THE ULTIMATE BlOG TO
Hollywood TOWN!
|
|
Written by Sunil Dhokia Introduction The year of 2007 was in many ways a very special year in the decade of the 2000s. This is because of how refreshing it was to see a year in cinema that was dominated by auteur directors, who each had a singular vision that came through in their respective works. Some of the directors and movies that led the way included the Cohen Brothers 'No Country For Old Men', Paul Thomas Anderson's 'There Will Be Blood' and Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster'. Another movie that deserves to be mentioned in the same space as the above movies is none other than David Fincher's Zodiac, a story that in a lot of ways is not looking to draw attention to itself, but is more an exploration of the humanity within its characters. The reasons why Zodiac is a masterpiece in filmmaking are because of its compelling story thanks in large part to a complex and multi-layered screenplay from screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, its well-drawn out and flawed characters and the methodical way that David Fincher directs the movie. This article, therefore, will look at each of these elements in-depth to explore how they give the movie its masterpiece status. Spoiler-Warning: I will be covering many of the key story elements in Zodiac, as part of my discussion on the movie. Therefore, if you have not seen the movie, I would advise that you watch Zodiac first and then come back to my article to avoid any narrative details. What's The Movie About? Directed by David Fincher, Zodiac (2007) is a thriller, which follows the story of Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist who works for the San Francisco Chronicle, who along with his colleague, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) and Inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) collectively try to solve the case of the Zodiac Killer, who in the 1960s and 1970s, killed various people in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Zodiac Killer's calling card involved taunting the police by leaving various clues such as ciphers and letters on the murders that he carried out, in the hope of tricking the police into thinking that they are legitimate clues that will lead them to identify him as the Zodiac Killer. Story and Screenplay David Fincher and screenwriter, James Vanderbilt use some interesting storytelling devices in Zodiac, to ensure that audiences are never worn out at any point during the movie's grand runtime of 157 minutes. One of the storytelling devices that David Fincher and James Vanderbilt use is subverting audience expectations. The story achieves this wonderfully by teasing the audience into thinking that each time our heroes close in on a substantial piece of evidence that this will lead to a big break in the investigation. However, as only David Fincher does best, he puts external barriers between the suspects and the investigators on the case in which key factors do not fully align. A big moment is a scene where police officers Dave Toschi, Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and Jack Mulanax (Elias Koteas) are interviewing Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) at his place of work. The camera cuts to Arthur on multiple occasions to reveal key visual cues that tie back to the Zodiac Killer, such as Arthur's wristwatch containing the Zodiac symbol or the military boots that Arthur wears that matches that boot prints found in one of the polices' evidence on the case. In these moments, it's as if the story is leading us down a path where these big reveals will provide these characters and the audience with a sense of closure, to prove that this man is the Zodiac Killer. What separates Zodiac from other movies in the thriller genre, is the realistic and pessimistic stance on the way the story is told, in which we don't always get the answers we want, despite what transpires in the movie. In a happier version of the Zodiac story, the evidence found by the police officers would be enough to lock Arthur away and provide resolution to the investigation and therefore provide a heroic ending for our characters. Instead, David Fincher and James Vanderbilt are not interested in taking creative liberties in their depiction of the Zodiac story, to create a happy, satisfying conclusion, that many Hollywood directors would take, under a much more heavy-handed studio system of governance, where final-cut of the movie was not approved (which David Fincher, fortunately, had on this movie - and it shows for the better). Arthur Leigh Allen, just as he was in the real-telling of events, was no more than a suspect, as the evidence found by the police officers was nothing more than circumstantial, resulting in Arthur no longer being a suspect in the investigation. This lack of a breakthrough in the case creates a static, circular motion of a never-ending state of affairs for the characters leading the investigation. This leads onto the passage of time storytelling device that David Fincher and James Vanderbilt use in Zodiac to show the lasting negative impact that the murders have on the people investigating the case. Scenes such as when Dave Toschi becomes a recluse in the aftermath of being accused of forging one of the Zodiac letters or Paul Avery's descent into alcohol and drugs, that spiralled out of control after he was threatened to be killed by the Zodiac Killer, all explore the themes of injustice, mental health and time, and question whether it's worth sacrificing our livelihoods in search of a truth that we may never come to find out. As a result, the longer that the investigation goes on for, it feels as though the characters sense of purpose and drive deteriorates with each passing year. This is reinforced by the fact the real Zodiac case was never resolved. The movie's ending follows that same lack of a resolution, creating a bleak, uncertain outlook as to whether people that commit acts of murder suffer any consequences to their actions. Exposition can in the wrong hands be a bore to watch and listen to. Ken Miyamoto at Screencraft defines exposition as the following: "Exposition is comprised of those pieces of vital information — often shared in dialogue — that