, Gyllenhaal ends up being the only choice you can think of once we find that Graysmith’s nickname, behind his back, is “retard.” He truly portrays the socially awkward, outcast Boy Scout we need to follow. Only a guy with his likeability and lack of ego could get as many people involved in the case to help him find the material he needed.

Besides Gyllenhaal though, we have a stellar supporting cast. Every frame that passes brings us another cameo from a known actor. Sure comedies of late have been cameo vehicles, but this one seems to have had Hollywood knocking on Fincher’s door to be included. From non-existent parts by Adam Goldberg, and recognizable faces Tom Verica and Jimmi Simpson, to small roles from Dermot Mulroney, Elias Koteas, and Brian Cox, we have a non-stop who’s who of acting talent. Fincher must have been a big “24” fan as well casting Paul Schulze in a real bad wig as a witness for the cops’ main suspect in the case, Arthur Leigh Allen, (played with scene-stealing ability by John Carroll Lynch). There are a couple nice meaty roles to go with the cameos led by the always fantastic Robert Downey Jr. It has been stated the Downey and Fincher butted heads a bit during filming—I mean this is Mr. Unpredictable Ad-lib working for Mr. Perfectionist shooting 25 takes of a one minute scene—but the result is great. Downey brings a comic relief that is needed amongst the violence and drama, yet also plays his descent into drugs and unreliability to perfection.

In the end, the real star of the film, in my opinion, becomes Mark Ruffalo. He plays Inspector David Toschi who truly becomes embedded into the case and never able to break free of it. Ruffalo can always play the regular guy in irregular situations without making it seem like acting. His reactions to Downey’s character’s misstep in info leaking are real, as is his passion and emotion during the course of secretly working with Graysmith during the last act of the film. Toschi is the man that I feel the audience can relate to most during the manhunt and I wish he had been given more of a central role to the movie.

Although the film is successful at telling the story of forty years of the Zodiac, the plethora of characters cause it to be a bit sprawling and unfocused. Graysmith wrote the story, and he is our lead, yet we lose him for a good hour of the film to follow the police/newspaper’s efforts at finding the killer’s identity. Sure Gyllenhaal is in the background often, but sometimes you wonder where he went and once you get comfortable with Ruffalo being in charge, back comes Jake to take the lead again. It almost feels like two films cut together as a whole. Not to say the editing is bad because in actuality the film is real smooth transitionally. We are given snippets that are pertinent to the eventually findings by Graysmith and Toschi, and never more than necessary. When it comes to movies on a strict timeline, this is one of the best.

I feel that Fincher could have had another masterpiece, but just couldn’t commit to one viewpoint. He definitely did his research into the case and jam packed details wherever he could. However, the tagline for the film is “There’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer” and yet it was never really taken to the next level. Sure we see the strain the case has on Ruffalo, Gyllenhaal, and Anthony Edward’s family life, but on second thought, do we really? Edward’s family is never shown and he eventually quits the case, Ruffalo’s wife is supporting to the fullest and he remains balanced for perpetuity; even Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith, so deep into his research that his family leaves him, never seems too upset about it. He is more, “I’ll take care of our problems once this is done,” and doesn’t really seem to care that he has been left. So, basically in effect, rather than a character piece on how the case effects those involved, we get a strict thriller on the hunt for a killer.

Yes, it is not Fincher’s best, but as a film it is effective. We get some nice flourishes with the camera (the opening pan with stationary camera through car window, overhead/bird’s eye following of cars, and a gorgeous sequence traveling over the fog engulfed bridge of the poster) and some great acting, just nothing really special, screaming out at us to see its importance. Also, where was the Fincher-staple creative credit sequence? All in all Zodiac ends up being an enjoyable ride, that, if nothing else, whets your appetite for more darkness to come from his singular mind.