criterionforum.org

Antoine Doinel wrote:I just hope they don't jerk around Fincher's fans and release the theatrical cut first and then the deluxe package a year later.

That's exactly what they're going to do. But it's so common now that people should be expecting it.

Speaking of deluxe packages, did that Region 2 SE of "The Game" ever come out, and does anybody have it? (It's my least favorite Fincher, but still...)

EDIT: I see this one is coming May 11.

Well, it came out ages ago last year in Portugal and several other european countries. I have it and it's great.

Thanks, Lino...I'm surprised you didn't post to this thread (which I just discovered).

Another interview with Fincher.

PopMatters' interview with Fincher.

iFMagazine's interview with Robert Graysmith.

MTV interviews Fincher.

Esquire's profile/interview with Fincher.

CNN article on the length of the movie and running times of other epic movies.

Barmy wrote:Shot digitally?

Pass.

Am I mistaken, or is INLAND EMPIRE the number one film on your top ten list last year?

Jeff wrote:

Barmy wrote:Shot digitally?

Pass.

Am I mistaken, or is INLAND EMPIRE the number one film on your top ten list last year?

=D> =D> =D>

IE was obviously the exception that proves Barmy's rule.

Screenwriter James Vanderbilt is interviewed by the WGA.

Had to add a few things here. While I think the film is, in certain specific respects, seriously flawed, it's also deeply troubling in a way unusual for Fincher. And beyond that it aspires toward insights which go unacknowledged in most of the reviews I've seen. That Schager piece simply drives the point home as what he seems intent on extolling is completely uninteresting and uninspiring to me; the idea that this is all about how obsessions take their toll feels like just so much rote rhetoric. In responding so strongly to the obvious surfaces of Fincher's picture, he fails to give them their just due, to acknowledge the ways in which these ideas actually contribute to the humanness which Armond White finds so lacking.

Still, I have to admit that all of this is embedded in such a way as to be easy to miss. Witness the way even the film's admirers constantly go back to championing Fincher's attention to extreme detail without informing us as to why that should matter to us. Why should we give a damn about yet another police procedural with another obsessed protag? Few bother drawing parallels between Fincher's compulsion toward exactitude and that of his fact fixated main characters. Yet this seems like one of the only valuable ways in, one of the only ways to avoid seeing the picture as a masturbatory exercise in art design. In acknowledging Fincher's complicity we acknowledge our own inability to get beyond a fixation on surfaces as yielding insight or valuable truth. This also justifies the otherwise numbing moments in the film which exist as pop culture historical toss offs--the mention of Belli's Star Trek episode, for instance.

If the picture is flawed it's because Fincher has not been as successful as he needs to be in synthesizing all his disparate elements, especially, and perhaps most importantly, his formal ones. It's simply too easy to emerge dissatisfied with this film because of its portentous bloat and enervating pacing and not because of its content or the way in which Fincher draws out his purpose through his formal tropes. Worse still is that it can be read as just another story of justice thwarted rather than an explication of the need or desire for justice. Its basic conception flirts with being totally self-defeating, though it never crosses that line. It's a tribute to the strength of the ideas in play that we do not weary of this as much as we get worn down by it. Still, the difference may be more attuned to personal sensibility than would ultimately seem prudent. Fincher is not well served by his script, either, which needed to be rethought (the whole animal crackers thing reeks of giving Ruffalo some "business"). Still, none of this is fatal and may be more unavoidable than is evident on a first pass.

The trajectory of the characters is somehow both hackneyed and eye rolling (Ruffalo's final comments to Anthony Edwards) and yet also resonant in a larger sense of what must have been the underlying intent. Yes, we see "what obsession can do" but we also see the results play out in various forms, a multiplicity of responses to the demand for devotion.

