Xixax Film Forum

Fincher eyes 'Zodiac' for Warners, Par
Source: Hollywood Reporter

David Fincher is hunting serial killers again. The director, who helmed 1995's "Seven," is in negotiations to direct "Zodiac," a thriller that Phoenix Pictures is producing. Warner Bros. Pictures and Paramount Pictures are partnering to distribute the film. Based on the books "Zodiac" and "Zodiac Unmasked" by Robert Graysmith, and adapted by James Vanderbilt, the movie centers on the men who hunted Zodiac, the infamous serial killer who terrorized San Francisco for 25 years. Producing are Phoenix's Mike Medavoy, Arnie Messer and Brad Fischer, Fincher's producing partner Cean Chaffin, and Jaime Vanderbilt. Warners and Paramount are co-financing, with Warners distributing internationally and Paramount handling the movie domestically. Lynn Harris and Greg Silverman are overseeing for Warners. Marc Evans is overseeing for Paramount.

Quote from: MacGuffinFincher eyes 'Zodiac' for Warners, Par
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Ah, cool.  The Zodiac Killer case has always freaked me out...  I've always thought it'd make a good movie, but I imagined it being a little grittier and mockumentary-like than Fincher will probably make it.  But still, this could be good.

2LB

Gyllenhaal, Downey align for 'Zodiac'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Mark Ruffalo is in negotiations and Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey have signed onto David Fincher's long-gestating thriller "Zodiac." Phoenix Pictures is producing.

Gyllenhaal will play Robert Graysmith, the journalist and author of the two books, "Zodiac" and "Zodiac Unmasked," upon which the film is based. Downey will play fellow reporter Paul Avery, and Ruffalo would play the San Francisco homicide inspector in charge of the case.
 
The books revolve around the real-life tale of a serial killer known as the Zodiac Killer, who terrorized San Francisco for 25 years. Graysmith and Avery worked at the San Francisco Chronicle, which the killer used as a conduit to communicate with authorities.

James Vanderbilt is adapting.

The two studios are co-financing the picture. Alli Shearmur and Marc Evans are overseeing for Paramount, which is handling domestic distribution. Lynn Harris, Greg Silverman and Geoff Shaevitz are overseeing for Warners, which is taking international output. Warners is the lead studio on the project.

Phoenix chairman Mike Medavoy, president Arnie Messer and vp production Brad Fischer are producing with Vanderbilt. Fincher's production partner, Cean Chaffin, also is producing.

That's cool. I really like Mark Ruffalo.

That's cool.  I really like David Fincher.

cool, killers.

I like all four of 'em.  I just hope the movie isn't slick and shiny...  it needs to be old, faded, grainy.  If I was making this movie, I'd shoot on Super8, or at least want it to come out looking like I did.  All my memories of the Zodiac Killer are from stuff I saw on TV or in the newspaper, so I'd make the movie like that-  sort of fake documentary style.  

And his costume would be less scary if if it was any less scruffy and patched-together.  

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artandentropy.com%2Fpictures%2Fkillertribute%2Fcalifornia%2Fzodiac.gif&hash=bcd10359cb18bec23ae9b46037bcff6a8d0c79f4)

2LB

its weird he's actually making another serial killer movie, though like i said i'm glad to just see he's making anything.  but i hope this isnt the Guero to Se7en's Odelay.  :yabbse-undecided:

Even though Ruffalo is older than Gyllenhaal I see them playing the exact same role. David, dump Jake and get Maggie.

Fincher's a professional. Sometimes he realizes he can't get every project he wants and has to stay busy in the meantime. I'm hopeful for this project. Since Seven, he has become a better filmmaker.

damn, where's a forum when you need one!?!

Fincher Helming Zodiac & Benjamin Button
Source: Variety July 5, 2005

Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures have signed David Fincher to direct Zodiac, starring Mark Ruffalo, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, back-to-back.

