Zodiac (2007) January 31, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: David Fincher
With only five feature films to his name, director David Fincher has already established himself as one of the most prolific filmmakers in his profession. His presence can often be felt in the work, if always through visual style, then certainly through the impact he can give to a story. Fans of Fight Club or Se7en will know that he can produce intense and sinister worlds, while Panic Room showed his willingness to adopt cutting edge techniques. So interesting then that for his sixth studio feature, a story following the investigation of the 1960’s and 70’s Zodiac murders in San Francisco, the passionate director takes a distinctly back-seat approach - albeit a detail-filled one.
The tale unfolds around Robert Greysmith, a cartoonist working for the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, who becomes intrigued by the cryptic messages that a person claiming to be a murderer is sending to the local news outlets. The self-titled ‘Zodiac’ killer soon becomes the centre of attention as his murders continue, while Robert forms an uneasy friendship with reporter Paul Avery, who is tracking the story for the paper. Along with Inspector David Toschi, the official assigned to the case, we see how the two-decade long investigation becomes increasingly unsolvable and slowly consumes those who take part in it.
At 157 minutes, this film can hardly be described as short. However, it is never anything but gripping and a true example of a film that feels nowhere near its length - I’ve seen 90-minute features that have dragged longer than this. To call it energetic would be a misappropriation of the term because the very nature of the story means the film is stuck in a constant investigatory mode; never having the opportunity to stray beyond anything but conversation and research. However, it is an investigation that is presented so well, and with such marvellous flow, that you are swept up by the film’s current and taken out to sea without ever realising that what you’re seeing is essentially the extended second act of any normal detective-thriller.
But this is Fincher, and Zodiac is no ordinary detective-anything. In fact it works very hard to turn the story from being about its subject matter, to being about its people. For everything else that is good about this movie aside, it’s true strength is the way it plays with the audience to make the murder mystery they think they are watching into a character piece about obsession and the relentless nature of Robert Graysmith and Dave Toschi to find the truth. It’s quite a brave move but ultimately a successful one, highlighting the long, drawn-out, sometimes unrewarding nature of police investigation in a way that is usually glossed over by serial killer flicks for preference of finding ‘the villain’.
Adding greatly to the film’s success is the fantastic casting and subsequent performances by those chosen actors. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the youthful Robert Greysmith and holds his own well as the character becomes increasingly overtaken by an investigation that he, for all intents and purposes, has nothing to do with. Gyllenhaal’s take on the decline is bettered only by Mark Ruffalo who, as detective David Toschi, displays his character’s frustrations with great authenticity over the 30-year or so timeline of the movie. Backing up these two roles is Robert Downy Jr., falling into his laid-back wise-cracker role with equal aplomb, while Brian Cox, Anthony Edwards and Chloe Sevigny don’t disappoint in thankless supporting parts. The very nature of the story and its years-long timeline mean that some characters do tend to get slightly underused – we see Philip Baker Hall, but only briefly, while Adam Goldberg shows up to take a job at the newspaper where Graysmith works, then barely features again.
Visually, Zodiac takes a wholly reserved approach to its camera work compared to Fincher’s last movie, Panic Room. Gone are the flashy computer-aided single-take shots and high-concept virtual camera movements, and what we are left with is maybe his simplest film in the past decade. Although ‘simple’ is a relative term, since CGI still has a place in creating some of the visuals, there’s just none of the Fight Club-esque ‘shake & blur’, nor the drab and dreary tone of this film’s closest cousin, Se7en. In this movie, composition is Fincher’s greatest asset – naturally, he uses it to produce some awesome sights. 1970’s San Francisco is presented in a very realistic colour scheme which means it is bright and colourful where it needs to be – not something commonly associated with the director. He knows his strengths though, and has an excellent eye for low-level lighting which is appropriately utilised here in the night time rendezvous, lamp-lit apartments and darkened offices that punctuate the daytime sequences.
There’s equally no faulting the period styling and music choices either, as they merge to complement the film perfectly. The mixture of haunting tracks (Donovan’s Hurdy Gurdy Man is spine-tinglingly creepy) with upbeat songs of the decade make for a strange atmosphere, while set-dressing and wardrobe all ring true. This is not a film where people will take issue with the tangible aspects though, as it seems to be more about how much you connect with the story. Some audiences will find the movie ponderous and long without ever giving them the satisfaction they need from a mystery thriller, while others may dislike that dropping your attention often leads to you missing a turn in the case – for such a long film, it has relentless intent. Also, one could say that the hindrance of rooting the story in truth (James Vanderbilt’s screenplay is based on a book by the real Robert Graysmith), curbs the ability to twist complete drama out of Graysmith’s obsessional decline.
I really like Fincher as a filmmaker; he’s brave, bold, and picks only the best stories to tell. I think the derision that is handed to Panic Room is sometimes linked to its over-complicated nature, as if the director was just using it to show off. Well this is David Fincher not showing off; not doing anything that would suggest he is trying to turn the film into more than it is. And it’s still brilliant. Which is mainly down to the fact that getting a good cast to perform a well structured, well scripted story, will pay off dividends if you don’t over complicate it. You know the film has worked when you find yourself wanting these characters to solve the case, not so that you know who did it, but so that they will be relieved of their obsession. There’s no doubting it: taking a back seat never looked so good.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?