Saturday, March 3, 2007

ZODIAC

*SOME SPOILERS*

There's a shot deep into David Fincher's latest -- his best film to date and an easy candidate for best film of the year -- that begins with the camera positioned at the peak of one of the stanchions of the Golden Gate Bridge looking out over the city. The camera pans down to reveal the bay and bridge shrouded in a soupy fog.

It's a strikingly oneiric moment in a film that draws heavily on the tropes of the police procedural but it also marks the transition from when, a decade or so after the first Zodiac killings, the active pursuit of a killer has devolved, for the men consumed by the investigation, into a slow burning obsession with chasing ghosts. That Fincher should turn to the dreamy expanse of the Golden Gate Bridge to signal this shift in energy and mood is not surprising as it recalls that other great San Francisco-set masterpiece of personal obsession, Vertigo. Similar to James Stewart's Scotty, there's comes a point when the cops and journalists of Zodiac are no longer seeking practical answers to questions in the present but rather struggle to reconstruct the past in an effort to understand who they were and who they've become. "It was important," insists Jake Gyllenhaal's cartoonist-cum-amateur-Zodiac-sleuth Robert Graysmith years after the crimes and letters to the editors have ceased as his own life falls to pieces in the present.

One assumes that Fincher thinks it was important too, important enough to bring it to the screen with a running time of almost three hours, and there's much to be mined from the film as a critique of the media, spectacle and the movies. No sooner does it become clear that the Zodiac case may never be solved than SFPD Inspector David Toschi (a stellar performance by Mark Ruffalo) finds himself in a theatre watching Clint Eastwood take down the Zodiac-inspired "Scorpio" in Dirty Harry (1971). When we can't find closure in real life, leave it to the movies to settle all scores. Nevermind, grumbles Toschi in the lobby, due process.

The movies are ever present in Zodiac as cultural and personal artifacts. Graysmith connects a line from the killer's first letter to the SF Chron to The Most Dangerous Game (1932) and later we see the movie posters, mostly noirs and thrillers, that cover the walls of his own apartment. Interestingly, the movies end up being one of the film's many tantalizing dead ends (the killer was inspired by the novel!). Still, movie love or obsession, runs just beneath the obsession with
the real life thriller that envelopes all of the characters' lives. Indeed, one obsession feeds the other as the search for resolution in life seems, in part, motivated by a desire for the satisfying closure that fictions feed us on a regular basis. None of this, mind you, is explicitly or even implicitly stated by Fincher but it's there in the art direction, the composition and the shifts in tone. In the linkage to Vertigo through a hallucinatory vision of the Golden Gate Bridge Fincher ties his film to a fiction that runs counter to the norm in which the search for resolution or closure itself becomes a form of madness.

9 comments:

RK said...

"The reviews are in, and critics are calling 'Zodiac' David Fincher's most mature and dazzling film yet" - quote from Moviefone.

And Paul, you seem to be in agreement. Two questions:

1) When did maturity become a valuable attribute for an artist?

2) Faced with such unanimous consensus that this is Fincher's best film, isn't the appropriate response to suspect that the truth is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE?

Anonymous said...

1) I didn't call the film "mature." It's simply the film in which Fincher seems in the most command of his material, which itself resonates stronger than the themes of his earlier work. It has a broader scope. If you want to call that "mature" okay with me but it isn't a value I hold particularly dear.

2) I'd be the first to admit that critics can tend to swarm around a particular consensus opinion -- positive or negative -- that is often more suspect than not. You can see it when a particular film or filmmaker is suddenly annointed as the newest, latest this or that. Take American Beauty and Sam Mendes. Take Todd Fields (I haven't seen Little Children but In the Bedroom SUCKED!)

I have no doubt that there was something in the critical air that said now is the time to elevate David Fincher to the level of serious auteur. Fincher has been a critical darling for a while because he is a highly visual, cinematic director and because his subjects carry the patina of hipster cool but critics have a hard time praising genre filmmakers. Here Fincher is obviously working beyond a previous genre he mined and critics have maybe seized on that to elevate him to a more "mature" status.

The maturity thing, no doubt, has been part of the film's marketing to the press and public: Fincher revists the serial killer film as a "mature" filmmaker and finds a different kind of horror ...

Zodiac is certainly a deviation from Fincher's genre-centric work. Here characters take the forefront as opposed to scenarios or situations.

That critics are as susceptible to the hype and fall prey to a herd instinct is undeniable. Here, though, I think it's entirely justified.

At the same time, it's easy to feel dissapointed by a film that has received such lavish praise. Look at Borat, a funny movie, no doubt, but there were critics who called it the funniest thing ever made in the history of comedy. Just as critics can follow the herd, wen they do they can also tend to pile on in an effort to out do the last critics hyperbole or epithet.