Variety says Fincher (Panic Room) is in pre-production on Zodiac, which also stars Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal and Anthony Edwards. Production is slated to start in September, with Jamie Vanderbilt adapting from Robert Graysmith's "Zodiac" and 2002 sequel "Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed." Shooting will take place in San Francisco - where the Zodiac Killer operated starting in the late 1960s - and in Los Angeles.

Warner is taking the lead on producing Zodiac. Paramount will handle domestic distribution while Warner will handle international.

Par and Warner are aiming for Fincher to start lensing "Benjamin Button" in October 2006. Pitt and Blanchett currently are starring in Paramount's Babel. "Button" will mark the third time Pitt has teamed with Fincher following Se7en and Fight Club.

"Benjamin Button" is produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall with a script by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump). The film centers on a man who, at age 50, begins aging backward and the complications that ensue when he falls in love with a woman of 30. The story's been set in New Orleans.

Paramount is taking the lead on "Button" and handling domestic distribution; Warner will market the film in foreign territories.

Jim Gordon Investigates Zodiac
Oldman joins cast of Fincher thriller.
 
Variety says Gary Oldman (Batman Begins) has joined the cast of director David Fincher's forthcoming true crime thriller Zodiac. The project is based on the books by author Robert Graysmith, who will be played in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal. The cast also includes Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., and Anthony Edwards.

Oldman will play famed attorney Melvin Belli, the "King of Torts," who received a letter from the Zodiac killer in 1969. Ironically, Belli was the attorney for Jack Ruby, the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald (played in JFK by Gary Oldman).

Oldman's credits include Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Professional, Hannibal, and Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Zodiac begins filming in September.

love it!

This has officially become the best movie ever made.

All they need now is to have John C. Reilly be in it and have QT film a small segment of the film

Looks like Fincher is reteaming with Harris Savides...

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.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrossoverfollowing.com%2Fdd_zodiac05025cg.jpg&hash=42e08757b57a32a6711fd90ef675576ff1ef78ec)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrossoverfollowing.com%2Fdd_zodiac05090cg.jpg&hash=cf99f6109841645b7f4f22f016cc6e274e7c0cd6)

So Finchers gone digital  :yabbse-undecided:

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.

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.

Quote from: killafilmSo Finchers gone digital

im really really really disapointed about this

Just go with the flow, man.

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

Quote from: mutinycoDigital 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?

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.

Quote from: mutinycoNo 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.

Quote from: cowboykurtisHowever 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.

Quote from: mutinycoNo 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.

Quote from: cowboykurtisIf 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.

Quote from: Ghostboy

Quote from: cowboykurtisIf 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.

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.

the other day i was taking the dog to take a shit and i thought about david fincher and  how arrogant he sounds in some of the stuff i've read from what he has said like:

Quote"People will say, 'There are a million ways to shoot a scene,' but I don't think so. I think there're two, maybe. And the other one is wrong.

to me that's like a discreet waying of saying he's a beautiful and unique snowflake.

and that thing he said about casablanca also pissed me off, even though i haven't seen that movie. i hope he gets lost in a forest.

Quote from: mutinyco.

Yes, film is still superior to digital.

The conversation for me is over, thats all I wanted to hear.

Quote from: mutinycoI 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.

This is a whole different talking point which I also disagree with.

So here's my attempt at being perfectly blunt:

Obviously one's opinion very much depends on what the intended channels for distribution are. If one is solely looking to do small projects utilizing self distribution online, I agree that digital is more cost effective. However this returns to the issue of quality. There is a reason most theatrical independent films are still aquired on film. They are of better quality.

Also it is very rare that extremely small films distributed online garner the attention which lead to bigger budget endeavours.

And where are you getting your stance that independent filmmakers of "today" have no business shooting film? Has it become more expensive than it was 10 or 20 years ago? It's not like film/camera costs have become exponentially higher than those before you. The cassevetes and coppola's found a way to make it work. It entails being a little more inventive and business savy, but it is possible. Recent filmmakers of "today", like darren aronowsky and chris nolan, have shown that to be the case. And that is why they are where they are.

