Three Reasons to see Zodiac

[Robert Lachenay]

He fooled me with Zodiac !

He did not fool me and it wasn't a very good film.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Angeliki Makraki]

He did not fool me and it wasn't a very good film.

 

Why do you say that Robert, what was bad ?

[Angeliki Makraki]

There was a very specific reason for that and for the clothes many of them wore and for the very specific moments in which the music was qeued (total sp). I thought it was a brilliant film but, as I stated earlier, would not have been brilliant if not for the scene with alex frost playing fur elise. I did not like Zodiac. It was too nonchalant when it needed to be serious and too serious when it needed to be nonchalant. It was not, in my opinion, an inviting or enjoyable film, and those two variables worked against it's almost 2 3/4 hr running length. I did not enjoy it.

 

I agree that without the music, Elephant would be a vapid film.

If you want to see an inviting or enjoyable film why not see Avenue Montaigne ?

Zodiac is about an investigation of a killer, obviously not very pleasant, but very absorbing.

[Angeliki Makraki]

The ICG Magazine article that just came out confirms that the pastel, "lifted blacks" look was intentional, to help capture the period.

 

Only a few scenes had some mild noise problems. The camera seemed to do OK with bright day exterior scenes.

 

Skintones were intentionally pastel, brownish so it was hard to judge them. Occasionally in very warm scenes it looked a bit off, as if they were shot under sodium streetlamps (some might have been.)

 

The film does point out to me that we need to get digital cameras up to 4K soon...

 

I'm not sure what Mavromates means by "lifted blacks". If you see the trailer (on your laptop), rather than the projected movie, you can move the screen back and forth to see an image that has more contrast. Maybe they were doing dailies on the computer and didn't see how they would look projected in the movie theatre. I don't know.

I will have to see the French Connection and Dirty Harry this weekend so that I can compare the 70's look and see if they succeed in that respect. I would not call Zodiac enjoyable but I did find it absorbing. ( The first time , anyway, before I started reading all these bad things here on this Forum.)

Digital does have more depth of field than film. We have to find a way to solve that problem.

How would you create less depth with the Viper ?

[David Mullen ASC]

Digital doesn't have more depth of field than film -- smaller sensor and film formats have more depth of field on average than larger sensors and film formats.

 

In this case, the 2/3" CCD of the Viper means that the average focal length used will be shorter, with more depth of field, than when shooting on the larger 35mm format.

 

The solution is to use fast lenses at wide apertures. Using a T/1.6 HD lens on a Viper should give you the depth of field of shooting at approx. T/4 in 35mm. Now T/4 isn't particularly deep-focus in 35mm; it's just that we aren't used to seeing low-light night scenes with the depth of field of T/4 in 35mm.

 

The only solution if you want even less depth of field is to use an adaptor like the P&S Technik Pro-35.

[Angeliki Makraki]

Digital doesn't have more depth of field than film -- smaller sensor and film formats have more depth of field on average than larger sensors and film formats.

 

In this case, the 2/3" CCD of the Viper means that the average focal length used will be shorter, with more depth of field, than when shooting on the larger 35mm format.

 

The solution is to use fast lenses at wide apertures. Using a T/1.6 HD lens on a Viper should give you the depth of field of shooting at approx. T/4 in 35mm. Now T/4 isn't particularly deep-focus in 35mm; it's just that we aren't used to seeing low-light night scenes with the depth of field of T/4 in 35mm.

 

The only solution if you want even less depth of field is to use an adaptor like the P&S Technik Pro-35.

 

Thanks for explaining all this in a clear way. I think, I get it now.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Dont think we got those Don Knott movies here , if we did never saw them , wouldnt have thought it was a lens thing ,you saying you liked the blue screen stuff ? . do you know were the major battle scenes shot for that film or reused stuff from some other war movie ?

 

I have a weakness for blue screen, even bad blue screen, like in 'Thunderball'.

 

An interesting use of blue screen in Techniscope is 'Robinson Crusoe on Mars', Paramount.

It was shot in Death Valley. Blue screen technique was to replace the deep blue skies with a red sky.

 

The big battle with the exploding miniatures was shot for the movie.

L.B.Abbott wrote a special effects book, mostly about films he worked on. But filming the miniatures for 'Tobruk' is in there, even though Abbott didn't work on it.

 

Universal reused the battle scenes in 'Raid on Rommell'. A truly dreadful movie with Richard Burton.

