|
|
|
Zodiac
(2007)
David Fincher's intricate sense of presenting the unknown in enchanting fashion once again comes to prominence in this meticulous, rich and extremely comprehensive study of the Zodiac killer and the society he came from and subsequently left in his wake. The film has an amazing relevance as a social comment and in viewing the events in light of the time periods in question. Fincher skilfully gives one of the most insightful comments on the development of the information age, and on the strengths and weaknesses of 1970s practices as opposed to current practices in both law enforcement in general, investigations in particular, the different media desks and – perhaps most stunningly – the way the public reacts to potential dangers. Zodiac is executed with style and skill, and directed with flair and virtuosity. We are brought along to California circa 1969, centered in San Francisco and a few closely scattered small towns. It is the dawn of the serial killings that were to become known as the works of the Zodiac Killer – a figure that through his high-profile public "appearances" became infamous and notorious beyond his actual misdeeds. In Zodiac, Fincher delves into just about every aspect of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding the Zodiac – all from a very factual point of view. He rarely gets himself tangled up in speculative theories beyond those that are generally accepted as highly probable by most experts on the case. This gives the film an objectivity that is required, taking the excessive running time and the talky nature into account, but it also allows us to ponder the different options and theories ourselves – because, much like the situation in the case itself, very few definite conclusions are made. Some might argue that this makes a film like this inconclusive and unsatisfactory, but in my opinion it makes it more real, less artificial, and more rewarding from an intellectual and academic point of view. The film's level of realism combined with its haunting images and contemporary details transport us into the very core of the time and situations in question. Fincher doesn't merely scratch the surface and then rushes away from it. Zodiac works on many levels, which is what justifies its excessiveness: (1) It has its share of suspenseful, brilliantly directed thriller scenes, some of which resemble something Jonathan Demme could have conducted. (2) It offers an intricate look into obsolete techniques and practices in both police work and the press. (3) It is a remarkable evocation of life in 1960s and '70s California. And (4) it provides a probing study of a handful of very diverse characters. The final point is helped by a large (yet admittedly quite unconfusing) cast and their brilliant performances. Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo deliver some of their best work ever, challenging their own characters as they go along, producing remarkable developments in them, whereas Robert Downey Jr. justifies his former reputation as one of Hollywood's brightest talents. All problems aside, here he is back to the sort of work he delivered in Chaplin fifteen years ago. There's also fine supportive work by, in particular, Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Chloë Sevigny, Elias Koteas, Philip Baker Hall, and a hilarious Patrick Scott Lewis, all of whom give the film a spirited nature that makes this arguably Fincher's best work from a dramatic point of view.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||