Zodiac

[mutinyco]

Looks like Fincher is reteaming with Harris Savides...

[mutinyco]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/06/DDGP7F2IJK1.DTL

CHASING ZODIAC
Film crew has San Francisco time-traveling to '70s
G. Allen Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, October 6, 2005

It's the magic hour in San Francisco.

The light meter of cinematographer Harris Savides says so. Rising star Jake Gyllenhaal takes a spin down the Mary Street alley, behind The Chronicle, dressed solidly in an ugly brown. He stops outside a bar and something catches his eye ...

"Cut!" yells director David Fincher.

"Reset!" yells an assistant, and several extras, who had been strolling on the sidewalk to serve as the background of Gyllenhaal's foreground, pace back to their original positions.

"Is that Dumpster (of the) period?" Fincher asks. When told it has indeed been placed there by the prop department, the director says, "It looks too clean."

It's 1978, after all.

No need to say more; prop masters form a creative mess of crumbling cardboard boxes and other signs of clutter. It's starting to look like a real San Francisco alley.

"Reset!"

If you've seen Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr. or Mark Ruffalo around town -- or, more likely, you've been rerouted to your destination thanks to the closure of a street filled with 1960s and '70s vehicles -- you may have accidentally returned to the time when the Zodiac killer terrorized the Bay Area.

"Zodiac" is an $80 million movie about the series of killings that has never been solved. To re-create that time, Fincher, the director of the highly stylized "Se7en," Fight Club" and "Panic Room," is taking a more realistic approach -- filming as much as possible in the actual locations where the events took place.

That meant filming outside The Chronicle, where Paul Avery (Downey) first received letters from the killer in the late 1960s, and Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) was a staff member who became obsessed with the case. The film's screenplay is written by James Vanderbilt from Graysmith's 1976 book.

Included in those scenes were a vintage 1960s U.S. mail truck ("Always use Zip Code!" the cartoon figure reminds us) delivering letters to The Chronicle mailroom and a street scene in which Mission between Fifth and Sixth streets was transformed into a street once again filled with those old, rounded, gas-guzzling Muni buses, Yellow Cabs and Plymouth Valiants, et al.

For the mail scenes, the film's property master, Hope Parrish, manufactured 2,500 pieces of 1970s mail (among Parrish's other tasks: replicating the former Chronicle reporters' pens, rings, watches, glue pots, business cards, typewriters and 6-cent Dwight Eisenhower stamps).

Still, despite all the big stars, multimillion-dollar budget and period detail, it is refreshing that the filming process drops everything and moves to get a shot during the magic hour -- the time, in the hour or so before sunset, that natural light provides the most photogenic moments. Mother Nature has been a friend in this way to cinematographers since the beginning of movies in the late 1800s.

"One more time!" Fincher yells after Take 11.

The 43-year-old, Marin County-raised director is in a good mood, but he casts his eyes toward the sky at the disappearing light.

Although a rain machine is sending sheets of water cascading onto vintage cars behind Red's Java House, with the Bay Bridge making for a colorful backdrop, most of "Zodiac" will be filmed in Los Angeles -- interior scenes, some nondescript exteriors -- and that's the sad reality of moviemaking in the Bay Area: It's too expensive to shoot here.
"San Francisco is a very expensive town, and it would not have been practical or financially feasible to shoot the entire movie here," producer Brad Fischer said. "Having said that, San Francisco in the 1970s was so iconic and so much a part of this story, it was important to capture what we did of the city."

However, Fischer, Fincher and screenwriter Vanderbilt were adamant that as much of the filming as possible not only take place in the Bay Area, but in the exact locations where the Zodiac events took place.

For example, the crew shot at Lake Berryessa, but since the Zodiac killer's attack there, almost all the site's trees have died. Production designer Don Burt planted 24 new ones, flying the pin-oak trees in by helicopter, watching them dangle 200 feet below, some of them 45 feet tall and weighing 13,000 pounds.

Burt even used gravel and piping to syphon water from the lake to nourish the trees' roots from an underground irrigation system he built. He also replanted 1,600 clumps of grass to match the original scenery.

The crew spent about 20 days filming in the Bay Area, wrapping this week before the move to Los Angeles for the final 85 or so days of the shoot.

"The vision always was to do as accurate and truthful a movie as possible about the events that occurred," said Vanderbilt, who suggested the "Zodiac" project to Fischer after the two had worked together on the 2003 thriller "Basic."

"Realism is what we're going for," Vanderbilt said. "We always talk about 'All the President's Men' as a model for a documentary feel to the movie."

Fischer, Mike Medavoy and Arnold Messer optioned Graysmith's book and sent the project to their first choice as director, Fincher.

