What comes to mind when you think San Francisco circa 1969? Perhaps love-ins, perhaps student protests, Fleetwood Mac, that sort of thing? In truth, there were many other things on the minds of those living there in what was a very interesting and tumultuous time in American history—and among those, as the times were indeed a-changing at the turn of the decade, was the specter of the Zodiac.
From about ’69 into the early seventies, this serial killer etched himself into cultural obsession with his deranged messages to the media—it is true that ever since Jack the Ripper, such people seem to draw the salacious eyes of papers and programs all too eager to feed the dark fascination lurking within swathes of the public. It’s that imp of the perverse, as Poe would put it, drawing us to the worst of humanity. And it’s that infatuation that ultimately become the topic of David Fincher’s Zodiac, where perhaps the killer himself is incidental next to the warping effect on the minds that tried to follow him.
It’s not the first film to tackle this subject—there were tasteless exploitation films made very quickly that slapped on a reference to Zodiac back around the early 70s, and of course, as referenced in this one, we had Dirty Harry, where the titular Inspector Callahan goes up against the ‘Scorpio’ killer. But this certainly tries to be the most comprehensive, with a story spanning the years and ultimately decades of investigation, and as far as film goes, certainly seems to have made its mark as the definitive word on the case.
We open of course with the initial Zodiac murders and the subsequent letters and ciphers mailed to police and papers—and from there, a young cartoonist named Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) soon ends up being drawn into its investigation alongside reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr), with police inspector Toschi (Mark Rufallo) being the one in the middle. The cast is certainly solid and why yes, I can already hear the jokes and references coming in from the Marvel fans.
For me the outstanding feature of this flick is the atmosphere, right from the get-go. Unlike most depictions of California in film, this one eschews sun and brightness for fog-shrouded ominousness, with some great shots replicating 1960s San Francisco in the early morning or the late hours. Ironically, the most harrowing scene is probably one that takes place in broad daylight, and also where we see the masked Zodiac in full. The scariest part of it is that, as it illustrates, the Zodiac isn’t really any sort of mastermind—but someone acting on complete capriciousness, whose whims seem to hardly make any sense. And there, that lack of rationality, seems to be that factor that still draws people to this case up until the present—with the film gradually showing us Graysmith’s descend into trying to comprehend something that may well have nothing to comprehend.
As such, we do see the false ends and leads that do give us some tensely directed and nerve-wracking moments, even if we more or less know the outcome. And that does bring us to the film’s somewhat weaker final act—just as in real life, there was no real resolution to the case, so proceedings sort of fizzle out as they did. We do get endpoints for most of the characters with the exception of Graysmith—which I suppose is the point, though if you want something conventionally satisfying that may not be for you. The film does heavily suggest one Zodiac suspect that has since been largely discredited, but you can simply take the note of ambiguity it offers at the end instead.
Overall, Zodiac’s definitely a favorite of mine from Fincher, and worth a watch whether you want to see it simply for the investigative drama or whether you want to see it as a warning of trying to dive too deep into things macabre. Some mysteries will likely remain that way forever—and where there are things unknowable, the human mind certainly never hesitates to conjure stories…
Comments
Post a Comment