Also Techniscope. But it was used in the middle of the movie! After that he rest of the movie is an anticlimax

[Robert Lachenay]

I agree that without the music, Elephant would be a vapid film.

If you want to see an inviting or enjoyable film why not see Avenue Montaigne ?

Zodiac is about an investigation of a killer, obviously not very pleasant, but very absorbing.

You're not agreeing with me. I did not say that without the music, it would be nothing. I said that without that single scene in which the Frost character played fur elise with too much agression, trying hard to surpress it, but ultimately failing and flicking off the structure of the piece, the film would have been nothing. That scene defines the entire film: every collective, desperate emotion and motivation of the fairly mute characters. It was an incredible film but it would have been nothing and meant nothing without that scene. We've seen this before on many occasions...in Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse for example, the scene of quiet, observant artistry where we recognize the unspoken and unspeakable bond between the two main characters (that of the artist and that of the model...a shared ownership; the antithesis of bondage: collaboration), made the piece transcendent. People are far too worried about the actions, the words...but few are patient enough to absorb a piece, to sit feet from the screen and interact with it, to bask in the words not spoken, the actions and sounds that have not manifested, but crawl around just beneath the surface. Elephant was a great film, but owes its greatness to that scene and that scene alone.

 

ZODIAC was not good because Fincher, as a director, hit the wrong notes too many times to count. The characters exhibited nonchalance when it was FULLY INAPPROPRIATE TO DO SO (one of many, many examples would be the binding and stabbing of the couple at the lake...he fishes for a sort of uneasiness...a desperate attempt by the characters to not focus on the situation, but almost turns it into parody when the boyfriend corrects his girlfriend on what he majored in. The act itself is commited with a swiftnees that doesn't allow the audience to comprehend the true horror of a murder...and so it goes that we simply continue with the story in desensitized, mild fasciniation. One should know that there is something deeply wrong when he watches the accounts of the murders of real people by one of the most terrifying and viscious serial killers in american history, and feels only remotely affected by them, if affected at all.), and a coarse seriousness when nonchalance was desperately needed (this was usually only exhibited by the vile Robert Downey Jr character, who exploited the deaths of the victims for his own petty gain). Because we were never allowed to fully identify with any of the characters, or feel much for the victims (which is where Fincher's style, or consciously attempted detatchment from his style played to the film's detriment), it began to drag and drag and drag. The points that should have absorbed us into caring about the quest to find this elusive killer were underplayed until, finally, there was nothing for the audience to care about, aside from a catharsis (i.e. who did this??) that could never be delivered. I tried desperately to enjoy it, as when I was younger, I saw a CourtTV account of the zodiac and was absolutely mortified for a few weeks afterward....it just never panned out. There was so much to work with, but fincher underutilized every aspect of it. If he wanted tofocus on the cultural phenomenon as the backdrop to the lives of others (as we saw spike lee do in summer of sam), he should have done that.....but he committed to no specific type of film and, in this case, it failed miserably. The only thing I will remember about this movie a month from now is creaking floor boards in a basement (the ONE eerie scene). The killings were about as moving and sensitive to human life as the killings in Octopussy...the characters about as engaging as those in God's and Generals. THis was not a terrible film or even a bad film...just totally forgettable.

 

 

Sorry for any poor grammer, typos, misusage, etc... THis is the answer to your question though. This is how I personally felt.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[John Holland]

I have a weakness for blue screen, even bad blue screen, like in 'Thunderball'.

 

An interesting use of blue screen in Techniscope is 'Robinson Crusoe on Mars', Paramount.

It was shot in Death Valley. Blue screen technique was to replace the deep blue skies with a red sky.

 

The big battle with the exploding miniatures was shot for the movie.

L.B.Abbott wrote a special effects book, mostly about films he worked on. But filming the miniatures for 'Tobruk' is in there, even though Abbott didn't work on it.

 

Universal reused the battle scenes in 'Raid on Rommell'. A truly dreadful movie with Richard Burton.

Also Techniscope. But it was used in the middle of the movie! After that he rest of the movie is an anticlimax

Raid on Rommell , remember that one a real stinker , mind you most films with Richard Burton in are pretty awful , that use of the blue sky in Crusoe on Mars was pretty clever .

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Raid on Rommell , remember that one a real stinker , mind you most films with Richard Burton in are pretty awful , that use of the blue sky in Crusoe on Mars was pretty clever .

