Directed by: David Fincher
Runtime: 157 minutes
Don’t hate me for this, but I only just recently watched Zodiac for the first time. Now, once you get your booing out of the way—yes, I hadn’t seen what is regarded as one of the best films of the past two decades until 2019. So why did I watch it now? Well, it’s the same old story involving a free night, some spare time to scroll through Netflix, and vague criteria for what I wanted to watch. I felt like watching something that involved detectives and a mystery and was overjoyed when I found that Zodiac was recently released on streaming. It’s the simple pleasures that get us through those long, boring nights.
Zodiac is based on two true crime novels, Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked by Author Robert Graysmith. The film spans from 1969 to 1991; our film beginning with Zodiac killing his first victims and began sending letters to various newspapers around San Francisco. Two of our central characters, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), both work at one such paper, The San Francisco Chronicle. Initially, we follow these two characters interactions before Detective Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is introduced, who would eventually become the lead investigator of the Zodiac case. From this point on, the story flicks between focusing on each of our main characters, until a point in the story where we shift to Robert Graysmith’s character to see out the end.
If you’re unfamiliar with the story of the Zodiac Killer, you may go into this film expecting a standard mystery with colourful characters who save the day. Of course, that’s not the story of The Zodiac, and to its credit, the film doesn’t provide an additional flowery ending, only heavily implying what is already implied in the source material. In saying that this is not to discredit the mystery element of the film, the mystery is a guide and a crux for the characters throughout, providing mounting tension at every opportunity as well as twists, red herrings and dead ends wherever our characters turn. Each character is embroiled in the Zodiac mystery in their own unique way and for their own unique reasons. One is pursuing the mystery out of a relentless need to find the truth, one for their own selfish gain, and the other out of a sense of duty. The character work is where this film shines its brightest, with each character’s motivations and actions laid out perfectly throughout. With terrific acting from all parts. I didn’t experience a single point throughout the film where I was taken out due to a badly delivered line or a confusing expression; everything is meticulously thought through and presented perfectly. Secondary and ancillary actors throughout are also on their absolute A-game with Robert Graysmiths’s wife Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) and Inspector William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) being standouts; acting as terrific scene partners to their counterparts, as well as interesting and insightful characters in their own right.
You can split this film almost down the middle and separate each piece as its own story. During the first half, the Zodiac is active, and the mystery is in full force, we as the audience are given more playful and appealing characters, but to juxtaposition this, the first half of the film is inter-spliced with multiple unsettling scenes depicting the Zodiac’s murders. The way these scenes are staged, shot, and performed, make them some of the most uncomfortable scenes I have ever watched. The realism and the knowledge that these scenes actually happened exactly as is being shown due to survivors’ statements left me both completely uncomfortable and on the edge of my seat. The second half of the film is where the audience is thrown into the deep end, completely shifting away from any lighter interactions and following Robert Graysmith’s obsessive quest for The Zodiac. Graysmith is left to retrace the steps of previous investigators as he begins on his journey to write his book. While doing this, Graysmith ends up encountering a character that is much more than a mere red herring; something that could have been an empty fake-out is instead presented as a nail-biting tense sequence where the paranoia throughout the film infects its viewers.
It would be amiss of me to not mention the stunning cinematography and special effects throughout the film. There is one scene in particular that would have Wes Anderson fans feeling very at home, where a car journey is given some extra flair that elevates it above most transition shots. The cinematography in each scene leaves you feeling exactly how David Fincher wants you to, whether it be tense in the face of danger, cramped in a small apartment, terrified with no hope of help, or uncomfortable while facing an unscrupulous character. You might wonder where special effects come into play in a procedural thriller. Well, this one is set predominantly in the ’60s and ’70s and most of the city street backgrounds, establishing shots, etc are all CGI. The unobtrusive nature of the special effects highlights the absolute best of computer generation. While some of the CGI has aged slightly, some looking a little too shiny to be completely realistic, pretty much every other effect goes completely unseen. I would forgive anyone that thought that these scenes were shot on location in 2007 because, at first, so did I.
As the film was winding up my partner and I discussed it at length, unable to keep it out of our minds. From the film’s reputation, it seems it had a similar impact on its other viewers. It would do this film a disservice not to mention the mark it has left on media. The film’s structure, following a set of characters in a long, drawn-out quest for truth, seems to have had influences in an unlikely place; television. In particular, this two-and-a-half hour film seems to have laid the groundwork for serialised television series; redefining what a procedural could be. Long gone are the murders-of-the-week setups, where small towns have a frightening amount of murders per capita (looking at you, Midsomer), but instead, we are given works that look deeper into one mystery; amping up the thrill of the chase. Shows such as Broadchurch, Making of a Murderer, Gracepoint, The Killing, Whitechapel and True Detective are all serialised mystery stories that spend more time on the impact of horrific events on the people involved than they do on the murderer themselves.
An obvious comparison to draw would be another project involving Fincher, Mindhunter. A Netflix original series from 2017, Mindhunter is a spiritual successor to Zodiac, with just a little more room to weave its narrative. If you want more information on this fantastic series, you can read our review here. A true crime story focused heavily around its central characters, the mysteries themselves come secondary to the obsession they foster in our main characters. While it is a similar story to Zodiac, the television format allows audiences to dive even further into understanding these characters. It’s evident that the creator of Mindhunter, Joe Penhall, was drawing great inspiration from Zodiac when penning his characters, particularly in how they were adapted from authors of non-fiction novels to living, breathing characters on screen. Zodiac also had an obviously heavy influence on how various scenes were shot throughout Mindhunter, particularly in the many conversations between the FBI and serial killers.
So, in the end, did I get what I was looking for that night while scrolling through Netflix? Yes, and so much more. I understand now why Zodiac is so consistently rated as one of the best films of the past twenty years. With stunning acting, nuanced character work, and terrifically executed cinematography, Zodiac is a masterpiece that has left a lasting impact on not only me but media as a whole. Now, I’m going to go and continue to try and shake off all that tension it left me with.
Leave a Reply