The people who find a way to make independent films with little to no money without an extreme sacrifice of quality are the ones who continue to larger budget ranges. At the end of the day, the powers that be in the film world DO care about quality( moreso of product than content). And they care, because audiences care.  

Films aquired on pro-sumer cameras that get widely exhibited are few and far between - and theres a reason for that, they're of lower quality.

You're completely out of whack with reality if you genuinely believe what you've just said.

Online is not a means to replace theatrical distribution right now. That's not what I'm talking about. What it is replacing is the need for film festivals to get filmmakers exposure. If you want to be a filmmaker, why spend $20-40-50 a pop on festival applications that will lead, if you're lucky, to a single screening somewhere (maybe two) -- when for $100 a year or cheaper, you can simply upload to your own website for ANYBODY to see at ANYTIME?

It's not about getting your feature exposure online. It's about getting yourself as a filmmaker exposure online. More and more, established filmmakers will tell you this is the best route: keep posting your work and eventually, if people like what they see, they'll jump on board.

Indie movies shot on mini-DV or film is another matter. You mentioned Nolan and Aronofsky. Well, if I'm not mistaken, both of them made their feature debuts before the consumer revolution really took hold -- and I date that to approx. 2001 -- give or take. Had mini-DV been available at the time, their budgets would have been miniscule to what they needed to complete them in 16mm. If you own a high quality mini-DV camera and a computer with say FCP, you don't need money to create anything. Just hard work and talent. By this very measure I've been able to create 50 short films in the past year at an average cost of $0. The longest one, clocking at 15 minutes, cost nothing. If I'd had to shoot it on film, like I would've had to 10 years ago, the entire project at the very least would've run $10,000.

And don't bring Coppola into this. Because you're humiliating yourself. He's probably the biggest proponent of digital cinema out there. 25 years ago he was enthusiastically predicting it would be the future and everybody laughed at him. He was right. It's now reality.

One more point: there isn't a single established director I know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film. What matters is telling a good story and getting good performances. Even Martin Scorsese admits that if he were starting out today he'd probably be shooting mini-DV.

Quote from: mutinycoYou're completely out of whack with reality if you genuinely believe what you've just said.

Online is not a means to replace theatrical distribution right now. That's not what I'm talking about. What it is replacing is the need for film festivals to get filmmakers exposure. If you want to be a filmmaker, why spend $20-40-50 a pop on festival applications that will lead, if you're lucky, to a single screening somewhere (maybe two) -- when for $100 a year or cheaper, you can simply upload to your own website for ANYBODY to see at ANYTIME?

It's not about getting your feature exposure online. It's about getting yourself as a filmmaker exposure online.

One more point: there isn't a single established director I know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film. What matters is telling a good story and getting good performances.

Again our opinions differ.

They differ to the point that my opinions are viewed as being "out of whack with reality" to you. They're far from that, but debating you is useless.

I stated that online "distribution" was a useless channel. I never made the distinction of feature distribution. You brought it up as an alternative to festivals and that's what I was responding to. I know you don't make features because i'm familiar with the work you've posted. .

The main problem is - who the hell is looking at your films? At least at festivals there are people within the industry who have the power to give you an opportunity. Those same people aren't scowering the net for hidden filmmaking talent.

Here's the reality of the situation. And frankly your opinions lead me to believe that you are the one who's out of whack. You've made over 50 shorts last year and posted them online - Has anyone one of substance seen these? Have they gotten you anywhere?

Also saying that "there isn't a single established director you know who believes it makes a difference between digital or film" is inconsequential. I never adresseed what established directors opinions were becuase they're meaningless. Directors don't greenlight films. You should be concerned with the opinion of people who have money to invest in film - those opinions, as I said before, greatly lie in the quality of the product.

My suggestion would be - take the time and energy it took to make 50 films in a year and put that into ONE film - then spend the 40 bucks to send it to a film festival, where people that could actually finance your next film can see it.