I was irritated by the way in which the purported theme is nullified. We get the idea that this is, at least in part, about the ways in which we delude ourselves on the possibility of total knowledge, a control that comes from complete understanding. This is a favorite theme of mine and is explored well here but regardless of that, Fincher strongly suggests (as does the source material, of course) that Graysmith was right all along, as was Toschi. So the carefully nurtured ambiguity, bolstered by a sea of conflicting factual information, appears to be lost. And, what is worse, Fincher appears to be indulging one of my least favorite tactics, the broad appeal to the average Joe. Yes, you too have what it takes to put together puzzles which the cops (the professionals) all miss out on! And this kind of structured condescension further solidifies the picture as having an unserious intent; essentially it's an apotheotic episode of CSI, a culminating point this society may have had coming but I have no interest in being exposed to.

But what causes me to hesitate is the final scene in which we return to the long lost character of Mike Mageau. And "lost" is a valid description of the man we see, still haunted by the gift of survival. The fact that Fincher positions this moment at the end of his narrative, right after the impotent face off between Graysmith and Allen suggests much in the way of a very serious intent, one radically aligned with calling forth human sympathy and taking stock of loss. Graysmith, of course, loses much as a result of blind, single minded devotion and the scene at the hardware store certainly demands that we ask, was it worth it? But then we see this other man, haunted by a more existentially compelling sense of loss, one that's also more uncontainable and less definable, and we get it at last. Yes, it was worth doing. It merited this devotion and someone had to be willing to do it. Graysmith's surface investigations yield a kind of truth, but one that is by nature unfulfillable and, if engaged with emotionally, unsatisfactory. Armond is right--this solution is not sufficient because it cannot satisfy a desire for reconciliation. It exists outside the realm of complex human needs, a searching for synthesis and understanding that goes beyond explanatory functions. The identity of the killer is not what's really at stake here. And Fincher's accomplishment is to concede this and that provides the humanity Armond sees as lacking.

One of my other issues with Zodiac was the very presence of its sprawling cast of recognizable faces. I remember distinctly thinking at one point, "Is this The Cassandra Crossing?" Anyway, though I have to admit it was a pleasure to see Ione Skye again even briefly, I felt as though the design was ultimately counter-productive, catering too much to fan boy geeks who get off on star-gazing. I love James Legros but couldn't help wondering what in the hell he was doing in this, in a role anyone could have filled in their sleep. But maybe this, too, was very consciously done, in order to once again attempt to convince us of our sure footing--we are, in other words, on familiar turf with these comfortingly familiar faces and a comprehensible solution must be forthcoming, right? And I don't really have any leg to stand on with this complaint as Alan Rudolph's Mrs. Parker was a similar star bloated picture and was one of my favorites from the last decade.

Ultimately, I still think Panic Room is Fincher's masterpiece to date as he managed in that picture to sublimate all his usual themes and, yes, obsessions to the rigorous formality of a seemingly straight genre piece. And yet it all remained there, seething just under the surface and very much informing the text and the way it was dispensed to us. In this way, Fincher went beyond his own earlier achievements which foregrounded his ideas in an unnatural, self-conscious way. For its part, Zodiac is more distinctly troubling than Panic Room (though it really shouldn't be) and is less thoroughly cohesive or even coherent. Nonetheless, there is something very valuable and finally profoundly humane in Fincher's ambitions here that go deeper than many of his previous explorations in theme and content because he is willing to be less distracted by technical flourishes. Under the surface of a seemingly sedate and banal police procedural he offers up a reflection of our own implicit working methodologies and asks us if we recognize what we see and what that recognition may lead to. At best, hopefully, a kind of wisdom.

John Cope wrote:Still, I have to admit that all of this is embedded in such a way as to be easy to miss. Witness the way even the film's admirers constantly go back to championing Fincher's attention to extreme detail without informing us as to why that should matter to us. Why should we give a damn about yet another police procedural with another obsessed protag?