 

Richard Burton was a fantastic actor who chose his film projects poorly. However, how fantastic was he in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"?

 

This has been a semi-off topic response :)

[Angeliki Makraki]

You're not agreeing with me. I did not say that without the music, it would be nothing. I said that without that single scene in which the Frost character played fur elise with too much agression, trying hard to surpress it, but ultimately failing and flicking off the structure of the piece, the film would have been nothing. That scene defines the entire film: every collective, desperate emotion and motivation of the fairly mute characters. It was an incredible film but it would have been nothing and meant nothing without that scene. We've seen this before on many occasions...in Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse for example, the scene of quiet, observant artistry where we recognize the unspoken and unspeakable bond between the two main characters (that of the artist and that of the model...a shared ownership; the antithesis of bondage: collaboration), made the piece transcendent. People are far too worried about the actions, the words...but few are patient enough to absorb a piece, to sit feet from the screen and interact with it, to bask in the words not spoken, the actions and sounds that have not manifested, but crawl around just beneath the surface. Elephant was a great film, but owes its greatness to that scene and that scene alone.

 

ZODIAC was not good because Fincher, as a director, hit the wrong notes too many times to count. The characters exhibited nonchalance when it was FULLY INAPPROPRIATE TO DO SO (one of many, many examples would be the binding and stabbing of the couple at the lake...he fishes for a sort of uneasiness...a desperate attempt by the characters to not focus on the situation, but almost turns it into parody when the boyfriend corrects his girlfriend on what he majored in. The act itself is commited with a swiftnees that doesn't allow the audience to comprehend the true horror of a murder...and so it goes that we simply continue with the story in desensitized, mild fasciniation. One should know that there is something deeply wrong when he watches the accounts of the murders of real people by one of the most terrifying and viscious serial killers in american history, and feels only remotely affected by them, if affected at all.), and a coarse seriousness when nonchalance was desperately needed (this was usually only exhibited by the vile Robert Downey Jr character, who exploited the deaths of the victims for his own petty gain). Because we were never allowed to fully identify with any of the characters, or feel much for the victims (which is where Fincher's style, or consciously attempted detatchment from his style played to the film's detriment), it began to drag and drag and drag. The points that should have absorbed us into caring about the quest to find this elusive killer were underplayed until, finally, there was nothing for the audience to care about, aside from a catharsis (i.e. who did this??) that could never be delivered. I tried desperately to enjoy it, as when I was younger, I saw a CourtTV account of the zodiac and was absolutely mortified for a few weeks afterward....it just never panned out. There was so much to work with, but fincher underutilized every aspect of it. If he wanted tofocus on the cultural phenomenon as the backdrop to the lives of others (as we saw spike lee do in summer of sam), he should have done that.....but he committed to no specific type of film and, in this case, it failed miserably. The only thing I will remember about this movie a month from now is creaking floor boards in a basement (the ONE eerie scene). The killings were about as moving and sensitive to human life as the killings in Octopussy...the characters about as engaging as those in God's and Generals. THis was not a terrible film or even a bad film...just totally forgettable.

Sorry for any poor grammer, typos, misusage, etc... THis is the answer to your question though. This is how I personally felt.

 

 

You have two good points there, Robert. I wanted to identify with Melanie, but her character was so insultingly marginalized that there wasn't much to see. I thought that as the more intelligent one she would have a role more as his partner and not just "the girlfriend and wife". We didn't even see one moment of intimacy with them, but like you say, this is not Fincher's forte. ( We'll see what happens with Benjamin Button) Maybe that was the screenplay. Also the directors in Hollywood have to deal with producers that might pressure them to not to give enough time for a scene to play out. But, the movie is what it is, maybe it will be a dim memory for us by the end of the month, but as a police procedural, I liked it. In Greece, I read the Inspector Haritos Mysteries and although Petros Markaris has also written some great literature, this series are like true crime novels. I like them....I read them for fun. I'll write more later, when I have more time.

[Robert Lachenay]

Also the directors in Hollywood have to deal with producers that might pressure them to not to give enough time for a scene to play out.

 

I thought the same thing until we began approaching the 3 hour mark.

 

Maybe that was the screenplay.