But if your view of reality is that making films and putting them on your webpage will lead to greener pastures, and that film festivals add no prestige or exposure for filmmakers, we don't have much more to discuss...We'll go our serperate ways and agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree.

And yes, it's all been quite successful.

Quote from: mutinycoAgree to disagree.

And yes, it's all been quite successful.

I'll look for your name on the marquee

Please do.

But back to David Fincher's Zodiac...

should the rest of us vote on who won that argument? cos i'd really like to know (if ppl agree with me).

Quote from: Pubrickshould the rest of us vote on who won that argument? cos i'd really like to know (if ppl agree with me).

If there was a winner, it's cinema itself.

But there wasn't, so it's not.

When does David Fincher post his opinion?  Because I was under the impression this thread was about him...

He's working on the animatic of his opinion.

Unfortunately, while Fincher is going to side with Mutinyco, he's going to shoot his opinion in HD and Cowboy will disregard it completly because of this fact.

Um... as I was saying: http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2005/10/unique_four_eye.html

Quote from: mutinycoUm... as I was saying: http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2005/10/unique_four_eye.html

um...you must be pumped up

I have to keep my hands in my pants walking down the street to avoid stares.

Furthermore -- if you download the latest Quicktime update, there is now an option when creating QTs in Final Cut Pro specifically for your iPod!

From MTV:

The thought of "Donnie Darko" star Jake Gyllenhaal matching his dark, brooding stare with "Fight Club" director David Fincher's nihilist visions and hatred of happy endings may sound like a very, very dark dream, but it is indeed coming true. That's why anticipation is sky-high for next year's "Zodiac," which puts Gyllenhaal alongside Mark Ruffalo and Chloë Sevigny. The film, which is currently being shot, will recount the real-life terror caused by a serial killer who turned '60s and '70s San Francisco into his playground — and who still hasn't been found. According to Gyllenhaal, the director has developed an obsession with reinventing the genre. "He's going pretty dark with this one," the "Jarhead" star said of Fincher. "He's doing stuff on this film that I've never seen done before. Technically speaking, he's extraordinary. He's shooting on this Viper camera, this [digital video] camera, so we don't have any slates or anything like that — we just blow through takes and start over again. There's no clapping of the sticks or anything like that; we just keep going. And he's done these murder scenes unlike any murder scenes I've seen before. He's true exactly to, like, the inch or centimeter of what actually happened. So it's going to look and feel exactly like it happened in real life. It's going to be terrifying." ...

Sounds interesting, even to a pessimist like me. But, Fincher and realism as bedmates? I'll believe it when I see it.

I was thinking the same thing GT but Screw it, I'm on board for this.

Y'know those kids that work in music shops that roll their eyes at you when you buy anything on a CD?  They'll say, "Y'know, we've got that on vinyl, you don't care which you buy, do you?"  Suddenly everyone is glaring at you because they know you DON'T listen to music on records...you buy and listen to digital media.  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Anyway, I can't stand people that are stuck on their nostalia players (aka record players).  Records do not make music sound better.  Listening to music on records is a social habit just like Bingo and church.  Now, having said that, I am a little saddened Fincher's goin' the digi route because FILM MAKES MOVIES LOOK BETTER.  Silver hallide reacts to light more naturally than a computer can.  Many aspects can be recreated, but the human eye responds to film more positively because film reproduces what the human eye sees MORE CLOSELY than any other visual media.  As far as Zodiac is concerned, I hope Fincher is in FILM mode, and not MOVIE mode on this one.  I want another Seven, not another Panic Room.

