0474 | Zodiac

Because the real-life case of the Zodiac Killer has never been closed, except for a few years in which it was marked ‘inactive’ by the San Francisco Police Department, this version of events by David Fincher is a rare Hollywood mystery: after detailing the long investigation into several murders Zodiac claimed he committed, the puzzle at the heart of the movie – namely the identity of the serial killer – remains unsolved (or, at least, it’s still uncertain enough to ensure that no suspect is in custody). Dirty Harry, a more conventional thriller that used the Zodiac persona as a basis for its antagonist Scorpio, approached things in a more cut-and-dry fashion. Its hero rubs out this force of evil and solves the case by the end of the movie, but it was made at a time when the Zodiac Killer was still at large, and possibly still actively killing; if the cops couldn’t get him, and the newspapers couldn’t figure out who it was, then at least American citizens could sleep at night knowing that Clint Eastwood was around to deliver some rough justice. But the clear draw for Fincher, along with screenwriter James Vanderbilt, was the question mark hanging over the Zodiac case in real life, the fact that it remains unsolved. Their adaptation of former San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith’s book was released in 2007 to wide acclaim, and there’s a powerful argument for it being Fincher’s most accomplished work to date.

At the beginning Zodiac follows genre conventions, to a certain degree. The audience witnesses dramatisations of murders that took place in real life during the late 1960s, though the face of the man committing them on screen is never made clear. (To increase confusion the director used different actors for each scene depicting murder or attempted murder.) There is a tense pre-credits sequence in which a camera points out of a car window as it crawls along a kerb; at first it looks like a stalker is driving, but the car actually belongs to a young girl, who picks up her boyfriend before heading to a secluded spot. Donovan’s Hurdy Gurdy Man plays on the radio as a couple of minor incidents raise the tension, and eventually a figure appears behind the car, shining a torch through the back window before firing several gunshots into the vehicle. It’s a striking set piece, and Fincher subsequently uses our association of murder with cars and music to create a sense of dread prior to other attacks, all of which appear during the first act: a couple are stabbed after driving to a lake, a cab driver is slain in a residential street at night, a woman whose car is sabotaged on a highway escapes with her life intact.


Anthony Edwards and Mark Ruffalo in Zodiac

Initially the investigation into these crimes is played out in the offices of the Chronicle. Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is interested in letters and cryptograms sent by the killer to the newspaper, and senior crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr), who initially dismisses the young oddball, gradually comes to respect his colleague’s dogged determination and perceptiveness. What’s most impressive is the way that the film subsequently shifts into different periods, concentrating on different characters or different combinations of characters as it does so. This is natural, as the time period covered by the film is 14 years – 33 if you include information presented during the end credits – so inevitably there are sudden leaps that span months or years, and the private and working lives of these characters require them to focus on other matters. Music changes. Clothes change. Gyllenhaal, somewhat remarkably, remains baby-faced throughout. As time passes we stop seeing the Zodiac Killer’s attacks, for possible reasons that become apparent later in the story. Gradually we see less of the Chronicle’s offices and more time is spent with the police investigation, led by Mark Ruffalo’s Inspector Dave Toschi and Anthony Edwards’ Inspector William Armstrong. Avery slowly slips out of the picture, the suggestion being that the reporter became more interested in alcohol and other drugs during the 1970s, and Toschi’s influence eventually subsides when he is charged with fabricating evidence and demoted. Armstrong transfers. The one constant presence during the film is the mousy-but-obsessive Graysmith, which is understandable given that Zodiac is based on his book; his appetite for information about the case does not cease, even when he starts to receive crank phone calls and even when his exasperated wife (Chloë Sevigny) takes the kids and leaves. It’s the mild-mannered cartoonist who eventually comes closes to putting all of the pieces together.

Gradually the clear premise – a small task force of policemen and journalists are trying to identify a killer, and surely they’ll get there eventually – gives way to a story that becomes ever more clouded as facts are laid upon facts, key witnesses are allowed to disappear for years and boxes containing information and statements pile up in different police stations. Numerous apparent breakthroughs only ever result in one arrest, and that doesn’t lead to a charge. Evidence found is largely circumstantial, and not enough for a court to convict, so the prime suspect Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) remains a free man at the end of the film, as he was when he died in real life. The characters themselves never seem to be in possession of all of the necessary information, or never quite understand the full extent of the killer’s actions: it’s possible that the Zodiac Killer is taking ‘credit’ for other murders, or that other people are pretending to be the Zodiac Killer, but no-one knows for sure, and it’s also possible the murderer is responsible for killings without admitting to them (though this is unlikely). Different police departments in San Francisco and surrounding counties where crimes took place fail to share information, and as with another recent Ruffalo-starring procedural – Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight – there’s a sense throughout that the failure of organisations and individuals to co-operate or act with the necessary due diligence makes the task of investigating at a later date extremely difficult.

