BLUE MAG

If you want a quick summation of director David Fincher’s new movie “Zodiac” it can basically be described as “All the President’s Men” with the Zodiac killer replacing Richard Nixon. However, “quick summation” and movies with 158 minute running times don’t really go hand in hand and in the final analysis there is nothing “quick” or “summary” about “Zodiac.”

David Fincher first came to prominence as THE sought after director of music videos and television commercials, mediums defined by flash, glam and quick cuts. This led to “Alien 3” a movie with the largest budget ever assigned a first time director and resulted in a great first hour that devolved into an unmitigated mess. Fincher claimed a torrent of studio interference on par with David Lynch’s “Dune” and vowed to have more creative control on his next picture. From the ashes rose “Se7en,” a masterful critical and commercial achievement that defined an era as much as the first “Matrix.” His next film “The Game” was somewhat of a disappointment (although I find it very re-watchable) that was more than made up by “Fight Club” his fanboy wet dream that made boys of all ages his devotees for life. Fincher followed up with “Panic Room” an extremely difficult production (involving a last minute replacement of Nicole Kidman by Jodie Foster due to an onset injury) of an extremely simple situation. In direct opposition to “Panic Room” in scale and scope comes “Zodiac.” The former film takes place almost entirely in one location in almost real time, the latter covers over 30 years and sprawls across California from Vallejo to Riverside. With “Zodiac” Fincher has constructed a work in sharp contrast to everything he first gained notoriety for. Gone are the quick stylish cuts and flash and glam but I’m not sure if what he’s replaced them with is an improvement.

Opening with 4th of July fireworks, Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man” and a graphic depiction (or recreation) of a young couple being brutally gunned down by the Zodiac killer, the film focuses on three men who find their lives shaped by the serial killer’s activities. These are fresh-faced cartoonist Robert Graysmith (whose two books the movie is based upon), “Bullet” inspiring police detective David Toschi and crime journalist Paul Avery, played respectively by Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr. Over the course of the film we follow these men as they track down every lead and possibility for the next thirty years in hopes of bringing Zodiac to justice. As history proves, they do not succeed.

The most difficult aspect to grasp, when watching Fincher’s film, is that very lack of success. It is a movie about irresolution over time, a theme that the medium proves difficult to express. For a picture that’s already almost three hours long, it’s sad to say that a longer format would have suited the subject but it’s true. A four-hour mini-series on HBO could have been richly compelling to watch as the characters lives are gradually devolved and destroyed by this serial killer’s continual presence. This is what a show like “The Wire” does so well and movies are now having are hard time measuring up.

As it is now the motion picture feels incomplete, as if compromises were made to make at least an attempt at marketability (an attempt that failed if the box office numbers say anything in this age of DVD.) What is really compelling is how the film (although since it was shot completely digital calling “Zodiac” a film is a bit of a misnomer) conveys the passage of time. The scenes that bookend the film and seeing a character 30 years apart is quite arresting and takes a viewer aback. I am curious to see what Fincher does with these themes in his next film “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” where the focus is squarely on time.

Fincher’s deliberate lack of style (there are no shots zooming down a gun barrel or flying around the inside of a house) lends itself to the piece, allowing the characters and performances to take the forefront. The supporting cast is especially noteworthy with Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas and Donal Logue giving really rich subtly to their parts. Surprisingly, a comedian I usually disdain, Charles Fleisher provides the movie with its most chilling and suspenseful moment as a demented projectionist.

Technically I can’t say I was that impressed with the visual quality of the movie. I suspect this has to do with the inferior print I saw at the Arclight cinemas in Hollywood. The film was photographed by Harris Savides, a brilliant cameraman (“Elephant” “The Game”), using the Viper FilmStream camera, which can capture visual data straight onto a hard drive. The print had really milky washed out blacks and the framing was off so many of the plethora of subtitles (telling you how far ahead the story was jumping) were cut off.

I’d like to see the movie again to verify the technical snafu but 158 minutes is hard to schedule. If anything, what “Zodiac” leaves you with is knowledge that time is precious and perhaps too short for obsessive second viewings.

UPDATED

Saw “Zodiac” again but at a different theater. It seems all the visual problems were due to a bad print at the Arclight. The movie looks wonderful with great contrast to the image and really unique look overall.