While I agree that generally speaking film looks better -- or at least acts as a better capture mode -- I don't, in fact, believe that at this point people respond better to it as a medium. Quite the opposite. More people receive visual information via electronics than by celluloid -- TVs, computers, etc. In the last 10 years, with the emergence of the T grain, in particular, film has been designed to more and more replicate the smooth electronic experience. DI has increased this trend with expediency. In the late '90s, for instance, when movies like Three Kings or Eyes Wide Shut made a point of their picture's grain, audiences were violently jarred. They hadn't been forced to correlate the difference between film and video like that since letterboxed laser disks came on the market. On the DVD for Three Kings there's even a disclaimer explaining how the film's look (colors included) are intentional. I think this is a much bigger issue for people who can tell the difference. But the average filmgoer isn't that person.

I agree with Mutinyco here.  Also film isn't more visually realistic... I think THAT'S one of the reasons I generally like it better.

Also, while I hate the eye-rolling Vinyl guys too, Vinyl does capture ranges that a CD doesn't... so, unfortunately, you're wrong there, too.

I think most would agree that film is more stylized than digital images. Becuase of this, there's an inherent emotional resonance with film that is lost with digital images for me. 

If you were to photograph an image of a child sitting on a window sill with both formats - i think most would agree that the digital image captured the moment in a realistic rendering - an image they'd love to keep in their wallets to show their aunt what she missed at little tommy's B-day party...

You then have the photograph aquired on film of the same image - exposed for outside - the child in siloutte as the sun pours in,etc - this becomes an image that captures an emotion -  mattering not who the hell the kid is - one may look at it with nostalghic memories of times long ago, another may look at it with the warmth of a summer day - it is an image that one could hang on thier wall, allowing each viewer thier own interpretation/experience. Instead of a "realistic" depiction of a kid that no one gives a shit about besides to woman who gave birth to it.

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 21, 2005, 02:56:20 AM
You then have the photograph aquired on film of the same image - exposed for outside - the child in siloutte as the sun pours in,etc - this becomes an image that captures an emotion -  mattering not who the hell the kid is - one may look at it with nostalghic memories of times long ago, another may look at it with the warmth of a summer day - it is an image that one could hang on thier wall, allowing each viewer thier own interpretation/experience. Instead of a "realistic" depiction of a kid that no one gives a shit about besides to woman who gave birth to it.

Why would this image be inherent to film over digital? Digital equipment offers the same light reading functions as analog. To frame an image like this is the prerogative of the person taking the photo not based on the dictations/limitations of the medium. Most professional commercial still photography is digital at this point.

I never said this image was inherent to film over digital. I was simply using this as an example to address broad generalized aesthetics. I believe most associate digital with consumer snap shot photography and film with more of a fine art orientation.

Not to say one couldn't achieve a similar image digitally. It would however need to be a top of the line digital camera with some time in photo shop, etc. If you were to take the same image with a run of the mill 35mm SLR and then with a comparable digital cam (an elph or something of that nature) there would be no comparison. The  contrast ratio and exposure latitude on consumer digital cameras are pathetic. You'd need a $3,000 digital hasselblad to reach comparable capacity. And film still looks superior.

Saying that most commercial photography is digital, is both inconsequential and false. You say it as if that validates the quality of the image. If its a smaller job with no budget they'll shoot digitally.  News shoots digitally for logistical purposes. However, the majority of high end magazine and fine art photography still  uses film predominantly.

Digital = Best Buy ads
Film = Vanity Fair (who i think have some of the best magazine photographers working)

Actually, you're incorrect. The bulk is digital. Companies see no need in paying extra for somebody to shoot film since it's going to be Photoshopped anyhow. And everything is Photoshopped. High end magazine shoots and fine art are not the majority of professional photography. Do you have any idea how many pro labs and supply houses have shut down in the past 15 years because they didn't change with the times? Is it a mild coincidence that Kodak has had to gut its film operation to keep up with digital -- and they were smart/lucky enough to transition when they did or they might've gone the way of Polaroid.

As for regular amateur use, what are we talking about? Comparing a consumer 35mm with a flash to a consumer digital with a flash? They both look like shit.

