Robert Lachenay

I would dismiss a working environment like that completely if I were an actress as established and utterly esteemed as Lily Tomlin. Regardless of the consequences, if my "director" called me a "c*nt," I would stand up, throw a newspaper in his face, and leave.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. He, like Altman, is able to articulate the form of a character through very subtle nuances and he is brilliant and the overarticulated crap you long for is precisely what has ruined so many films of the past 15 years.

Look for youtube interviews of PTA and you will find all the answers you're looking for.

Not if he is immensely respected by those he works with. I can absolutely gauruntee you that Spielberg, Scorsese, Von Trier, the late Altman, PT Anderson, Lynch, The Dardennes, Bergman, the late Fellini (especially him...jeezzzz...him and von trier.."don't mess"), etc, etc did hold the position of MASTER once they had become established, which, by this time and by his ability to make a movie so utterly pretentious as "I <3 Huckabees," O. Russel must be. He's a crappy director and (after having watched this), apparently a huge d*ck.

Most people have no idea what its symbolism actually is, which is understandable, as it was derived from a somewhat, publicly unfamiliar source. They associate the event with Exodus, but that is not the frogs' representation...it was derived from Charles Hoy Fort, a writer who specialized in the study of anamalous phenomenology and its philosophical reflection on social trends. The Exodus references (ie the various hidden verses in scenes) were added later, but he concedes that it was Charles Fort whom he gained inspiration from, and if you were to read Fort, it makes much ore sense and takes the climax to a whole other level and makes it much more satisfying than associating it with Exodus. And no....personally, I do not think it takes away from the film. In fact, I think it is one of the boldest moves by a director in history of cinema (one of many, but one nonetheless), given the budget and star power, and it transcends the film to a whole other level. It made me excited...very excited for film. Anderson, IMO, is one of the 10 greatest currently working directors...he is incredibly intelligent and talented and the brilliant, subtle, nuances composed into every one of his scenes heighten even the most mundane moments.

Unlike Russel.

After watching that, it's no wonder why Russel's movies are such god-awful stink bombs. No clue who he thinks he is to call Lily Tomlin a "c*nt." She's Altman's friggen' girl...who is he?

So you're essentially suggesting he create a trailer?

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

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.

I h ave that dvd too. Criterion Collection RULES!

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.

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

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.

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

Heidegger gives a pretty strong definition of what art is.

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'm not sure...I've been wondering the same thing. DO watch it again though....for me it's one of those films that you learn new things about it and yourself, after returning to it years later.

And btw....please stop insinuating that because I'm young I'm some impressionable sponge. I know what films I enjoy watching and what books I enjoy reading. I can absolutely assure you that I've seen more of them and read more of them than you have in order gain that ability, and perhaps that's why I get so bored with what I see....it's very rare for me to go to a film or read a book now and just be wowed... It's not to say that they aren't quality works...it's just that I've gotten bored and can recognize so many of the origins and influences in them that it detracts from the actual experience. Perhaps it's sad, but it makes hte films that really do blow me away that much more to savor. Your grossly pompous comments about Peter Greenaway (who is actually not one of my heroes, as I believe many of his films were masturbatory, egocentric pieces that alienated the audience and were far too pretentious and self-contained to help evolve the medium as was always his goal.....just as I believe many of his theories are based ont he assumption that areas of revolution are welcome among filmgoers when really they are not....however I do admire him for what work he has succeeded at and do agree with many of his views and can relate with much of his boredom in the regurgitated mess that consumes a lot of cineplexes today) sound pretty silly and I can assure you that it would be a 1 sided slaughter as soon as you start comparing Lucas to fellini, eisenstain, welles, hitchcock, goadard and lang. You act as if someone else has formed my opinions, but not your own. Perhaps you should remember (if ever you've heard it) what Oscar Wilde said about Emerson saying that so many men are other men and our thoughts are merely quotations. Or what Krishnamurti said about second-hand people. You're jsut as manipulated as anyone else in the world, so don't give comments about greenaway imposing his views on teenagers, when most of the men you worship and yourself are all products of other men's thoughts and ideas. At least I'm trying not to be second-hand...at least I'm not complacent like you seem to be, and am hungry to see things I have not seen before. You can't fault me for that.

