Being a card-carrying member of the David Fincher club, I was accused on more than one occasion of having contracted rabies after the announcement that the auteur was set to do his take on the lore and legend of the Zodiac Killer, which prompted the terms “potential” and “masterpiece” to be whispered side-by-side as I eagerly awaited the final product. Admittedly, the mere idea of the virtuoso filmmaker creating something greater than Se7en or Fight Club sent my hypotheticals reeling in giddy anticipation. Yet, sadly, it would not come to pass. I will concur that the director accomplishes what he sets out to do but unfortunately does so at the sake of his audience but, hey, even Willie Mays had a slump.
Zodiac was sixteen years in the making. After the fact, what is left is an adaptation of, not one, but two texts by Zodiac scholar Robert Graysmith, a 158-page tome of a script, a shooting schedule the likes of which only Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick can readily rival, all of which resulting in a Kubrickian testament to–like his characters–neurotic anal-tentative attention to detail, fatigue–much like what is experienced by his characters–via 90-plus take scenes, and–as undoubtedly perceived as such by his characters–Sisyphean futility.
As the aforementioned facets of the production attest, like any good filmmaker, Fincher places us in the uncomfortable mindset of his characters yet, in so doing and amid his patriotic allegiance to his source material, he gets bogged down in the process, all-but-forgetting his aesthetic responsibilities in respect to craft, as the final product more readily resembles a multimillion-dollar docudrama than a feature-length film.
Perhaps Fincher’s tragic flaw is his attempt to encompass the whole of the Zodiac mythos. Without a doubt, there is an epic to be had, yet the director fails to question at what personal as well as artistic expense. Unfortunately, the sacrifice being made is his audience as he merges what is rightfully two pictures into one: We first witness the killings, then are led by Inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Paul Avery (Robert Downey) before they all but abandon the case. This is where Graysmith’s 1986 Zodiac ends and his 2002 Zodiac Unmasked begins as cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) doggedly picks up where his predecessors leave off.
Fincher not only posits for the first time in cinematic history a possibility as to who the Zodiac killer was, but he uses the story to examine the chaos which is a police procedural atop Graysmith’s Ahab-esque obsession with the killer. But this is where his problems begin. In many respects, the latter motif is aptly presented in the former as the second chapter of the film drags relentlessly on, making the essential theme of the loss of identity–on behalf of the titular murderer as well as those attempting to catch him–wear very heavily upon the viewer, the epitome of which is witnessed in the director’s flippant introduction of character upon character before haphazardly tossing each aside. Yes, we understand this is the nature of the beast under the circumstances yet the true challenge of the arts is to enlighten while entertaining. In short, Fincher’s audience gets tired of staring into a light which refuses to fluctuate, dim, or brighten after the first half hour.
Granted, given the film’s running time, Fincher does an admirable job of maintaining pace and, yes, there are the sporadic instances of the director’s trademark genius as he has multiple characters play the role of the Zodiac, but the lack of resolution doesn’t bother postmodern, post-9/11 audiences so much as Fincher dredging us through all of the paperwork in order to demystify the legend. Moreover, by putting a tentative face to the iconographic name, the allure subsequently dissipates, leaving us fondly reminiscing upon the now vastly more intriguing character of Hannibal Lecter amid prospecting upon how the enigma of Theodore Kaczynski might be portrayed as we haggardly await the film’s conclusion.
Howard Hawks stated that “A good movie is three good scenes and no bad ones.” David Fincher’s Zodiac contains no bad scenes but only one good one (involving an inevitable basement). Furthermore, Hawks was more than likely issuing a ratio for a feature with a standard, as opposed to extended, running time. Thus, Fincher winds up owing his audience some three or four scenes by production’s close. Intriguingly, one is left to ponder upon, not the theory of obsession or protocol and procedure, but rather if he or she sat through the entire two-and-a-half hours on account of who was helming the work or due to what was being issued being based largely upon fact. Regardless, what Zodiac ultimately proves is that there is indeed an epic to be had with the killer’s tale but it indubitably lies somewhere between the early Hollywoodizing efforts to adapt the legend and the recent documentaries-in-disguise as we are left waiting, once again, for the definitive rendition of the ominous figure.
-Egregious Gurnow
- Interview with J.R. Bookwalter - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Andrew J. Rausch - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Rick Popko and Dan West - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Director Stevan Mena (Malevolence) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Screenwriter Jeffery Reddick (Day of the Dead 2007) - January 22, 2015
- Teleconference interview with Mick Garris (Masters of Horror) - January 22, 2015
- A Day at the Morgue with Corri English (Unrest) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Writer/Director Nacho Cerda (The Abandoned, Aftermath) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actress Thora Birch (Dark Corners, The Hole, American Beauty) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actor Jason Behr, Plus Skinwalkers Press Coverage - January 22, 2015