Well, it really hinges on your interest in the story? Do you find the mystery of the Zodiac killer compelling? If so, then you will dig this film, plain and simple. It is Fincher's skill and craft behind the camera, the solid performances from the cast, the masterful yet not intrusive production/set design and the well-written script that elevate this film above "yet another police procedural with another obsessed protag."

Fincher is not well served by his script, either, which needed to be rethought (the whole animal crackers thing reeks of giving Ruffalo some "business"). Still, none of this is fatal and may be more unavoidable than is evident on a first pass.

The whole "animal crackers" bit was cute and in no way distracted from the rest of the film. Yeah, it was a little "business" for Ruffalo but at least it was consistently spread throughout the film and not just dropped after one or two references. Plus, it provided a little levity in an otherwise pretty intense, grim story.

Fincher strongly suggests (as does the source material, of course) that Graysmith was right all along, as was Toschi. So the carefully nurtured ambiguity, bolstered by a sea of conflicting factual information, appears to be lost. And, what is worse, Fincher appears to be indulging one of my least favorite tactics, the broad appeal to the average joe. Yes, you too have what it takes to put together puzzles which the cops (the professionals) all miss out on!

I disagree. First of all, Fincher has only so much time and so he can't delve into every other theory out there. He does a fine job in showing a few other possible suspects and does an excellent job in showing the bureaucratic red tape that Toschi and Armstrong became mired in as they had to deal with several different counties' police departments in order to get what they wanted and were defeated at times due to internal politics and jealously, etc. If you want to delve into the myriad of other theories on the Zodiac there are Graysmith's books and a whole slew of other books out there on the subject. Fincher's film is merely a starting point, I feel and hardly the definitive word on the subject.

Second, as to the average joe bit, where do you see that? The nice couple who crack the one Zodiac code? Well, that is historical fact. Those people really did crack the code. Or, are you referring to Graysmith as an average joe? Hardly either as the guy was an Eagle Scout and a cartoonist at a major metropolitan newspaper. Hardly an average job by any stretch. Graysmith only was able to figure out things that the police didn't because of his obsessive nature and his tenacity to stick with it even after everyone else had given up or reached dead ends. Again, hardly what I'd call "average."

One of my other issues with Zodiac was the very presence of its sprawling cast of recognizable faces. I remember distinctly thinking at one point, "Is this The Cassandra Crossing?" Anyway, though I have to admit it was a pleasure to see Ione Skye again even briefly, I felt as though the design was ultimately counter-productive, catering too much to fan boy geeks who get off on star-gazing. I love James Legros but couldn't help wondering what in the hell he was doing in this, in a role anyone could have filled in their sleep. But maybe this, too, was very consciously done, in order to once again attempt to convince us of our sure footing--we are, in other words, on familiar turf with these comfortingly familiar faces and a comprehensible solution must be forthcoming, right? And I don't really have any leg to stand on with this complaint as Alan Rudolph's Mrs. Parker was a similar star bloated picture and was one of my favorites from the last decade.

Well, speaking as a fan of Oliver Stone's films JFK and Nixon which are chock full of recognizable faces the casting in Zodiac didn't bother me one bit. I suspect that Fincher did this much for the same reason that Stone did it in his films so that it is easier for the audience to keep track of all of these different characters. Also, Fincher cast some really good actors in these roles is that a crime? I never once felt the presence of all these reconizable faces distracting.

Ultimately, I still think Panic Room is Fincher's masterpiece to date as he managed in that picture to sublimate all his usual themes and, yes, obsessions to the rigorous formality of a seemingly straight genre piece. And yet it all remained there, seething just under the surface and very much informing the text and the way it was dispensed to us.

I found Panic Room to be Fincher's weakest film since Alien 3. It is merely an empty exercise in style and set design and never once transcends its genre trappings. All of the characters are broadly sketched and uninteresting with a stereotypical screenplay. I enjoyed watching it but forgot about it instantly after it was over. In comparison, Zodiac has stayed with me much longer afterwards and I want to see it again. Can't wait for the DVD with the longer cut (that Fincher seems to be hinting at in interviews).[/url]

I saw this video last night on a huge screen with state-of-the-art digital projection. Yes, the image was pristine and pin-sharp. It was also hard, flat, plastic, unflattering and unsubtle. In a word, TVish.