You're equating a film's quality to the number of fan sites and geek-boy followings it has. I've never said that I have any "greater insight" into what's "art" and what's not, those are simply reactionary conclusions you've made. You seriously jump over everything everyone says, challenging them even if they're in complete agreement with you. I simply, nudgingly said, "The tyranny of the actor," as a sort of joke and you wrote 10 ten-paragraph posts trying to couter...what?...something. You have this strange sort of reproach for people who prefer different films than the ones you've deemed "great" (all of which have become regurgitations of past films, in my opinion)....a strange hostility toward people who prefer more personal films over cold, throwaway epics. If that's their preference...what then? There are most certainly big-budget films that I deeply enjoy have among my top-100 favorites (favorite being a key word to all of us, mind you). Usually, I, unlike yourself, try not to consciously make a distinction AT ALL. A film is a film, when I'm arguing about a film that I believe to be great, I am HARDLY taking into consideration its budget or fricken mass appeal to account for its greatness. That is something you've entered into the discussion and is no reflection on my views whatsowever. I'm no elitist, friend, but I also most certainly am not the little, velveeta cheese boy who won't try his vegetables...and when he does, despises them on the basis of preconclusion. I suggest you stop with the accusations that simply because I enjoyed watching Ratcatcher and the draughtsman's contract far more than I did watching ET drink beer and shine a fake little light-bulb into drew barrymore's face, that I'm some cold, elitist snob. No one here has accused you of being a dopy, popcorn-munching studio lover, because we've had enough respect to be polite and consider your knowledge of other films...return the favor for once. No one has even come close to insinuating that studio films cannot be art and shouldn't be taken into consideration be movie goers....that was a statement you put into our mouths in an argument you've manufactured throughout films and isn't even part of the discussion, so drop please just drop it.

Yeah, well...the Greenaway films that actually have worked (though I admit they are limited) truly are works of art and make anything spielberg or lucas has ever even imagined of making look like sitcoms, soap operas and bad sci-fi movies...beyond that, you can't really take any of the credibility away from Greenaway's comments, as he's probably the most knowledgeable film scholar alive today. You can say what you want, but you're not referring to one of my own comments, you're referring to one made by Peter Greenaway, who I'm sure could handle your petty comments.

I'm light and spunky! I'm like a diet pepsi or a fresca (oo-lala)! I was only saying...He meant that the celebrity of the actor detracts from the focus on cinema as an art form to the general public and thus reduces it and restrains it from being truly appreciated now or evolving later. He describes modern cinema as the "actor's playground and publicity manager." I imagined you knew that...I made that comment because you gave like three 5-paragraph essays in response to it that had to do with actors being tyrannical monsters or someting, and that was beside the actual point Greenaway was trying to make.

Ypu, well...that's not at all what Greenaway is referring to with his phrase "The Tyrrany of the Actor."

You'll have to explain to me how it was commercial in its intent, aside from the retrospective, post-Palm D'or assessment one could make. It used mostly unknown or non-actors and was rather unconventional (though certainly no artistic breakthrough or revolutionary deconstruction) in comparison to most films. Having said that, however, the film would not have worked at all, if not for the quietly agressive style with which Alex Frost played Fur Elise in his bedroom. Aside from all that came before and after, that scene could have been a short film in itself (especially if they would have excluded the cheesy shoot-em-up video game shot), as it articulated all the tense, underlying aggression that the teenagers of the film struggle to restrain throughout it. Without that scene, IMO, the movie would have been nothing.

Meh. "Heidegger" "Origin of the Work of Art." "Jux" = as well "A representation of my present state, irreplaceable and unforseeable in its nature." I don't feel I need to "Sack up." I simply feel that there are other topics on this forum for me to be passionate about and I don't wish to have this turn into something as large scale and exhausting as the Academy Awards thread. So, "I surrender."