Fincher’s obsession with surfaces is evident from the off, and the director employs a number of extreme close-ups to catalogue the evidence and other details related the case. Some digital effects are employed for establishing shots, for example a vertigo-inducing look down from the top of the Golden Gate Bridge, and a slow, creeping pan over water toward San Francisco’s many piers. The late Harris Savides shot incredibly crisp digital footage, which is beautifully-lit during the many nighttime scenes, and it’s all impeccably edited by Angus Wall, who cuts with restraint when necessary and clearly understood the material, or was well-directed when it came to discussions about the intended pace; if he was troubled by concerns over the running time it’s not evident. Clearly Zodiac is the work of a formidable team – production designer Donald Graham Burt also deserves a mention, while David Shire provided a fitting noir-ish original score – and it stands apart from most modern crime movies by eschewing the neatly-resolved ending, as well as the usual action sequences and cop heroics. (Like Spotlight, the subject is not really the crime but the way that it is investigated, and that investigation doesn’t lead to any showdowns, save for a shared look between Allen and Graysmith near the end.) Fincher’s film is incredibly stylish, but there’s meat on its bones; it works as a thorough police and paper procedural, but its success also comes from the way it serves as a multilayered critique of organisational interdependence, as well as the unsteadying influence of the media on high profile criminal cases (in a more satisfying way than 2014’s stuttering Gone Girl). I was impressed by certain elements of Zodiac when I first saw it in cinemas, but didn’t quite get the fuss, and fell asleep near the end (hey, it happens). The second time I felt more attuned to Fincher’s skill as a filmmaker. This time – third viewing – I’m convinced that the high-esteem in which it seems to be held by many is fully deserved.

Directed by: David Fincher.
Written by: James Vanderbilt. Based on Zodiac by Robert Graysmith.
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr, Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox, Elias Koteas, Chloë Sevigny, Philip Baker Hall, John Carroll Lynch, Dermot Mulroney, Donal Logue, Adam Goldberg.
Cinematography: Harris Savides.
Editing: Angus Wall.
Music: David Shire.
Running Time:
157 minutes.


Comments 14

  1. ckckred February 18, 2016

    Solid review Stu. Zodiac’s my favorite of Fincher’s filmography. It’s not as attention-grabbing as Se7en or Fight Club but it is his most rewarding picture in my eyes. Zodiac certainly is a movie that lives up to multiple viewings and in my opinion is one of the best pictures of the last decade.

    • Stu February 19, 2016

      I agree – as much as I like the other two you mention, which are definitely more immediate, I’ve seen both of them twice and don’t really feel any urge to revisit; whereas Zodiac I’ve watched 3 times now in less than ten years, and will no doubt watch again one day in the future. It’s a great film.

    • Stu February 19, 2016

      Fair enough Wendell! I can see where you’re coming from – in the third act it feels as if the characters (well, the two played by Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal) are treading water and getting nowhere, but I still enjoyed that myself. Your rankings are interesting – as well as Zodiac I’d definitely have The Game a little higher as I have a soft spot for that, but that also reminds me I haven’t seen the Dragon Tattoo remake!

  2. Peter S February 18, 2016

    I had seen a dramatization of the case on the TV show ” Unsolved Mysteries” before I saw this in the theater. I have to say that strangely enough I liked the TV version better. I do agree with you though that it can be better with later viewings. I remember being surprised to see James LeGros in a small role – he really hasn’t been in a lot of high profile roles after making a fairly big impact back in the 90’s.

    • Stu February 19, 2016

      It is weird seeing LeGros in a part that small…he was a real indie darling in stuff like Living In Oblivion and Drugstore Cowboy. The same goes for Adam Goldberg, who seemed to be getting bigger and bigger parts during the 1990s, and yet we don’t see much of him in this film.

  3. Tom February 19, 2016

    Whoa, okay. Your testimony at the end really makes me think twice about this. Zodiac about put me to sleep the first (and only) time I watched it as well. I just thought the running time was excessive and there wasn’t enough “going on.” But that’s now an ironic comment for me to make, given that i just gave ‘Spotlight,’ another investigative procedural, perfect marks. So with that in mind ‘Zodiac’ absolutely deserves multiple viewings. I actually recognized that after watching the first time (and then giving a tepid review to), but I have never been much interested in seeking it out again. Now I think I have to. Good work Stu.

    • Stu February 19, 2016

      Me too buddy, but if you’re in need of sleep and tired I can see why this movie – for all its qualities – would do that. I’m really glad I went back to this one; the second time I saw it I realised how well-crafted it was, and the same this time, only I was concentrating a lot more and pausing to make notes etc. I hope you check it out…worth it on the off chance your opinion changes!

      • Tom February 19, 2016

        Absolutely. I think like Paul Thomas Anderson requires multiple viewings in almost all of his films so too does David Fincher. His stories are alway so complicated

        • Stu February 20, 2016

          There’s always more to their films than initially meets the eye. I’ve slept on a couple of Fincher’s recent efforts…haven’t seen Dragon Tattoo or Benjamin Button, which I should probably check out one day. Good director.

    • Stu February 23, 2016

      Yeah, I think I’m with you on that – certainly one of the best out of Hollywood. Hopefully I’ll be around long enough to watch it a few more times in the future.

Leave a Reply to Tom Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s