"We did the first draft and sent it to David Fincher, sort of like asking the prettiest girl to the prom -- the worst she could say is no -- and to my surprise and delight, he said yeah," Vanderbilt said.

As he spoke, the prettiest girl at the prom, who has a gray beard and is balding, was wearing a rain slicker and boots, poking his head inside a '70s car, an old Coca-Cola truck in the background, to give direction to Gyllenhaal and his character's 3-year-old daughter as they prepare to meet Detective Dave Toschi (Ruffalo) about the case.

Vanderbilt interviewed many of the people involved in the actual case and said he thinks he knows who the Zodiac killer was.

Naturally, he wouldn't tell.

It's 1978, on First Street between Howard and Mission streets, near the bus terminal. Old Greyhound buses are driving in the background as Toschi sits in an unmarked police car, a light-brown 1960s Chevrolet, while his partner eats a burger and sips soda in the driver's seat. The Zodiac's first letter in four years has arrived at The Chronicle. Toschi receives the radio dispatch, puts the siren on the roof and slams across traffic, making a U-turn, while stunt drivers screech to a stop and narrowly miss high-speed collisions with the Chevrolet.
Fincher has to work fast, because the streets are blocked off and this is a big day. There are several events in the city -- the Folsom Street Fair and the Cowboys-49ers game at Candlestick among them -- and he has to clear out as soon as possible.

Although "Zodiac" is a retro film, it will be made with cutting-edge technology. One creative choice that is allowing the crew to work faster is Fincher's decision to use the new Grass Valley Viper FilmStream system, a digital video format.

That's right -- "Zodiac" is not being shot on film. The Viper system allows Fincher's crew to use less light, set up shots more quickly and play them back instantly. To speed up the process, Fincher is filming (that's still the technical term) most of his shots with two Viper cameras, meaning Savides has to light for two different setups at once.

Fincher used the system to shoot a commercial for Hewlett-Packard, and Michael Mann used it to shoot much of "Collateral," the Tom Cruise-Jamie Foxx thriller. But "Zodiac" will be the first Hollywood feature shot entirely on the Viper system.

None of the bulky cameras and unwieldy lights that were used to shoot, say "Dirty Harry" in San Francisco around the time of the Zodiac.

Fincher's light, mobile camera package stands in stark contrast to the old school bus and kids with '70s clothes at Third Avenue and Lake, the scene of a Zodiac murder at Washington and Maple or the vintage cars and police motorcycles outside Original Joe's in the Tenderloin at 2 in the morning.

Nevertheless, sometimes it seems that San Francisco hasn't changed much at all.

[killafilm]

So Finchers gone digital  

Interesting decision for a movie that takes place in the seventies.  I'm going to assume that they'll use the DI to finalize the 70's look.

[Ghostboy]

I thought the ViperCams had gone defunct last year. It'll be interesting to compare this to Superman, which is shooting on the new digital Panavision cameras.

A friend of a friend got cast in this, apparently as the first victim or something like that. She acted in a short film I shot a while back. Thus, David Fincher and I are now just short of being best friends.

[cowboykurtis]

So Finchers gone digital

im really really really disapointed about this

[Ghostboy]

Just go with the flow, man.

[mutinyco]

Digital is fine. He could shoot it on Hi-8 -- as long as he keeps Robert Downey Jr. dressed like that!

[cowboykurtis]

Digital is fine

I have two questions for you - it will help inform where you're coming from:

Have you shot with the Viper?

Are you one of the many who thought Collateral looked good?

[mutinyco]

No experience with the Viper. Though everything I've shot and worked on for the past 4 years has been digital. So I'm well aware of and quite used to its idiosyncrasies. And yes, even though it was one of the worst written films I've ever seen, I thought Collateral looked gorgeous -- however, I saw it on DVD, not on the big screen.

But that's beside the point. I would think we should wait to see the film (figuratively) before rendering any conclusions.

[cowboykurtis]

No experience with the Viper. Though everything I've shot and worked on for the past 4 years has been digital. So I'm well aware of and quite used to its idiosyncrasies. And yes, even though it was one of the worst written films I've ever seen, I thought Collateral looked gorgeous -- however, I saw it on DVD, not on the big screen.

But that's beside the point. I would think we should wait to see the film (figuratively) before rendering any conclusions.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I used collateral just to get an idea of your aesthetic tastes. I thought collateral was almost unwatchable on dvd. It definately looked better filmed out to print and projected - tended to hide some of the image deficiencies.