(IE is a whole other can of coffee.)

I liked the scary bits, namely the murders and Jake's encounter with the theater dude. And maybe the DV even enhanced the creepiness factor. But, like many movies taken from real life that cover a long period, there was a checklisty aspect to the narrative.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: Do you find the mystery of the Zodiac killer compelling? If so, then you will dig this film, plain and simple. It is Fincher's skill and craft behind the camera, the solid performances from the cast, the masterful yet not intrusive production/set design and the well-written script that elevate this film above "yet another police procedural with another obsessed protag."

Well, I can't really argue with that (though we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of the script). Still, all these finely tuned elements you speak of are ultimately at the service of what? I'd certainly like to think Fincher and company were investing their efforts in something more substantial than a crime drama no matter how thoroughly inhabited, hence my inclination to give them credit for that.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:The whole "animal crackers" bit was cute and in no way distracted from the rest of the film. Yeah, it was a little "business" for Ruffalo but at least it was consistently spread throughout the film and not just dropped after one or two references. Plus, it provided a little levity in an otherwise pretty intense, grim story.

And I assume it probably is yet another bit of factual minutiae so I'll concede that it has its place in the fabric of the whole. Still feels like lazy scripting to me, though.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: He does an excellent job in showing the bureaucratic red tape that Toschi and Armstrong became mired in as they had to deal with several different counties' police departments in order to get what they wanted and were defeated at times due to internal politics and jealously, etc.

I'm tempted to say, "who cares?" but I know that you do and I respect that so I won't.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: Second, as to the average joe bit, where do you see that? The nice couple who crack the one Zodiac code? Well, that is historical fact. Those people really did crack the code. Or, are you referring to Graysmith as an average joe? Hardly either as the guy was an Eagle Scout and a cartoonist at a major metropolitan newspaper. Hardly an average job by any stretch. Graysmith only was able to figure out things that the police didn't because of his obsessive nature and his tenacity to stick with it even after everyone else had given up or reached dead ends. Again, hardly what I'd call "average."

I was speaking specifically of Graysmith; and, yes, I realize it's his dedication to this cause (his "devotion" if you will) that drives him and separates him from the rest (I alluded to as much already). I actually respect that as I think Fincher is trying to get at something very important about the nature of professionalism and service devoted to cause. After all, Graysmith's obsessive nature is meaningless as an end unto itself. What is it applied to and was that worth throwing everything else away (shades of JFK)? I do think you give the audience too much credit, though, as I fully suspect that it is exactly Graysmith's status as an Eagle Scout that would compel the "average joe" to happily project himself, sans qualification, into that character. It feels like all American shorthand denoting very particular, though ultimately generic qualities of what is presumed to be American character. As to the cartoonist thing, I imagine that feels pretty minor league to most people when put in contrast to the professional investigators and careerists with the police and the crime reporters. Obviously it shouldn't necessarily suggest that as it's clear that Graysmith's vocation is pretty heavily linked to his initial desire to decode the symbols at the heart of the case.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Well, speaking as a fan of Oliver Stone's films JFK and Nixon which are chock full of recognizable faces the casting in Zodiac didn't bother me one bit. I suspect that Fincher did this much for the same reason that Stone did it in his films so that it is easier for the audience to keep track of all of these different characters. Also, Fincher cast some really good actors in these roles is that a crime? I never once felt the presence of all these recognizable faces distracting.

