David Fincher’s background as a commerical and music video director has always influenced his films. All of his previous films contain a visual style , a gloss, a layer of cool. In Zodiac he seems to have taken a different more straight-forward and academic approach. Compare the murders in this film to the ones presented in Seven. In Zodiac the crimes take a back seat to the investigation. The goal is singular, to catch this guy. However the man himself, the Zodiac killer, is really a minor character. He is presented through letters and phone calls. The main suspect is introduced fairly late in the film. Then our impression of the Zodiac is filtered through the laid-back crime reporter and the boy scout cartoonist. Both seem to revel in this opportunity to solve puzzles and tell the story of this infamous man. Indeed it is the telling of the story of the Zodiac that consumes the characters. Graysmith is attempting to write a book about the crimes, albeit it one with a rather unsatisfying ending. He gathers evidence, interviews witnesses and takes copious notes. The film refuses to diverge from the timeline, hitting all the highlights in the story. I found the film pretty boring, but honest. Fincher insists on presenting these real-life men as regular guys just trying to do their jobs. I am struck again as I have been with every text we have looked at thus far, at how much emphasis is placed on those that tell the stories as opposed to those that lived the story. I realize that it would be impossible and completely unrealistic to tell the story of the Zodiac from the perspective of the killer. However, is there value in telling the story of the educated guess of a cartoonist as to the identity of that killer? In my opinion Fincher’s focus on the ordinary both visually, the starkness of the Chronicle’s newsroom etc., and narratively affected the dramatic weight of the film.
Blog Post #3: What’s your sign?
Advertisement
September 23, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
Sean,
I think it’s interesting that you bring up the fact that the books we’ve read so far, and the film, are told by characters that were only peripherally involved in the actual events. I think that makes it even harder to believe the narrator. In the case of the Zodiac movie, how do we know what’s true? Robert Graysmith and the various producers, directors, investigators and expert consultants put a lot of emphasis on depicting the “actual” events, and maybe this seems doubly believable since the Dirty Harry movie obviously did not follow the actual events, but despite all of the research, I’m not sure we got any closer to the truth. I would love to see a movie or book from the perspective of the killer, but that would just be more speculation. Even if we were able to the story straight from the killer’s mouth, we’d still only have the facts that he was willing to reveal.
September 24, 2009 at 5:45 am |
Sean,
I like how you compare Fincher’s films. I didn’t realize that he had directed “Seven” until I looked up some information on the film. I agree with the differences you point out between these two films and find it interesting how he did change is approach between the two.
I also like your honest statement about how the film bored you. There were times when I was looking at my watch going, “Ok, let’s wrap this up,” but I do feel that it kept me interested for the most part:)
And I do agree with you in thinking about seeing the story from the killer’s perspective. It would be pretty interesting, though not plausible for this film. Perhaps someday we will know?
September 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm |
I think the men trying to solve the case may appear “ordinary” at the outset, but each of their flaws becomes apparent as the narrative unfolds. Graysmith loses his wife and kids, Avery graduates from his snuff-box to drinking in the morning, and Sherwood (handwriting expert) is represented as an unreliable alcoholic. (Toschie’s rep takes a blow too, but I forgot what he did to make himself look bad.) I suppose, on some level, this cracking up should be expected, given the nature of their work. Maybe Pincher is making some kind of subtle commentary about detective work – like, this is what happens when you let a cartoonist try to find a serial killer. He was in over his head from the start.