are necessary for the audience to know and understand in order for character arcs and plot points to make sense. In Zodiac, this exposition often comes directly from the Zodiac Killer in the form of the various encrypted letters that he sends to the San Francisco Chronicle throughout the movie. This means that we learn more about the Zodiac Killer in these letters, as he reveals more about his dark, twisted viewpoint on the world, while often revealing his next targets, such attempting to kill children on school buses. When characters like Paul Avery repeat what's being said in the Zodiac letters, we not only learn more about the antagonist, but it also furthers the plot in terms of the police gaining more evidence in the hopes of discovering the identity of the Zodiac Killer. One of the key ways in which a movie can make good use of exposition according to Ken Miyamoto is to have "characters argue about the exposition". Fortunately, Zodiac has this in spades, in which the characters involved in the investigation often argue with one another over their stance on the case. The penultimate scene in the movie best conveys this technique, when Robert Graysmith and Dave Toschi are in a restaurant discussing their conflicting ideologies on the Zodiac case. This scene plays with the concepts of facts and mythology. Dave is basing his arguments entirely on the concrete evidence collected on the Zodiac Killer, whereas Robert is using circumstantial evidence to piece together the timelines of Arthur Leigh Allen and the Zodiac Killer, to establish a clear link in the investigation between these individuals. This creates external conflict between these characters, as the exposition or evidence in this example, is used to eventually support Robert's argument that Arthur Leigh Allen is the Zodiac Killer. This avoids the problem found in many procedural, serial-killer movies, where the information on a serial-killer is being spewed by a character just for the sake of establishing their background and personality. The movie in its use of having characters talk with one another on their conflicting viewpoints on the evidence of the Zodiac case achieves another one of Ken Miyamoto's ways to use good exposition in a movie that "if you have to tell, tell it well". Characters Zodiac succeeds where many thriller movies fail because it gives its characters clear motivations as to why they are involved in the story. If at the point in the movie in which Robert Graysmith becomes involved with the Zodiac investigation is poorly executed by the filmmakers, it either makes or breaks whether or not the audience cares for his exploits in the investigation. Fortunately, screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, gives Robert a concise, well-thought-out character arc along with a clear, personal motivation for his involvement in the case. One of the scenes at the San Francisco Chronicle, when Paul Avery asks Robert how he's able to translate the different Zodiac symbols in the form of words, Robert responds by saying he likes to do puzzles. This line is important as it provides Robert with a clear motivation for his involvement in the case, not because he's interested in finding the killer, but because he's doing it just for the sheer personal enjoyment from his hobby of solving puzzles. This allows the audience to be on-board with Robert's character throughout the entirety of the story, as this gives weight and substance to his character arc change from being a simple cartoonist, to being involved in the investigation of the Zodiac murders. Jason Hellerman at No Film School in his article 'Main Character and Protagonist: What's the Difference?', quotes John August, who defines "the hero of the story is the person you hope to see "win." They're who you root for". Up until Bill Armstrong's transfer away from the police's homicide division, Dave Toschi's demotion from the police force (after being accused of forging one of the Zodiac letters), and Paul Avery's descent into alcoholism and drug abuse, screenwriter, James Vanderbilt uses these characters are our point of view into the first two acts of the story. With every murder that the Zodiac commits, we as an audience are rooting for one of these heroes to find that vital piece of evidence that will turn the tide in the hunt to identify the Zodiac Killer. So when our heroes do experience moments of defeat, such as when Paul Avery receives a letter from the Zodiac Killer, threatening to end his life, we can't help but empathise with their decisions to drop their duties as heroes within the context of the story. As we enter the final act of the movie, we are now in the hands of Robert Graysmith, who now fills the hero void left by our preceding heroes. Despite Robert's lack of credentials in the investigative world, he fulfils the roles of both protagonist and hero, as someone who is our point of view for the remainder of the story, and given Dave, Bill and Paul's failed attempts to solve the Zodiac case, makes us root that much more for Robert to try and solve the mystery at hand. Direction David Fincher is one of the few directors working in Hollywood today, who always puts his unique stamp on the movies he makes. And in the case of Zodiac, under the hands of another director with a taste for depicting horrific acts of violence on-screen, this movie could have easily descended into a glorification of the Zodiac Killer's exploits, However, Fincher uses several directing techniques that he has often utilised throughout his career, to make a smart, introspective movie. David Fincher doesn't glamorise or dwell too long on the various murders that the Zodiac killer carries out in the movie. This includes the movie's opening scene, in which Darlene Ferrin (Ciara Hughes) picks up Mike Mageau (Lee Norris) from his house. As the scene progresses, the car stops at a parking spot in a hill area up in Vallejo, California. Fincher at this point deploys a low-medium shot when Darlene and Mike are talking to each other with their conversation ranging from Darlene's remark to Mike as to why he's wearing several shirts on the fourth of July to Darlene laughing at Mike's "fuck off and die" remark to a car passing by that set off some fireworks on their car. In these