Lori and I went to see Zodiac this afternoon, and here are my thoughts....
I was a bit underwhelmed. The performances are excellent across the board, particularly Mark Ruffalo and John Carroll Lynch. As a police procedural, it was an enjoyably taut (albeit 170 minutes long) thriller.
That said... I'm not sure what this film is about. Or more to the point, I don't really know what the film has to say about the killings, about San Francisco in the late 1960s/early 1970s, about why Graysmith was so obsessed with identifying the murderer, or why I should care about who Zodiac was nearly 40 years later. At two points in the film, characters ask Graysmith why he needs to solve the case, and he stammers for an answer. Beyond that character's obsession, and the officers' drive to solve these crimes, nothing motivates the continued hunt for the killer after the trail goes cold. But Graysmith is never a compelling enough character to warrant following him in his obsessive pursuits for so long. Even as a character study the film is weak, because no motivation for Graysmith's mania is ever suggested (beyond his being an Eagle Scout).
The film never really establishes that, with the exception of the school-bus scare, San Francisco was all that traumatized or frightened by the Zodiac killings. For that matter, the film never really establishes that the murders and investigations took place in the late 1960s to mid 1970s, with the exception of a keen soundtrack and Ruffalo's fly slacks. Put different clothes on him and different songs on the soundtrack, and the film could take place at any point in history. In this regard, Zodiac doesn't compare well with Son of Sam by Spike Lee. Lee's film isn't better than Fincher's, but it's a lot more interesting, because it addresses the Son of Sam murders as part of the social fabric of New York at that time, of a city that seemed to be spilling over from venality and narcissism into nihilism.
So, while I enjoyed watching Zodiac, after 3 hours, I don't know that I'm any wiser or richer in my understanding of the human condition, of San Francisco of forty years ago, of anything really. I'm going to side with RK on this one, and keep Fight Club at the top of Fincher's oeuvre.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I liked Zodiac a little better than Mookie did, however, I was also not overwhelmed by it. It did have a kick-ass sound track (that I would have liked better integrated) and stellar acting for the most part. And I found it mostly compelling (although falls apart thematically at about 3/4 through).
But I also found it irritatingly stuck in its genre. Like so many crime dramas or dramas where the main character gets obsessed with something (usually a male character) we often see, what I like to call the "martyr nag," and this movie was no exception.
The martyr nag is usually a wife who at first deals with her husband's dedication/obsession quietly or subtly and then as the movie progresses becomes a nag. She may be a quiet martyr nag, like Toschi's wife, or she could be the more demanding version like Graysmith's. In the end the character's dedication/obsession ends the relationship and he becomes the martyr.
Been there, done that so many times...BORING! When are wives in crime dramas going to be more than just martyr nags or victims to be threatened (and sometimes killed as in "Se7en")by the evil doer?
It seems to me that David Fincher does not know how to portray a well-rounded female character. Even in Panic Room and Alien3 (my least favorite Alien movie, BTW) the female leads left me feeling empty and dry.
As for the movie giving a real sense of that time period and place, I agree with Mookie that Spike Lee did a much better job in Son of Sam.
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, having moved there in '76, and spent many a partying afternoon on Lake Berryessa shores, visting friends in Vallejo, hiking and going to parties in Napa, and driving down to the City for an evening with friends. Granted, I was born too late to have been there during the height of the Zodiac killings, but by 1976 it was not on our radar. (Which is definitely a well-taken point in the movie; most had forgotten it, so why couldn't a few, like Graysmith, forget it too? Was it to sell his book? Was it a feeling for the victims? Or justice? Unfortunately, we never really know.) And while I did enjoy the scenes of home, I didn't get a real feel for the place and time.
This entry may sound like I hated the film and actually I liked it. But I would not say it was great by any means.
Post a Comment