I keep stating that I prefer film. But to not acknowledge that digital is running the show at this point is like still believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Quote from: mutinyco on November 21, 2005, 07:46:59 PM
Actually, you're incorrect. The bulk is digital.  High end magazine shoots and fine art are not the majority of professional photography.

I agree. High-end mags and fine art are not the majority, but they are of the highest quality. I previously should have said - Anything of QUALITY is still shot with film.

Again, you seem to justify based on volume. You're defense of digital images is as if you were to say - tons of people pay money to see high-concept studio films, and because of this they're of an acceptable quality.

The "bulk" is shit. They go with digital because its cheaper - end of story - Its way of the world.

You may be pragmatic to point of accepting that this is how it is, and see it useless to fight a ball thats already rolling downhill. What frustrates me are those who are complacent and eager to accept change. Many people say "digital is almost as good". For me thats a lazy stance to take. Obviously you and I are debating as two who are well-versed and concerned with the craft. Obviously the lowest common denominator doesn't know the difference between film/digital or really care to find out. However I do feel there is a subconscious difference for the viewer - The format inherently changes the experience.

You consistently seem to be defensive of this digital technology push. You say film is better, yet fully embrace digital filmmaking, which in return helps extinguish film as a format. As a filmmaker do you feel any responsibility to help keep film a substantial and available format? Or do you find the differences inconsequential one way or the other?

If thats the case, again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: mutinyco on November 21, 2005, 07:46:59 PM
Do you have any idea how many pro labs and supply houses have shut down in the past 15 years because they didn't change with the times?

Yes, I'm quite aware of this. However we have been discussing film as an aquisition format, not a printing format.

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 21, 2005, 08:41:36 PM
You consistently seem to be defensive of this digital technology push. You say film is better, yet fully embrace digital filmmaking, which in return helps extinguish film as a format. As a filmmaker do you feel any responsibility to help keep film a substantial and available format? Or do you find the differences inconsequential one way or the other?

The studios/exhibitors are finalizing digital distribution as we speak. You'll see the switch to digital projection over the next 2-3 years. Once that's in place, the move to digital capture will be swift. Productions cost too much. If you remove film/processing/transfer/prints it'll cut costs. Filmmakers will have to have clout to demand their work be shot on celluloid.

I'm by nature an evolutionist. Those who survive and adapt best will always thrive. Many people will still argue -- and not without merit -- that traditional Technicolor 3-color printing looked better than chemical processing. Some believe pure filmmaking died when sound was introduced. Some will argue against any visual effects and that images should be captured naturally.

Once movies are shot and distributed digitally, our argument will be moot. Movies shot digitally and projected on film look soft. But when you unify both ends it'll work. If you watch the extras on Revenge of the Sith, and see how the use of HD and monitors changes the game, it's kind of difficult not to be seduced. Seduced by the dark side, you may say.

Ultimately, the film/digital difference won't be about which is technically superior. But about which aesthetic you prefer. And celluloid will be relegated to museum collections where people can appreciate on older art form.

Quote from: RegularKarate on November 20, 2005, 03:40:32 PM

Also, while I hate the eye-rolling Vinyl guys too, Vinyl does capture ranges that a CD doesn't... so, unfortunately, you're wrong there, too.

Ever listened to an SACD?  Sample an analog waveform at 160,000 times a second and the human ear can't tell the difference between that and live music. 

more pics:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darkhorizons.com%2F2006%2Fchronicles%2Fzodiac3.jpg&hash=553db4f349c42b84f151828fbb025785dac17747)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darkhorizons.com%2F2006%2Fchronicles%2Fzodiac4.jpg&hash=e8cb8dae13270023f3acd3fb191513ab12794006)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darkhorizons.com%2F2006%2Fchronicles%2Fzodiac5.jpg&hash=0aa2a94379dda2fa4fd8349421228932b25e79c1)

Looks like someone beat him to the punch?  Too bad Fincher's will kick this movies ass.

Heres the trailer for "The Zodiac"...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/thezodiac/

Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 21, 2005, 06:19:46 PM
However, the majority of high end magazine and fine art photography still  uses film predominantly.

