BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Zodiac (probably spoilers)

 
 
at the scarwash
19:31 / 02.03.07
So Zodiac opened today, and having nothing to do after work last night, I caught the 12:01AM showing. I have to say that I was absolutley amazed. Like many people, I suppose I have a bit of a fascination with the darkest places that human beings can go, but the sheer quality of this film was a surprise.

For those of you that don't know, the film tells the story of the notorious 1970s Bay Area serial killer, using Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) as the viewer's stand-in. Graysmith was an editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle whose enthusiasm for puzzles draws him in to the case (Zodiac sent letters to several bay area papers, several of which included cryptograms that the killer indicated held clues about his identity). His growing obsession with the case--Graysmith went on to write the book that this film is based on--is paralleled by a carefully recreated reproduction of the San Francsico police's investigation.

I should mention that I live in San Francisco, so there was definitely a contextual aspect to my experience of the film that not every viewer will share. Much of the film takes place at the offices of the San Francisco Chronicle, which are two blocks from my house, and less from the cinema where I was watching the film. The period versimilitude was spot on, the locations carefully thought out, and the use of music was precisely evokative of the era whilst avoiding "hey it's the 70s" cliches. The use of CGI to edit the city back to what it looked like then was tasteful and very effective. In one sequence, to show the passage of time during a lacuna between the Zodiac's letters, there is a thrilling animation of the Transamerica Pyramid leaping up from a concrete framework to a glowing office building, fully part of the city's skyline. Another period detail that was very effectively executed was a sequence that illustrated the difficulty of coordinating a multi-juristictional investigation in the days before computers. Rather than just have characters walking around frustrated, muttering "We just can't coordinate this darn thing," there is a bleakly funny crosscutting of a series of telephone calls from Anthony Edwards' SF police detective to the police chiefs of Napa and Vallejo in which he tries to arrange for evidence sharing, hinging on the smaller department's lack of a "thermofax" machine.

The casting was quite well done. Jake Gyllenhaal wonderfully plays Graysmith as a wide-eyed innocent who seems incapable of reaizing the darker aspects of his obsession, or the effects that have on those around him. At the same time the character is just cartoonish enough to allow for complete audience identification. Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards have a sparkling chemistry as the heroic Inspectors David Toschi and Bill Armstrong. Zodiac himself is played by 3 different actors, which prevents the audience from jumping to any conclusions, as well as heightening the sense of mystery. This also supports the netfull of artfully-strewn red herrings that are scattered through the film. Like in any sensationalized narrative, anyone could be the culprit, and there were several times during the film that I mentally declared "It's him!" only to be proven wrong minutes later. The smaller roles were also perfecty calibrated, notably Ciara Hughes as a victim's incarcerated sister, and James Carraway as Shorty, the acerbic Chronicle coffee vendor. And, predicatably enough, Robert Downey Jr. is absolutely radiant as Paul Avery, the drunken, preening crime reporter who pursued Zodiac in the press.

The movie is not a conventional serial killer film. Unlike Fincher's Se7en, the murders are not fetishized. There are some cringe-inducingly brutal scenes, but after the effect of the horror accomplished, the camera has mercy upon the viewer and turns away. This is the first film I've seen in years that actually scared me. Despite the fact that I've read enough of the case that I knew what was going to happen in each murder scene, the inevitability of each of them made it all the more terrifying.

So anyway, go see this film.
 
 
CameronStewart
14:05 / 03.03.07
Yeah, it's a brilliant film, thoroughly fascinating. On leaving the theatre last night I heard many mutterings from the exiting audience about it being "too long" and complaints that it had "no ending"...but both of those perfectly describe the Zodiac case itself. My girlfriend said it was "exhuasting" but again, I think that's the intended effect. The story does include overhwelming amounts of information but the case itself is so sprawling, and all the details seem so finely connected to one another, that I don't know how you'd edit any of it out and still make sense. The film is not a standard whodunit, there's no capturing the killer, the film provides us with likely suspects but then pulls the rug out from underneath, which is as frustrating for the characters in the film as it is for the audience. It's more about the obsessive quest for the truth when the truth is always one step ahead.

The performances are uniformly excellent, and it was really satisfying to see such a great supporting cast. It's also quite a restrained movie from Fincher, who is known for his virtuoso, often ostentatious camerawork - aside from a few key shots that made my eyes widen, he wisely keeps himself in check and avoids sensationalizing the story by being too flamboyant.

