Cinema Hype

How do you make a movie about a true, unsolved mystery? Do you fudge the details and trade an “inspired by true events” kind of film for a satisfying ending? Do you go with a straight police procedural and risk the audience falling asleep in their seats? Or do you start scheduling interviews and make a documentary? Best to ask director David Fincher. He took on the challenge of directing Zodiac, and ended up with a good movie that takes all three approaches into account, and ends up with something a little different.

Zodiac, it must be noted, could have been a truly terrifying movie. The real Zodiac committed anywhere from five (confirmed) to ten (speculated) murders in California during the late 60s and early 70s; the murders were gruesome and apparently random, and the case was never solved (it remains open, and the San Francisco Chronicle and local police still receive tips and theories on a regular basis). But the movie isn’t a slasher film; it’s not even a true suspense movie. It’s too long to get the blood pumping–two and a half hours–and it moves surprisingly slowly. It’s divided into two rough halves: the first about the San Francisco Police Department’s investigation of the case, and the second about Robert Graysmith’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) growing obsession with Zodiac. We see a lot of the police, a lot of trips to the library and chasing down of leads instead of “don’t go in there!” moments. There isn’t much of a linear build-up in the movie, and–rightfully–there isn’t enough resolution to allow the tying up of loose ends.

On the other hand, Fincher’s not going for a straight police procedural. He uses the same principles he used to avoid horror to produce some truly nerve-wracking scenes. The movie isn’t generally scary or gory, but the few frightening parts are frightening because they are long and slow–Fincher sets up scenes and then lets the audience wait. And wait. And wait. And then sometimes bad things happen, and sometimes they don’t, but it’s sometimes hard to tell and it’s easy to get caught up in Fincher’s patient mounting of tension.

As for the third genre, documentary, Fincher borrows liberally without actually making a documentary film. It’s clear that it was scrupulously researched. Many of the investigation’s main players and some of the Zodiac’s surviving victims are still alive; the list of consultants and interviewees printed in the credits is impressive. Much of the film was shot on location–the Blue Rock Springs Golf Course parking lot doesn’t appear as such, but Lake Berryessa is Lake Berryessa, and there’s no hint of Vancouver in 1970s San Francisco. Even more importantly, the movie takes a position on the Zodiac’s identity, which gives the film the ending it needs and provides plenty of food for thought on the drive home from the theater. It’s hard to see any stretching of the facts of the case. Maybe the seams are there, but Fincher provides plenty of support for his point of view, which only makes the whole film seem more authoritative. It’s like a true crime book come to life (which, in a way, it is).

As expected, Zodiac is full of good performances. It’s a movie about pairs of men: Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. as Graysmith and Chronicle reporter Paul Avery, and Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards as SFPD officers Dave Toschi and Bill Armstrong. Both pairs work well together, but it’s Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr. who really set the standard. It’s a weird pairing, but it works: something about Gyllenhaal’s inherent squareness and Downey’s equally cellular fluidity makes them prime buddy-movie candidates. Gyllenhaal’s chemistry with Downey, Jr. is far better than that with his onscreen wife, Chloe Sevigny, who seems a bit like the onscreen version of anti-acoustic foam.

In all, Zodiac is long and slow, but it’s good and long and slow. Fine work from a smart director. Just make sure you leave a light on for yourself when you come home from the theater.

Zodiac, Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, movie reviews