I personally havent shot with the viper. But I facilitated a comprehensive camera test with it. It's better than Sonys f900, but still quite sub par to 35mm. I just don't think the optics/ color saturation/ contrast ratio is suitable for feature production. However its become clear that for most, the details are of no consequence. Quality is sacfrificed for immediacy.

Ghostboy had mentioned the Genesis, which from what I've seen, I prefer over the Viper. However Arri has just developed a model called the D20. It's the first HD camera which uses a optically reflected viewfinder. The design and image quality is by far the best camera in the HD format. Should be released mid year 2006.

At the end of the day one can not argue that an HD image is better than film. Mutinyco, you said that digital is "fine". I'd agree that it's "fine". It's just not good or even great. It's an inferior format, end of story.

However I do have great respect for Fincher. If anyone can change my mind it's him. Shooting an 80 million dollar film on the Viper is definately a vote of confidence. However I have not been crazy about the recent spots and music videos that Fincher shot with the Viper. Put those images next to a frame of Seven and it's night and day.  

My opinion rests.

[Ghostboy]

However Arri has just developed a model called the D20. It's the first HD camera which uses a optically reflected viewfinder. The design and image quality is by far the best camera in the HD format. Should be released mid year 2006.

I attended a panel on this in Berlin last spring. They had some footage, but it was hard to judge the quality under the circumstances; however, the design of the camera - both in terms of ergonomics and image processing - was absolutely brilliant; and Arri built it to be forwards-compatible, so that it won't be eclipsed by technological developments.

The guy that ran the panel had the same outlook as you, cowboykurtis. He said that digital was nowhere near as good as film, but as long as that was the way the industry was moving, Arri wanted to provide an option for the format, and make sure that option was the best it possibly could be.

[cowboykurtis]

No experience with the Viper. Though everything I've shot and worked on for the past 4 years has been digital. So I'm well aware of and quite used to its idiosyncrasies

On a further note -- Have you ever worked in depth with 35mm film?

I'm going to assume you haven't and make some generalizations (which I find more often the case than not)

One thing that bothers me with most filmmakers of this generation, is they have formed these hard-fast opinions about digital cameras when they haven't even bothered to shoot on film. Digital cameras are cheaper and more easily available, so that is easy choice for most. There's a uniform lack of discipline and patience to actually build the technical and financial rescources to shoot on film. If one hasn't shot on 35, their opinion is not valid.

[Ghostboy]

If one hasn't shot on 35, their opinion is not valid.

I think that's a little too elitist. I've shot on 16mm myself, and worked on camera crews for 35mm shoots; but my opinion of digital as a viable medium (and not just a cheap alternative) was not altered or diminished by those experiences.

[killafilm]

If one hasn't shot on 35, their opinion is not valid.

I think that's a little too elitist. I've shot on 16mm myself, and worked on camera crews for 35mm shoots; but my opinion of digital as a viable medium (and not just a cheap alternative) was not altered or diminished by those experiences.

I agree.  Cinematography principles are going to be the same regardless of medium.  There are plenty of movies shot on 35 that look 'flat' and like utter shit.  Then there's films like November, Tideland, The Station Agent, well shot, but would most of the audience realize they were not filmed in 35mm? But rather MiniDV and S16mm?

I'm just more surprised that Fincher and Savides went digital.  They seem to be placing an importance on being at the actual locations to get the feel of the 70's bay area.  Well why not use the same photographic techniques of the time.  Flash the film, get some old uncoated Cooke lenses, dig up some old Kodak stock, ect... Even though he already did Se7en with Fincher this seems like a perfect story for Khondji, imo.

[mutinyco]

Cowboy, I think you're taking this a little too far. My original point was a joke. I said that he could even shoot it on Hi-8, as long as he kept Downey dressed like he was in that photo. My comment was NOT an endorsement of digital over 35mm. Go back and reread.

Yes, film is still superior to digital. I don't disagree. But I also don't dislike the look of digital. In fact, I find that in certain circumstances its lack of precision reminds me of older film prints -- prior to the T grain. There's a reason Kubrick used the old EXR on EWS -- he wanted the grain effect that an older generation stock would offer. And unless Fincher and Savides (whom I have complete confidence in) were to dig up some seriously old stock -- I have no problem with them going for it digitally. And one more thing -- I assure you the two of them did a numbing battery of tests before principle started, and if they weren't content with the results they wouldn't be shooting it the way they are.

And one more thing. Of course, I've shot on film. I love film. However, and I'm going to be perfectly blunt about this: if you want to be an independent filmmaker today you have no business shooting on film. Until you've made it and have the budget to shoot otherwise. I don't submit to film festivals. I don't make prints. My work screens exclusively online -- and subsequently on DVD. And for this format shooting 24p on a DVX-100A does the trick.