 

If a director expects to be truly commended for his abilities, that can never be an excuse. The killing scenes were so utterly nonchalant and desensitized, that it killed the film on impact. There was more emotionally crushing force in, "Before I kill you, I'm going to throw your baby out of the window," than there was in watching two young, high-school aged kids get brutally shot to death. The shooting of the taxi driver was executed with a horribly misplaced desensitized technique so that, after it happened, we were left feeling absolutely nothing--he wasn't a human, merely the taxi driver character who got his brains blown out and a "cool" sequence of frame increase. The film NEEDED us to feel those scenes DEEPLY, as Robert Graysmith's main drive was derived from his insistence that "These deaths DID matter, these people WERE real and will be missed." With the way it was presented, it would be quite easy for a person to disagree or to says, as many of the characters said, "They DON'T matter. They're just some of many deaths in the SF area each month." To be engrossed in the theories...the investigation...hell, to even be mildly creeped out, Fincher needed to show that there was weight behind the actions of this malicious and elusive killer...that for him to be on the street wasn't simply a period of cultural "WOW," but also a period of great suspense, paranoia and danger. To me, the film was just sort of "bleh..." It unfolded...things happened...and that was that. The characters were all one dimensional stencils of characters we've seen countless times in similar situations (regardless of whether this story is a true story, once it is committed to celluloid or word, "it all becomes fiction"), and fincher didnt have the pulsing ecstasy of say, Stone, or the quiet, intimate focus of Xiao to take these cut-outs to the next level. Fincher presented it as lifelessly and coldly as stainless steel or iced jasmine rice...it was there and I watched it for 2 3/4 hours and that was that.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Jonathan Benny]

The film NEEDED us to feel those scenes DEEPLY, as Robert Graysmith's main drive was derived from his insistence that "These deaths DID matter, these people WERE real and will be missed." With the way it was presented, it would be quite easy for a person to disagree or to says, as many of the characters said, "They DON'T matter. They're just some of many deaths in the SF area each month." To be engrossed in the theories...the investigation...hell, to even be mildly creeped out, Fincher needed to show that there was weight behind the actions of this malicious and elusive killer...that for him to be on the street wasn't simply a period of cultural "WOW," but also a period of great suspense, paranoia and danger.

 

I found the sterile fashion in which the killings were portrayed to be appropriate to the story and the character. In fact, I felt that the vacancy of any weight behind the killer's actions was exactly what made the film's approach to the killings unique and more importantly, believable. In my opinion, had Fincher treated those scenes and the killer's character with anything other than a sterile approach, it would have caused the moments and the film to become nothing special and probably overcooked.

 

The look of the film was also entirely appropriate, in my opinion. The look itself was somewhat sterile and was very difficult to grab a hold of. Right from the top, after the helicopter shot, when Fincher takes the camera across the houses in a neighborhood, I felt a certain uneasiness as a result of an image quality that was not predictably sharp (even if this was a result of the inevitable shortcomings of shooting digital).

 

Even with the slightly lengthy final lap, I thought it was one of the best films about the subject matter of serial killers/investigations in years.

 

AJB

[Robert Lachenay]

I found the sterile fashion in which the killings were portrayed to be appropriate to the story and the character. In fact, I felt that the vacancy of any weight behind the killer's actions was exactly what made the film's approach to the killings unique and more importantly, believable. In my opinion, had Fincher treated those scenes and the killer's character with anything other than a sterile approach, it would have caused the moments and the film to become nothing special and probably overcooked.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm not calling for exploitatin, but those scenes ruined the film. It has nothing to do with the acts of killing, but moreso with the response of the victims. They treated it like it was to be taken lightly...like it was a joke. There was also a terrible lack of commitment on Fincher's part concerning what type of film he was actually trying to make....many of the comic aleviations were wholly unwelcome, and in the cases that his characters actually got serious about things, it was misplaced and irrelevant. In my opinion, from a stylistic and dramatic directorial stanpoint, it was one of the biggest misfires of the past year or so.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Angeliki Makraki]

In my opinion, from a stylistic and dramatic directorial stanpoint, it was one of the biggest misfires of the past year or so.

 

Robert, I started this topic because I thought we would be talking about the cinematography in Zodiac.

It is obvious that you are a director or something, and look at, other things, than I do.

The dramatic scenes (ie; basement, Gyllenhaul) did not move me in anyway.

The fact that were overly dramatic made me respect them less.

Being a photographer, for me, what is memorable about the movie are the three scenes Lee described in the Village Voice article, and, the opening, with the fireworks and the gliding car, which I wish had been longer.