Great movie.
 
 
kowalski
23:04 / 03.03.07
What the film did above all for me was capture and present so accurately the feeling i had when I first came across the Zodiac case on the web several years ago and spent a very long evening poring over everything I could find about it. The compulsion contained within such a high level of irrational, cryptic information, the need to keep digging beyond any actual reason for doing so. And though I hadn't thought about it once in the intervening years, I recalled immediately as each murder was unrolled the exact details of what was to follow.

For another example, this is the same sort of feeling I had when looking for the first time at the May Day Mystery. The film understands and reenacts with complete clarity the appeal of informational madness, the romance of immersion in the minutiae of a problem for which it is unclear that there is even a solution to be found.
 
 
matthew.
13:36 / 20.03.07
Saw this yesterday and I thought it was good. It certainly wasn't the masterpiece I was hoping for. It feels like the work of an older Fincher, a more reflective director. The opening credits weren't shoved in your face. In fact, if you rightfully paid attention to the actor (Jake) while the credits rolled, you could have missed them. There were few trick shots (like through the handle of a coffee pot) and CGI was as blended and normal as CGI has ever been.

The actors were all great, especially John Carrol Lynch. He portrayed Leigh with a mixture of smugness and fearfulness. I could believe this guy was innocent and I could believe this guy was guilty.

While I'm sure most people are going to praise Robert Downey Jr (who is fantastic), the shining light in this film is Mark Ruffalo, slowly but surely becoming one of my favorite actors EVAH. His turn in Collateral and now this. He's phenomenal. The chemistry between him and Anthony Edwards is brilliant. They feel like partners. The little bit about the animal crackers is a nice touch and when there's a callback to it after Edwards is out of the picture.

Jake Gyllenhaal was not as great as I wanted him to be. My major problem with this film is that we're given almost no motivations for becoming this crazy. He begins moderately interested and then he's fullblown into it. For me, Gyllenhaal was the weakest link of this flick. Normally I love him, but he was just - meh. He didn't make me believe that he was obsessed.

It was long. It was exhausting. Since I knew there was no "climax" or "resolution" I wasn't disappointed. In fact, when the ending came, I was quite satisfied. When Gyllenhaal shows up in the hardware store, and stares down Lynch, it was fantastic. The range of thought Lynch shows in his face is incredible. I can't leap anymore superlatives on John Carrol Lynch.

Zodiac feels like a response to Seven (or however the fuck you want to spell it). Seven was a masterpiece and I'll fight whoever says otherwise. Unfortunately, when you have a classic, it breeds imitators. Now thanks to Silence of The Lambs and Seven (the two essential modern serial killer films), we have Saw and BTK Killer and Saw 5 and Twisted and Taking Lives and Mindhunters and blech. Zodiac is like the "fuck you" to the audience that is comfortable with that genre. "You want twist ending? Fuck off, this is reality, punk!"

I think we can add Zodiac to the essentials list, if only for its skillful handling of the complexities of the case and its stellar all-star cast. If you're going to watch American movies about American serial killers, you can't go wrong with a trinity of Silence of the Lambs, Seven and Zodiac.
 
 
Seth
02:07 / 21.05.07
Another period detail that was very effectively executed was a sequence that illustrated the difficulty of coordinating a multi-juristictional investigation in the days before computers. Rather than just have characters walking around frustrated, muttering "We just can't coordinate this darn thing," there is a bleakly funny crosscutting of a series of telephone calls from Anthony Edwards' SF police detective to the police chiefs of Napa and Vallejo in which he tries to arrange for evidence sharing, hinging on the smaller department's lack of a "thermofax" machine.

It wasn't a period detail. I've lost track of the number of similar instances of juristictional beaurocratic idiocy I've encountered in the job. This is the nuts and bolts of policing, and that scene was both hilarious and very close to home. Brilliantly observed.

This film deserves two of the highest compliments I can pay to it. Firstly it's the best piece of live action cinema I've seen since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's an absolute fucking masterpiece. Second, it is the movie adaptation of From Hell. Different murders, yes. Much less of the sexy occult stuff that sells comix. But it is From Hell the movie.

I'm still in gobsmacked hyperbole mode, plus I'm pissed as a Stoat or a ghadis, so you won't get much more sense out of me for the time being. But I plan to see this many, many, many more times, and I already know it will reward every subsequent viewing.

Fincher can now be called a proper film maker. This pisses on the rest of his career from a great height.
 
 
Seth
02:14 / 21.05.07
It helps that I've been to every major town that is mentioned in the movie in the last month (and a little more than that over the last seven years) and know each at least a little. San Francisco, Vallejo, Vacaville, Sacramento... it had the whole From Hell psychogeography thing going for it in spades for me.
 