Well, I certainly did, though I agree with your point about keeping track of the characters. Still, the Stone pictures are apt comparisons in some ways and less so I think in others. Part of what I enjoyed about JFK and Nixon were the casts involved and I felt that being distracted was beside the point and maybe even an intentional issue. After all, those two pictures function at least in part as phantasmagorias and so their whirling kaleidoscopic casts were absolutely appropriate. My issue with Zodiac is not that Fincher shouldn't have used strong actors but that he wasted them. To go back to the James Legros thing for a minute, why is he here? His role is so absurdly slight as to be virtually negligible. He doesn't have time to contribute anything of any worth and the fact that his recognizable face may help position us chronologically just doesn't do it for me as justification.

Fincher F. Fletch wrote:I found Panic Room to be Fincher's weakest film since Alien 3. It is merely an empty exercise in style and set design and never once transcends its genre trappings. All of the characters are broadly sketched and uninteresting with a stereotypical screenplay. I enjoyed watching it but forgot about it instantly after it was over. In comparison, Zodiac has stayed with me much longer afterwards and I want to see it again. Can't wait for the DVD with the longer cut (that Fincher seems to be hinting at in interviews).

Here we strongly disagree. I don't believe for a minute that Panic Room is an "empty exercise in style" or that it doesn't transcend its genre trappings. To criticize it for broad or shallow characterizations seems to miss the point as the film isn't interested in the psychological specificity of its characters. The screenplay may have been "stereotypical" but Fincher's execution of it was not. It is, at its heart, a film very much about the futility of ultimate control and the madness that results from chaotic dislocation. Fincher communicates these ideas purely through his mise-en-scene without recourse to speechifying or obvious cues. Our understanding of space and proximity is total at first and gradually breaks down until the climax, which is conventional only in theory. The familiar parts are there to be assembled in a reassuring form, but they are scattered and unrecognizable, so far have we fallen into hysteria. It's a reflection of tenuous civilization, based so heavily on notions of control and security, giving way to a primal, almost Ballaradesque desperation. The coda of the picture functions similarly to the end of The Game, as it cheerily returns us to presumptions of security and stability but it's wholly false as we have seen how tenuous it is and can no longer invest our hope or belief in it. There is also an impotence here, an inability to mediate any injured or weakened human state, and a blissful unwillingness to try.

Anyway, Fletch, I hope you don't think I disliked Zodiac, as that isn't the case at all, I simply felt it was flawed. And for a movie this ambitious, finding minor flaws with it is no deal breaker. The end of Zodiac, by the way as I indicated above, is a very real development for Fincher. It builds on the cynical despair at the ends of his previous picture and does open that out in a way that feels more mature, an acknowledgment that the resistance to despair is necessary and worth pursuing.

Oh, and here's a couple great pieces on the film, one from Daniel Kasman and one from Matt Zoller Seitz.

John Cope wrote:I do think you give the audience too much credit, though, as I fully suspect that it is exactly Graysmith's status as an Eagle Scout that would compel the "average Joe" to happily project himself, sans qualification, into that character. It feels like all American shorthand denoting very particular, though ultimately generic qualities of what is presumed to be American character.

Would you include among those examples of the "American character" a conspicuous lack of drinking and smoking, a tendency to spend one's free time in the library?

Frankly your attempt to turn Graysmith into a symbol doesn't wear so well; his devotion and other characteristics are traits which set him apart from other people (which the film, I think, emphasizes), not just in the film, but in general. There is always the sense throughout the movie of Graysmith being unusual. I very highly doubt that the audience would take moments such as his descending into that basement, or the repeated phone calls of heavy breathing presumably from the Zodiac, or the loss of a wife and kids, and happily think to themselves: hey, that could be me! I think more than anything the audience reaction is more akin to: "I could never see myself doing that." And indeed, most people, not just Americans, lack the dogged persistence to see such a project through. Hell, most people have trouble staying interested in finishing even minor projects.

I don't know, I just cannot see the Graysmith of the movie as "average."

John Cope wrote:My issue with Zodiac is not that Fincher shouldn't have used strong actors but that he wasted them. To go back to the James Legros thing for a minute, why is he here? His role is so absurdly slight as to be virtually negligible. He doesn't have time to contribute anything of any worth and the fact that his recognizable face may help position us chronologically just doesn't do it for me as justification.

