Introduction

"Please step out of the vehicle,...so I can murder you."

We are fascinated with the phenomenon of serial killers. Despite the fact that real serial killings are a fairly rare event, movies, books, tv shows, practically all forms of entertainment feature serial killer stories. They offer a dark mirror held up to society saying, "These are your creation." One of the most famous and still debated serial killers in history is the Zodiac. In the late 60s and early 70s, a man calling himself The Zodiac terrorized northern California, taunting the police and the press with letters and ciphers he claimed contained his identity. It's a fascinating story. The problem is, contrary to how the old saying goes, truth is not always stranger than fiction. The Zodiac killed some people, sent some letters, and then he kind of just disappeared. There was no compelling third act in the real story, and because of that it goes largely unresolved. David Fincher's "Zodiac" is as accurate a retelling of the events of the Zodiac killings as you're going to see, but because of this many are going to find the ending unsatisfying.

The film is based on two books written by Robert Graysmith, Zodiac and Zodiac: Unmasked, and is largely told from his perspective as a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle at the time of the murders. Graysmith became obsessed with the crimes as they were happening, and with discovering the identity of the killer when they stopped. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Graysmith with nervous energy that degrades into fanaticism, and his obsession with unraveling the Zodiac's identity really carries the second half of the movie. Critics keep cheering Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal as Paul Avery, the reporter who predominantly covered the Zodiac murders, but I didn't find it to be all that interesting. Downey plays Avery as a bit of a prick and a drunk, and he certainly isn't phoning it in, but I didn't find his character to be very compelling. I did enjoy Anthony Edwards and Mark Ruffalo as Inspectors William Armstrong and David Toschi, the two detectives tasked with catching Zodiac. In this era of "C.S.I", we sometimes forget that detective work was very difficult then, especially when D.N.A. evidence didn't exist at the time of the murders. Edwards and Ruffalo bring out the frustration felt by these cops and the eventual disgrace of having never caught him. It's nice to see two cops failing but at the same time not portrayed as bumbling and incompetent. Toschi and Armstrong made as good a run at that case as anyone, and ended up investigating some 2,500 suspects. "Zodiac" starts off in the tone of a horror movie, and then settles very comfortably into a serial killer film. However, once the chronology moves past the murders and into the later years, "Zodiac" transitions from a serial killer movie into something more akin to "JFK" except without the whole back-and-to-the-left speech at the end. It even features a scene where Graysmith and his wife, played by Chloë Sevigny, fight about how his pursuit of the truth is breaking up their family. I even thought I saw Kevin Costner in that scene, but it turns out it was just an extra walking past the window. I guess it still could have been him (it's tough finding work these days).

Robert Graysmith's rendering of Zodiac.

I'm a big fan of David Fincher's visual style, and while "Zodiac" may not have as many fancy camera shots as "Fight Club", the Fincher style is evident from the outset. While other directors like to paint with light, Fincher paints with darkness. "Zodiac" showcases a lot of the dark and wet look Fincher is famous for, but never to the detriment of the story. His shots feature these penetrating blacks and dark colors, and even when there is light in the room, it never seems to hit what you'd expect. The simple rule of lighting for film is, "light what you want to see and don't light want you don't," and where another director would bring in another light to bounce into an actor's eyes, for "Zodiac" Fincher just leaves them dark, featureless recesses. His style really lends itself to darker stories like this, although don't expect anything like "Se7en". Apart from the scenes of the attacks, the movie is completely made up of people talking. There are no car chases, no prison escapes, and no dramatic showdowns. The closest we get is a "Silence of the Lambs"-ish scene near the end where Graysmith realizes he may be standing in a dark basement with the Zodiac killer. Early in the film, the attacks are what break up the dialogue. What is scary about these murders is how deliberate they are. I don't mean to suggest that they may have been accidental, but there is a difference between an obviously disgruntled person screaming and slashing everyone around them, and someone who walks up slowly, calmly, and stabs just you. The attacks are brutal, but not slasher-violent. The murder at Lake Berryessa might be the most troubling murder I've seen put to film, although some of the scenes from Chris Gerolmo's "Citizen X" (another excellent serial killer movie based on real events) come close.

The film's not all doom and gloom, though. There are quite a few bits of humor in it that allow the audience to relax. My personal favorite was the appearance of the "I'm not Paul Avery," buttons that began circulating after the Zodiac's threats on Avery's life were made public. Even though the killer was never caught, an alarming amount of evidence pointed directly at one man (including being picked out of a lineup by the only surviving victim who saw his face). Like the books it is based on, the film proposes the Zodiac's identity not as fact but certainly as the conclusion most of the people involved have settled on. "Zodiac" isn't my favorite Fincher movie, but it's a solid entry for a director who releases films too infrequently. The story may not have an exciting climax, but the facts are presented in a very entertaining way. There is a lot to enjoy about "Zodiac" despite its disappointing inevitability.