I would suggest you stop reading reviews and go see the film yourself. I'd love to know what you and everyone else here thinks about it.

RK said...

Sorry if the first comment seemed a little hostile. The CAPS LOCK thing was a substitute for italics, which I couldn't figure out how to use.

I actually did see the film, then wrote the comment. I don't really have time to go into this in much depth at the moment, but I found the film to be the inferior of anything else I've seen of Fincher.

Crib sheet:

SE7EN/FIGHT CLUB: David Fincher, nihilist.

PANIC ROOM: David Fincher, stylist.

ZODIAC: David Fincher, quality filmmaker.

RK said...

To what extent, also, is Fincher genre-centric?
* Alien 3, Panic Room - granted. (Even here, though, it has to be added that A3 effectively rewrote the entire Alien series as a trilogy about maternity, guaranteeing that one could never look at Alien or Aliens the same way again.)
* Se7en, meanwhile, effectively created the genre of the neo-serial killer movie (though I'll admit that it derived very heavily from non-Hollywood forms like giallo);
* ... and Fight Club seems to me to be sui generis.

M.S. said...

Just got back from a screening.

The first thing that I have to say about the film is that I thought the script was brilliant, filled with so many great subtle comedic moments and "character business," like the kid swallowing the toothpaste because it tasted minty, the animal crackers, and the awkward first date. And while I was pleased at the fact that I was in a very quiet theatre full of quiet respectful people, I found it sad that I was the only one in the theatre chuckling at any of these moments (perhaps a result of seeing it at a theatre in a suburban Milwaukee mall...)

Anyway, while Fincher's films are often discussed in terms of style and plot, I think that he is actually quite masterful at capturing the subtleties of human interaction. It's been a while since I have seen Seven but I seem to remember the scenes between Brad Pitt, Gwyneth Paltrow and Morgan Freeman being quite playful, intimate and touching. I don't know if any of you read this article in The New York Times but apparently Fincher is an absolute task-master at getting performances from his actors- so much so that they all end up hating him it seems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html?ex=1329454800&en=41d4248507170297&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

I think a better way of describing Fincher's films is high concept rather than genre-centric. Zodiac could be considered his first "mature" film because it is decidedly low concept. Yes, it is about the investigation of a serial killer but, as Paul points out, after the first 90 minutes, it is no longer about the murders but about something completely different (the complexities of male identity maybe?) And this is not the first time that Fincher has covered similar territory in a similar locale (obviously Fight Club and Seven also share these elements). None of you have mentioned The Game, which I think is vastly underrated exploration of the complexities of contemporary male idenity, working in the vein of another cyclical road movie from hell - Detour. Like Zodiac, The Game is very much embedded in a specific time (the late 1990s economic boom) and place (also San Francisco).

While there are a lot of great stylistic choices in Zodiac, I thought it was interesting that one of the scenes that he was forced to cut out because of time sounds like the most overtly stylized (perhaps Fincher taking a cue from Paul Thomas Anderson) which, as The NY Times describes it, is a "two-minute blackout over a montage of hit songs signaling the passage of time from Joni Mitchell to Donna Summer." One can only hope it's in the DVD extras.

DMO said...

Still haven't seen Zodiac, but wanted to weigh in on the Fincher debate. I've at least appreciated the three of his four films that I've seen (an almost allergy-like aversion to Michael Douglas keeping me away from The Game), but he's not a filmmaker whose name draws my interest to a project. Actually, I've oft gotten the impression I might have liked the film despite him rather than because of him. A lot of the camerawork in his films strike me as cinematic in the (to me) wrong sense: showy, designed to attract attention to his "amazing visual sense" rather than blend with the story he's trying to tell (Scorsese is a similar director in this regard). And a director more interested in story probably would have found a way to make the ending of Se7en more coherent.

That said, I think Aliens Cubed is thematically the most fascinating of the four, though it's always struck me as being about AIDS and the Other -- Ripley brings an infection that destroys an all-male penal colony of the over-sexed; Aliens was the sequel about maternity. And Fincher's "cinematicness" or "cinematicism" has always been less troublesome to me than, say, Quentin Tarantino; Fincher seems slightly insular, a guy playing with toys he doesn't care if you enjoy, where Tarantino's films are usually circle jerks of one.

Anyway, Zodiac is probably the first 2007 film that I'm eager to see.

RK said...

Yes, Aliens was the one about motherhood. My bad.

RK said...

Yes, Aliens was the one about motherhood. My bad.

Anonymous said...

I know I am a little late to this, but thought I would add the opinion of the film reviewer for the Indianapolis Star. After giving Zodiac 2 1/2 stars, the headline says: • Zodiac: "No sense of closure."

I didn't read the review... couldn't bring myself to do it after that.