I can only speculate, but perhaps much of his role was cut from the movie. Perhaps there will be more in the extended version or in deleted scenes. Not that such suppositions are useful in judging a movie, but they may provide a tentative answer.

John Cope wrote:Still, all these finely tuned elements you speak of are ultimately at the service of what? I'd certainly like to think Fincher and company were investing their efforts in something more substantial than a crime drama no matter how thoroughly inhabited, hence my inclination to give them credit for that.

I gotcha. I believe that all of these elements are in service to tell a fascinating story about 1. a killer who is never caught and 2. how it affected three of the men who investigated the case.

And I assume it probably is yet another bit of factual minutiae so I'll concede that it has its place in the fabric of the whole. Still feels like lazy scripting to me, though.

You may be right. To be honest, I don't know if that was a Toschi tic of his or not. Of course, reading about how much of a stickler Fincher was to authenticity and accurate details, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I'm tempted to say, "who cares?" but I know that you do and I respect that so I won't.

That's okay, I don't mind. It is a subjective point to be sure. You're either gonna be interested in that or not.

I was speaking specifically of Graysmith; and, yes, I realize it's his dedication to this cause (his "devotion" if you will) that drives him and separates him from the rest (I alluded to as much already). I actually respect that as I think Fincher is trying to get at something very important about the nature of professionalism and service devoted to cause. After all, Graysmith's obsessive nature is meaningless as an end unto itself. What is it applied to and was that worth throwing everything else away (shades of JFK)?

Well, I think it works in two ways: for Graysmith he needs to know who the killer is and is driven by this compulsion. And I also think he feels it is his civic duty (again, he is an Eagle Scout after all) to solve the case especially after no one else is able to. It is crucial that he picks up the investigation after Toschi has exhausted all of his available angles and resources and after Avery self-destructs.

I do think you give the audience too much credit, though, as I fully suspect that it is exactly Graysmith's status as an Eagle Scout that would compel the "average joe" to happily project himself, sans qualification, into that character. It feels like all American shorthand denoting very particular, though ultimately generic qualities of what is presumed to be American character. As to the cartoonist thing, I imagine that feels pretty minor league to most people when put in contrast to the professional investigators and careerists with the police and the crime reporters. Obviously it shouldn't necessarily suggest that as it's clear that Graysmith's vocation is pretty heavily linked to his initial desire to decode the symbols at the heart of the case.

Okay, I certainly understand and agree with what you're saying here.

My issue with Zodiac is not that Fincher shouldn't have used strong actors but that he wasted them. To go back to the James Legros thing for a minute, why is he here? His role is so absurdly slight as to be virtually negligible. He doesn't have time to contribute anything of any worth and the fact that his recognizable face may help position us chronologically just doesn't do it for me as justification.

I suppose you're right but the average filmgoer isn't going to recognize Le Gros. He's hardly a household name by any stretch of the imagination. It's almost as if Fincher is picking a who's who of indie character actors from the 1990s to be in this film. I dunno, personally, it was nice to see Le Gros in a big budget mainstream film. He doesn't get them very often no matter what size the role.

Here we strongly disagree. I don't believe for a minute that Panic Room is an "empty exercise in style" or that it doesn't transcend its genre trappings. To criticize it for broad or shallow characterizations seems to miss the point as the film isn't interested in the psychological specificity of its characters. The screenplay may have been "stereotypical" but Fincher's execution of it was not. It is, at its heart, a film very much about the futility of ultimate control and the madness that results from chaotic dislocation. Fincher communicates these ideas purely through his mise-en-scene without recourse to speechifying or obvious cues. Our understanding of space and proximity is total at first and gradually breaks down until the climax, which is conventional only in theory. The familiar parts are there to be assembled in a reassuring form, but they are scattered and unrecognizable, so far have we fallen into hysteria. It's a reflection of tenuous civilization, based so heavily on notions of control and security, giving way to a primal, almost Ballaradesque desperation. The coda of the picture functions similarly to the end of The Game, as it cheerily returns us to presumptions of security and stability but it's wholly false as we have seen how tenuous it is and can no longer invest our hope or belief in it. There is also an impotence here, an inability to mediate any injured or weakened human state, and a blissful unwillingness to try.