 
Spaniel
12:34 / 21.05.07
Loved this. Forget fucking Spiderman (sorry, Tank) and go see it.

I'll come back when I have time.
 
 
Seth
14:52 / 21.05.07
Eh? Not understanding how this movie relates to Spiderman.
 
 
Spaniel
15:00 / 21.05.07
Sorry for teh clarity lack, I just think people should spend their money on this 'cause is very good.
 
 
Seth
17:33 / 21.05.07
And they may even be able to see two films in their lifetime!
 
 
Spaniel
17:42 / 21.05.07
I know, I know, it's not simply an either or situation (although I do think that something like that goes on to some extent). It's just that it would be nice to see more films like Zodiac. 4 colour superhero films we have a lot of. Slow moving but finely crafted big budget procedural dramas not so much.
 
 
Seth
17:52 / 21.05.07
Depends how far you go back. There was a lot more of this kind of film making back in the Seventies, and Zodiac definitely seems to belong to that tradition. There's room for all these different types of movies.
 
 
Spaniel
18:10 / 21.05.07
I suppose I just worry that in big budget hollywood there isn't much room for all kinds of movies anymore. That the high end is becoming more conservative and less likely to take any kind of risk. Despite Hollywood's current obsession with the remake, to run with a format that was successful thirty years ago is quite unusual, IMO.

God I'm tired and cranky today.
 
 
Mug Chum
14:40 / 04.10.07
I'm in the business of digging up old threads, it seems...

I'm really glad to see a reference to From Hell here. As I watched the film I realized I felt exactly how I felt when reading Moore's piece. Everyone I went with hated expecting Se7en, but it felt like Fincher's commenting on that very CSI/SAW-esque obsession he himself helped create (or was himself a 'symptom' of it).

The scary thing is that he doesn't want to show the creep and the pornographic allure of the killings and be a thriller, but it can't help it - it's always there throughout all frames of the film. We see Downey Jr, we're seeing the killer's ghostly invisible face and hand shaping this world, very William Gull-like, or perhaps being just an agent/'symptom' of the cultural setting and changes. The all-loving sixties (I mean, damn, it's in San Francisco...) coming down like a drug's effect going away in a bad psychedelic backwash downer Doors/Donovan-style to the tight-locked-door paranoia and cultural obsession with killers and super-cops above the law of the 70's (and well, until around the time of Fincher's own endeavour with Se7en -- just by the contrast of his treatments in both films -- and things afterwards).

Things like what songs were used at what time (beginning at 1969-1970) really made this feel like From Hell's intimate high sky-view (the code-breaking allures paranoias, his son's being hammered with the news repeating the killer's words, little nuances in people's behaviour towards The Other or strangers, the... ok, I'm just rambling). I'm not sure if it was excellent since it's been a while since it was in the theaters, but I'm really looking foward to see it again to confirm it.
 
 
Seth
15:15 / 04.10.07
I should walk home from the US with a copy of this under my arm, so if you're in the vicinity of the Hamptons at any point then chances are I'll either force you to watch a bunch of life-changing cartoons or this.
 
 
Mug Chum
02:58 / 05.10.07
Apparently, Seth, the director's cut will be released next year. Tons of extras etc.

But, and this is the really weird thing, the director's cut has only about 5 minutes more than the theatrical cut.

From here:

"Paramount has announced Zodiac: Director's Cut which stars Jake Gyllenhaal. This David Fincher directed thriller will be available to own from the 8th January. Extras will include a commentary by David Fincher, a second commentary by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr, Producer Brad Fischer, James Vanderbilt and James Ellroy, a Zodiac Deciphered documentary, a Visual Effects of Zodiac featurette, a Digital Workflow featurette, and sequence breakdowns (Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa, and San Francisco). Completing the package will be a This is the Zodiac Speaking featurette, a featurette on Linguistic Analysis, a His Name Was Arthur Leigh Allen featurette, Jeopardy Surface: Geographic Profiling, Dr. Kim Rossmo's Geographic Profile of the Zodiac, The Psychology of Aggression: Behavioral Profiling, Special Agent Sharon Pagaling-Hagan's Behavioral Profile of the Zodiac, trailers and TV spots.

I remember reading one scene he didn't wanted cut was the two detectives and their boss speaking to a interphone-type thing making them look like Charlie's Angels. Might be just that one scene.

Looking at the cover made me wonder, was there a motif of bridges in the film (possibly making the allusion of a passing to another time, place etc)?
 
  
Add Your Reply