smaller, dialogue-driven scenes, Fincher cares more about humanising the victims of the murders rather than showing the bloodbath of the crime itself. Even when the murder does take place, Fincher deploys quick cuts between Mike and Darlene, as they are shot multiple times by the Zodiac Killer, and even deploys a wide-shot of the Zodiac Killer shooting his victims towards the end of the scene. This wide-shot is important as it conveys Fincher's decision to portray the Zodiac Killer as a cold, distant person. This reveals the movie's stance on the Zodiac Killer that he was as far removed from a sane human being as you could get. This separates Zodiac from other serial-killer movies, in which directors will often focus a little longer than they should on the murders that take place, as opposed to humanising the victims before their murders. What David Fincher is a master of is building tension, which does not always lead to an act of violence on-screen. Whilst the build-up of tension and bloody violence does happen particularly in the Zodiac murder scenes, Fincher also likes to tease the audience into inferring a violent act without actually showing one. One of the scenes that perfectly captures this technique is the phone interview that takes place on the T.V show hosted by Jim Dunbar (Tom Verica). Fincher uses two techniques to capture the inner conflict and menace of the Zodiac Killer. The first technique is the use of audio, as Fincher singles out the Zodiac Killer's voice to allow the audience to hear and understand the pain he's suffering such as his headaches. This means that the Zodiac Killer has our undivided attention at this moment, as we are all too aware that any point, he could turn into the threatening, callus person that we already aware of from his prior murders. The second technique that David Fincher uses in the above scene is the use of various cuts between shots. Particularly, when the Zodiac Killer threatens to kill people, Fincher decides to show the reactions of various characters that are watching the T.V interview both in the studio and elsewhere. This includes the moment when Robert Graysmith turns off his T.V so that his son does not hear any more of the Zodiac Killer's intentions to kill people. This technique allows us to understand how just one person, and their need to draw attention to themselves, can impact people in their everyday lives. With just the use of audio and a few simple editing techniques, Fincher creates a palpable amount of tension and a sense of uneasiness for the audience of what the Zodiac Killer may conjure up next, which creates a lack of predictability in the way the darker aspects of the movie unfold. David Fincher also makes the bold choice to make the movie at times a reflective one. In many mystery and serial-killer movies, these sort of scenes are often relegated towards the climax of the story. In Zodiac, Fincher decides to spread these reflective moments throughout the movie. Scenes such when Dave Toschi tells Robert Graysmith of the time and effort spent by him and countless other police officers in trying to resolve the Zodiac case and the strain involved in doing so. This means that the audience is allowed to get inside the mind of the characters involved with the investigations, rather than focusing on the inner workings of the Zodiac Killer. Fincher in these reflective scenes is conveying the message that people in positions of power such as law enforcement are not without their flaws, particularly when a lack of resolution in an investigation can damage their sense of pride within their profession, and how this can have lasting consequences on their everyday lives. In a way, Fincher is informing the audience that not every hero has a happy ending, and that the search for truth and justice often comes at a price for those that truly care for the cause. Conclusion The storytelling devices used by director, David Fincher and screenwriter, James Vanderbilt such as subverting audience expectations and its realistic and pessimistic view on the world, creates a story that grips us from start to finish and leaves with more questions than answers, a risk that many movies in the thriller genre tend to avoid. David Fincher and James Vanderbilt also build the foundations of the movie through a plethora of well-developed characters, who have clear motivations for their actions coupled with well-thought-out character arcs, which ensures that we're always emotionally invested with the characters that play a prominent role in the story. Even the most compelling story that has well-developed characters can only truly come to life if its in the hands of a great director. And in David Fincher, he is most definitely master and commander of the movie seas. By Fincher utilising the directing techniques that he has been known for throughout his career and applying them to Zodiac such as not glamorising the violence depicted on-screen, you're left with a movie that stands head and shoulders above many movies in the thriller genre. The lack of closure to the ending of Zodiac is a reflection of the bold and risk-taking nature of both David Fincher and the movie itself. In short, after exploring the concepts of story, characters and direction, we can see that once these ideas synchronise with one another, result in the masterpiece of a movie that is Zodiac. Parting Musical Gift I leave you with my favourite track on the Zodiac OST, with 'Graysmith Obsessed' by the composer, David Shire. The track perfectly captures (as spelt out in its title) the obsessive and compulsive nature of Robert Graysmith's character and his desire to do whatever it takes to try and solve the mystery of the Zodiac investigation. Your Thoughts What are your thoughts on Zodiac? Do you agree that the movie is a masterpiece? Comment below, as I'd love to hear your thoughts. All images above and their copyright belong to Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. and any other respective owners. All YouTube content below and their copyright belong to Varèse Sarabande and any other respective owners. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
About MeMy name is Sunil Dhokia, I'm a movie fanatic and love all things Hollywood. Blog Archives
June 2020
Follow Me
|