Hmm... That's an interesting reading of the film. I will have to watch Panic Room again and think about these comments while doing so.

Anyway, Fletch, I hope you don't think I disliked Zodiac, as that isn't the case at all, I simply felt it was flawed. And for a movie this ambitious, finding minor flaws with it is no deal breaker. The end of Zodiac, by the way as I indicated above, is a very real development for Fincher. It builds on the cynical despair at the ends of his previous picture and does open that out in a way that feels more mature, an acknowledgment that the resistance to despair is necessary and worth pursuing.

That's cool. I did think you enjoyed the film perhaps not as much as I did. I certainly respect your views and am enjoying this debate over the film's finer points.

Oh, and here's a couple great pieces on the film, one from Daniel Kasman and one from Matt Zoller Seitz.

Thanks. I will check these out.

DavisDVD has said that the DVD is coming out on June 26th.

I saw the last screening in town tonight of Zodiac and was absolutely blown away. As much as I would like to rank this films against Fincher's others it simply can't be done because it is so different in approach and feel. This is the most well lived in film Fincher has ever done - it has its own pulse and rhythms in a way that few crime procedurals ever reach. It also a remarkably assured period piece, that I for one, never found gimmicky in the least. But I think Fincher's greatest achievement is transferring that sense of obsession from the characters to the audience. I was absolutely riveted. Moreover, I think the film succeeds because of its length. As the case stretches over decades the carefully paced running time allows us to sense how the obsession both controls and wears these characters down over time. The most painful cut to the film is the one mentioned in several articles - the "musical blackout" sequence. That moment which is a simple fade in the theatrical version marks a serious shift in major characters and narrative and ultimately acts as a faux-intermission. Adam Goldberg also noticeably gets reduced to a couple of lines. While some have criticized the so-called cameos, I believe it is more of a result of the studio demanding Fincher cut his film. I can't wait to see this at a fully breathing three hours.

Oh yeah, I thought the animal crackers bit was an obvious indication that Ruffalo's character suffered from an ulcer. Robert Downey Jr. was (as always these days) absolutely great, and despite the rumored friction between Fincher and Gyllenhaal he really turns in a great, subtly changing performance.

I read in a script writer's magazine that the screenwriter decided to incorporate the mention of the Ruffalo character eating animal crackers all the time because the real-life cop ate animal crackers all through this period.

Thanks for clarifying filmnoir1 --- actually the level of detail Ruffalo gets into with his character is pretty insane. There is also a scene in a diner where he shares a BLT with his partner and wordlessly removes the tomato from the sandwich while they are talking. It's little touches like this that kept taking me by surprise.

Also, I loved the old school Paramount logo at the beginning of the film.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Thanks for clarifying filmnoir1 --- actually the level of detail Ruffalo gets into with his character is pretty insane. There is also a scene in a diner where he shares a BLT with his partner and wordlessly removes the tomato from the sandwich while they are talking. It's little touches like this that kept taking me by surprise.

Also, I loved the old school Paramount logo at the beginning of the film.

Yeah, that was a nice touch. Ruffalo just gets better and better with every role. I read a recent interview where he mentioned that he hung out with the real Dave Toschi for awhile to get down his mannerisms, way of speaking, etc. Robert Graysmith has said that he really captured him well on film.

Utter laziness: I've seen the movie probably a month ago, and haven't reviewed/posted about it here. Not wanting to reorganize my thoughts, I unfortunately held back due to utter laziness. If you all don't mind, here's the review I first posted in my blog...

