« previous post     next post »

It feels as if David Fincher’s been away for a long time - in fact it’s five years since his last film, the disappointing Panic Room. That was a technically superlative but oddly soulless movie, and the same can be said for all of Fincher’s work to date to a greater or lesser degree - his best offerings are simply so good that the hollowness where their hearts should be is hardly noticeable. But his reputation for genius is, according to any honest appraisal, built principally around two films - Seven and Fight Club - and you have to wonder what pressures he’s been under to succeed with Zodiac, a film not only delivered after a considerable absence but one that will inevitably draw comparisons with his previous, nigh-faultless entry into the serial-killer sub-genre.

All that said, what’s in a way most impressive about Fincher’s latest is how unhurried and how complete it is - in an age when even the best directors are bound by commercial pressures to edit their work of every possible ounce of fat, Zodiac contains an attention to detail and a fascination with minutiae that truly set it apart, especially in the thriller genre where action is routinely expected to serve in place of exposition. This isn’t to say that Fincher’s film is self-indulgent, that it’s overlong or that any cuts that should have been made haven’t - in fact, considering its running time its remarkably taut. But what Fincher has actually made is a world away from Seven or any of its many imitators, and something altogether different from the average thriller.

Based on Robert Graysmith’s book, Zodiac follows the investigation of the real life killings that occurred in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1970’s from a number of different angles. Central are police Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Graysmith himself, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith was the one who broke the last of the ciphers that the Zodiac killer inundated newspapers with (claiming that they would reveal his identity if broken), but its Toschi who dominates the first half of the film, and it’s the elements surrounding the investigation that make Fincher’s latest so distinctive.

Basically, Zodiac is a police procedural. Most thrillers have a procedural element, but here that search for evidence is precisely what drives the plot along, and is the main source of interest. By rights it should be tedious. Fincher insists on leading us down every blind alley that Toschi and Graysmith themselves suffered through, on making us watch the sifting of clues that often lead nowhere, and it’s a testament to his ability that this is totally absorbing rather than merely irritating. It’s hard to imagine him making this film a few years ago - it has a depth and breadth beyond that of his previous films, and it’s considerably less showy. Only one shot, an admittedly wonderful time-elapse of a skyscraper being built, feels like grandstanding, everywhere else Fincher’s technical expertise is put purely to the service of storytelling.

It’s a hard film to fault - every aspect, from the script to the acting to the cinematography and scrupulous authenticity, is tremendously well done. Still, there are bound to be those who won’t enjoy it simply because it follows strictly to true-life events, and reality just doesn’t conform well to the traditional strictures of narrative. Fincher does a tremendous job of keeping up interest and inserting tension, but not to the extent of steering drastically from what actually happened - in particular, and bearing in mind that no-one was ever convicted of the Zodiac killings, the end is neither neat nor entirely satisfying. Anyone expecting a thriller, particularly one akin to Seven, may find themselves disappointed - but if you’re willing to take Zodiac on its own considerable merits, as a procedural based on real events, then you’re sure to be impressed.

« previous post     next post »

1 Comment