I wonder if David Fincher is concerned that he might be to serial killer movies what Martin Scorsesse is to the gangster pictures. If he were, I could see why he would want to do Zodiac, the flip side of the coin to his masterpiece. This time around, he's interested in showing the obsession that people have with this type of killer, especially those who are tasked with catching them.
The film revolves around three men, Robert Greysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who gets caught up in the case by it's sheer mystery, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr) the crime beat reporter for the same rag who is in it for the thrill of the chase, and Detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) who just wants to catch the cocky SOB because he doesn't like the idea of a killer going free. We first see their intregue with the killer as he not only kills in descriminately, but he also uses the threat of terror into getting the newspapers to print his calling card. The chase is on and we see behind the curtain of what major crime cases go though where the police and the media are constantly outmaneuvering each other for information to exploit, We meet several good candidates for the killer, but since the case is still unsolved, we know it will never pan out. Eventually, as the trail goes cold, we see the toll that this obsession brings as each man allows the pursuit to slow them down, taking them away from their normal lives. Families are torn appart, new addictions are started, and despair starts to set in. The ultimate question that the film asks around the final act is what would be acceptable as closure if not victory? And each man finds themselves coming to that same question with different answers.
This is not a film that is about what you see, but how you see it. While it outlines the case well, the film is more interested in the emotional territories of the characters and the audiance. Since the characters see the murdered not completely like human beings, but like a puzzle that needs to be completed. When it ultimately can't do that much, the audiance finds itself asking the same question the characters are. Using a real-life case such as the Zodiac is the final touchstone, giving these ideas weight of realism. The film feels very low-key without many of David Fincher trademark high-tech shots and digital imagery. Costumes feel neither too contemporary nor dated, cars feel natural, but not classic. Something that did impress me was that much of the terror in the film is done in daylight, something that is rarely done in movies. And then there are the police procedures. There's a great scene that proves police are better off now than then when an officer tries to circulate evidence with two other police departments only to keep running into brick walls caused by inferior technology and great distances.
Where the film kind of meanders is when they actually show the killings of the Zodiac. Since the characters aren't really invested in the victims, the film showing the actual murders is more exploitive than counter-balancing the apathy shown. It feels like they were thown in just to remind the audiance that yes, this is a serial killer movie. The film does feel a little long, but I don't know of anything that should have been cut, but I will say that the use of "6 weeks later" and "3 days later" all throughout the film is not only annoying but REALLY ANNOYING. All you have to do is just remind us of the year from time to time, we get the point, really!
I thoroughly enjoyed the casting of this film, especially in the areas of Downey as Avery, Ruffalo as Toschi, and Chlo� Sevigny as Greysmith's eventual wife (their first date is less than romantic, so to say). I love how Downey really just loses himself into a character that is constantly on the verge of genius and collapse at the same time, especially since his character is a drug addict that uses the Zodiac as another high. Ruffalo's performance brings out such an interesting character in Toschi, hard-boiled and weary on the outside with a slightly soft underbelly that he rarely lets seen. Sevigny's character doesn't have much to do through the film, but what she does, she does very well. Take a scene at the dinner table for example where we can tell that the Zodiac is as much killing her as anybody else.
But this is ultimately David Fincher's film, and he certainly shows that he knows how to put a narrative together and make it stick in your mind. You can tell that there's a lot of attention to detail in this film, and for this kind of story, there has to be. But I love how he balances the true-to-history element with a sense of inspiration. There is only so much that history can tell you when you must rely on human nature. Fincher puts away his ego (or most of it) in this film and allows this to be more about the events that occuring. There are no high-tech camera work, no gradiose master shots. He's on the ground, prowling San Francisco like his quary with actors who he can trust to get the job done.
All in all, this isn't a Fincher masterpiece, but it's a good time and a film that will make you think about things, and not just on serial killers. Everybody has their own obsessions (as Jim Carrey showed in The Number 23). But at what point are we slaves to ourselves by that which we seek? When do we just deal with the fact that we'll never know who actually killed Kennedy? And ultimately, how do we come back home from such a place? Zodiac doesn't have the answer, and that's just the point.