For me, Zodiac is a film of three stories. The first deals with the twisted killer for about 40 minutes. The second deals with the thorough cop investigation between all the police precincts. The third, and the best, deals with Jake Gyllenhaal's character when he decides to pursue the case for himself, combing through all the volumes of evidence already gathered. He comes to the conclusion of who the killer may be, and fleshes out a book in the process.

The first story was an absolute atrocity and should've been left out of the movie completely. The biggest crime a former music director can do is still think like a former music director, forgetting all the responsibility that comes with taking on a true story like this. Put simply, I took offense to the fact that the killings were shown quite explicitly and with music blaring. What's the point? We've already seen violence and rock music go hand in hand in Martin Scorsese's work. Fincher knows this.

Worse, I think it's startling material for any copycat in the making. The zodiac killings have already spawned two imitators. Fincher knows this, as well. Did he really have to tantalize them with such MTV-grade sequences? I could've honestly done without it, and it would have also solved the time-length battles Fincher endured with the studio. Save it for the DVD, if you must.

The second story, was good. It worked. It goes from point to point, and holds your interest. Nothing really spectacular, until the investigators finally get their sit down with the lead suspect, who is frighteningly played by John Carroll Lynch. This was the crowning achievement of the second story. It's a great scene-study in mannerisms, pacing, and the simple art of glances, sweat and posturing.

The third story, which begins when Gyllenhaal's cartoonist realizes there's ample evidence to try and track down the killer himself, succeeds wildly. Literally, it dances with the genre form. It knows exactly what it's doing. It has an energy that emanates from Fincher's passion to emulate All the President's Men, his second favorite movie. Fincher loves the back and forth in that film, with the little pieces of clues that eventually bring us to the conclusion. He showcases that sort of play masterfully here. All the screenwriters on deck have a precise understanding of what Fincher's going for in this third story. They're able to fully integrate the police case-files into a strong, yet coherent plot for the audience.

By the time the film was over, I was elated by the result of this third story. All the actors who had taken a backseat during stories one and two finally got to showcase their strengths. They prospered from the groundwork laid before them, especially the character of the cartoonist.

The only real negative in the third story was during one scene played between Gyllenhaal's character and his wife, portrayed by Chloë Sevigny. It ends after he asks if he can go now, and she allows him. The whole scene feels as if they're reading off the page, plot for plot. Perhaps Fincher wanted to convey the sore back and forth these two characters had shared by that point, but it feels far too dry and on the nose, if that's the case.

That said, Sevigny does a wonderful job in the picture. It's a shame she's not in more pictures throughout the year. Just cameos of her staring at a wall would suffice, but her series on HBO will have to do. The other cast of actors include the great Mark Ruffalo, who has been nothing but stellar since recovering from brain surgery. He was particularly wonderful in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, despite the hidden role. Here, he has more on-screen time, and shines through as the great character actor he's maturing into.

Also, Elias Koteas, who was once seen in 1990's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, carries a strong yet subtle performance as an investigator from another precinct. And Lynch, who plays the lead suspect, does a very good job of being eerie, disturbing, and very potentially dangerous. Of course, the movie's stride belongs to Jake Gyllenhaal, who unfortunately has to wait far too long to get his character in the running, at least in any meaningful way. Zodiac is a great picture though, if only you disregard the first 40 minutes. Its third story is triumphant, and the reason we go to the multiplex.

Again, excuse the laziness...

American Cinematographer has a lengthy article on the making of Zodiac.

Antoine Doinel wrote:American Cinematographer has a lengthy article on the making of Zodiac.

Nice one. Thanks for that. I am intrigued by the little tidbit at the end of the interview where Savides mentions that he's shooting Ridley Scott's American Gangster film. Can't wait!

Premiere magazine's interview with Fincher.

Looks like U.S. BO will top out at $35 million. Bomb.