[Sam Wells]

I don't know what you want from the murder scenes -- a repeat of "Irreversible" ?

 

You could I suppose eliminate them - but not the first one - as significant aspects of it become crucial to the story later.

 

As for nonchallance - well really I didn't get that. I mean these detectives have to have their coping mechanisms... even a kind of gallows humor did not seem out of place. If you want to address genre and fictional narrative presumptions critically, OK (gonna get a bit off-topic for here, maybe...)

 

To me Zodiac was not a crime thriller anyway, but a film about the inadequecy of evidence (and the obssesiveness engendered by that frustration), not so much in the legal sense (although that was certainly an issue in the story) but in a philosophical sense.

 

A film about institutions, far more than a whodunit.

 

Anyway, Fincher's best film for my money, the first one of his of serious interest beyond its surfaces.

 

-Sam

[Robert Lachenay]

As for nonchallance - well really I didn't get that. I mean these detectives have to have their coping mechanisms... even a kind of gallows humor did not seem out of place. If you want to address genre and fictional narrative presumptions critically, OK (gonna get a bit off-topic for here, maybe...)

As I said...don't want exploitation (ie NO irreversible, that movie stunk). You didn't think the victims at the lake stabbing were strangely nonchalant? That scene almost became comediac...it was almost cartoonish watching him stab her. The lines were there to show their nervous compliance...it wasn't the script. It was fincher's poor dramatic direction in those scenes and many others that made the characters almost completely unbelievable. As for the cinematography...I did not liek the faux backgrounds being interspliced with the actors...doing that in a film does nothing more than make the scene look static and theatrical, a definite detriment to a film that relies on a gritty pseudo-realism. Your assessment for the type of film fincher was trying to go for in zodiac is correct, but he failed to give much to pull us into that obsession. The problem that arises when going into this specific genre of film (obsessive, analytical, tru crime docudrama, etc...) is that the few that have come before (JFK, A Way With Words, Crime) have done such a mind blowing job of capturing that obsession (actually making the audience obsess WITH the characters) and analyzing past events in a deeply compelling way, that to cimmit to a project only half way as fincher did in zodiac makes it very pale and forgettable in comparison. This was a long, long involved film that didn't have enough pull to keep people involved. In JFK and A Way with Words, one could be fully content with the lack of catharsis, as it was the journey that was important, not the end. ZODIAC only half-commit, and for that, the opposite became true.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Sam Wells]

Well your interpretation isn't mine, what can I say ?

 

 

I was no particular fan of JFK (don't know the other films)

 

I give up, you're infallible I'm sure.

 

-Sam

[Robert Lachenay]

Well your interpretation isn't mine, what can I say ?

I was no particular fan of JFK (don't know the other films)

 

I give up, you're infallible I'm sure.

 

-Sam

Naw, sorry, man. Sorry for being so confrontational. I was just fairly disappointed in the film is all.

[Sam Wells]

No, I didn't mean to be either.

 

What you read as "non-chalance" I read as ambivalence, as in the victims hoping for the best fearing the worse simultaneously. In addition, I like institutions as protagonist (here one _might_ link Fincher and Kubrick, although I would say it's banality of same in Fincher (I find this *much* different than "Fight Club" or "Seven") whereas with Kubrick it's institutions (organizations, ideologies) breaking down (in film after film).

 

Kubrick has the "advantage" of history confirming the thesis of his films :ph34r:

 

On that happy note.....

 

-Sam

[Max Jacoby]

I was very underwhelmed by the look of this film. It looked like they had put a sheet of see-through plastic over the lens: weak blacks, horrible skintones, no punch to the colors. Even if it was 'intentional', it wasn't very nice looking. I usually like Savides greyish, brownish cinematography (The Yards, Birth), but at least there he shot on film so it kept a certain patina, which in the case of 'Zodiac' was completely missing.

 

As for the film itself, I was struck by the similarities between it and 'Memories of Murder'. 70s reps 80s film about a real case serial killer, told from the persepective of the people who are unsucessfully trying to find him, getting close, but not achieveing their goal and getting destroyed by the case in doing so. Even some of the details (like having to look the suspect in the eyes to be able to tell whether he did it) match. But, and here is the one crucial difference, 'Memories of Murder' is a so much better film than 'Zodiac', which I thought was very weak, too much procedure, dragged on for ages. You had a couple of good scenes interspread with a ton of really boring ones.

[Jason Maeda]

I was going to start writing my thoughts until I read Max's reply, which pretty much encapsulates my opinion.

 

I would add, though, that - cinematographically speaking - I got a little tired of the blatant rip off of "All The President's Men" whenever they were in the offices of the San Fransisco Chronicle (or whatever that paper's name is).

 

Still, it had a nice tone to it despite what's his name (bad actor) and his ridiculously characterized wife (mannered actress), but Downey Jr. and the cop were great. Oh yeah the zodiac actor was really good as well.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Gotta say, having just seen the movie tonight, I feel quite disappointed and unfilled. I know for a fact that the movie will have rewatchability, but as a whole it starts off great and then really fizzles to an anticlimax. Fincher's standard of filmmaking is generally so high, that when he makes a movie inconsistent in quality, the dive is unfortunately significant.

 

Perhaps the problem was inherent with the script taking cues from a true life event that didn't lend itself to the cinematic. The movie starts off as a very theatrical slasher/cat 'n' mouser, then turns into something from the FRENCH CONNECTION/ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN school of seventies grit new cinema, and in the last half hour it just, as I said before, fizzles. I honestly felt cheated and let down when the closing text appeared.

 

I was also disappointed that unlike SE7EN, Fincher chose not to leave violence to the imagination. Didn't help that the CGI blood looked all too direct to video in quality.

 

Evident flaws aside, it is pretty clear that Fincher went to such great pains to recreate the American cinema of the early seventies, "the new cinema" as I mentioned before. Attention to detail is scary, this really feels like it's from the time! The production design was astonishing, and the sweetest icing on the cake was an original score by the great David Shire (for true era authenticity). :)

 

As for the cinematography, it was wonderful. I think the world of Harris Savides' work, and here Fincher and the cameraman got an accurate HD rendering of what Gordon Willis and Owen Roizman were up to at the time. Contrary to Max's thoughts I found the slightly milked blacks with the underexposure to help sell the period, as if the 100ASA stock had been pushed a couple of times, underexposed and then flashed/Chemtoned for skillful licks of shadow detail. My qualms would be that once we are out of the early seventies (when the most daring movies of the time were lit like this), the design work all seems to lack confidence and tends towards the directionless. While the feeling is jarring in the 1983 and 1991 sequences (the latter should have probably felt more like the darkened naturalism of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS), even for the 1977 stuff the visuals begin to unravel.

 

I have to check out MEMORIES OF MURDER now (thanks for the heads up Max)!

[Riku Naskali]

Anybody know what was up with the scene where inspector Toschi and Graysmith were speaking in the cafe? The window on the background was blown out to hell and I think I saw some blue outlines from chromatic aberration as well. It's hard to believe they had no way to make it less hot...

[Adam Frisch FSF]

What I enjoyed the most with the film was that somehow the Viper (not a good camera, btw) made it look more 70's. Not sure why, but the chromatic aberration (which might have been from the use of lenses or added later) really reminded me of how night shots looked from that era. Especially that slight fringing around highlights.

 

Now, I'm a massive Fincher fan (I think he's the modern Kubrick, basically) so I was always going to like this film. And I did. Thought it was extremely well played and executed - Fincher's got such a precise and fantastic camera and his compositions (for they are his) are always spot on. If one wants to study modern film composition, all one has to do is to view one of his later films.

 

Zodiac doesn't resolve or have traditional charactre arcs, but that's fine. We all knew that going in. I just love films that are all about the problem at hand, no parrallell stories, no love interest, no distractions. Pure police procedural. It felt like reading one of McBain's fantastic 87th Precinct novels, which is great.

 

There's one shot in particular where the girl gets picked up with her baby by the killer (the whole entrance is played as a behind the killers shoulder - typical Fincher). Anyway, he offers her a lift to the next gas station and she gets in. As they pass the gas station she turns her head after it, then he cuts to an exterior car mount where the station passes by as a reflection in her passenger side window with her head behind it, head turning. Pure elegance. An there aren't many people who can do stuff like that. Spielberg certainly, maybe a few others.

 

My only complaint with Fincher is that he's sometimes a bit too precise - would be interesting to see him loose up some shots or play certain things by ear. Imperfections and mistakes sometimes gives birth to stuff that is even better. And I also hate his affection for adding fake, blue, post-anamorphic flares to his flashlights - it's 90's cheese.