Digital = Best Buy ads
Film = Vanity Fair (who i think have some of the best magazine photographers working)

Also don't proffessional shoots use 120mm film as opposed to 35mm so that shots can be blown up to ridiculous sizes? I don't beleive there is a digital camera that can acheive that kind of resolution.

Digital to me is like modern supermarkets - its only really about convenience.

Oh, and Zodiac....nice to see Robert Downey Jr working alot lately.

A Look at the Zodiac Script

Over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeffery Wells had a look at James Vanderbilt's script for Zodiac and was impressed -- in fact, he describes it as potentially a "truly exceptional hunt-for-a-serial-killer movie" (admittedly a fairly small niche), the last of which, Wells believes, was Seven, also directed by David Fincher. The review is more of an overview than anything else and, assuming that you know how the Zodiac killer case was "resolved," you won't find any spoilers there. Generally speaking, Wells thinks Jake Gyllenhaal's role as cartoonist Robert Graysmith (on whose books the movie is based) is, at least on paper, "the best he's ever had," and makes it sounds like the ending (which he doesn't describe) is just as dark and depressing as Seven's:


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywood-elsewhere.com%2Fimages%2Fcolumn%2F4906%2Fzodiacposter.jpg&hash=8dd471ea891affbf573111511553173d9d2c6387)


Obsession
The last truly exceptional hunt-for-a-serial-killer movie was David Fincher's Se7en. And the next one, I'm fairly convinced, is going to be Fincher's Zodiac (Paramount, 11.10).

I'm basing this on a recent read of James Vanderbilt's script, which runs 150-plus pages. This persuades me that what I heard last week is true: Zodiac is going to be a three-hour movie, or close to it.

Scripts never really tell you that much, but reading Zodiac planted an idea that Fincher is again pushing the thriller boundary. Not just in the tradition of Se7en but also Alan Parker's Angel Heart, another chasing-a-monster film that ended with something pretty startling.

Zodiac is based on two best-sellers by Robert Graysmith, "Zodiac" and "Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed", which are first-hand accounts about the hunt for the Zodiac killer who terrified the San Francisco area in 1968 and '69.

The chief Zodiac hunters in Fincher's film (as they were in actual life) are Gray- smith, a San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist at the time (Jake Gyllenhaal), and a blunt-spoken, never-say-die San Francisco detective named Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo).

Toschi is understood to have been the real-life model that Steve McQueen based his tough-nut San Francisco detective on in the 1968 Peter Yates film Bullitt.

And of course, the Zodiac killer was the model for Andy Robinson's psycho killer in Dirty Harry , the 1971 Don Siegel-Clint Eastwood classic...right down to the Zodiac claim about wanting to kill a busload of school children.

Zodiac is partly about the thrill and fascination of the hunt (the scores of hints and clues that pile up are more and more fascinating as the story moves along), and partly about how the complex, seemingly never-ending nature of the case makes Graysmith and Toschi start to go a bit nuts.

Is there such a thing as being too determined to stop evil? At what point do you ease up and say, "I've done all I can." Is it always essential to finish what you've started? Should never-say-die always be the motto, even at great personal cost?

Zodiac isn't just about sleuthing. Deep down I think it's a metaphor piece about obsessions wherever you find them, and how the never-quit theme applies to heavily-driven creative types (novelists, painters, architects, musicians) as much as cops or cartoonists or stamp collectors or baseball-card traders.

Zodiac and Se7en have at least a couple of things in common: both are heavily focused on the bottled-up emotions and personal frustrations of their two main protagonists, and both films end on a note in which the "crime doesn't pay" motto doesn't exactly ring out from the belltower.

Let's just say it: these are two catch-the-bad-guy movies in which the good guys try like hell, but they can't quite manage to be McQueen or Eastwood in the end.

Partly because the up-and-down life of a cop generally isn't that heroic or simple. And because Fincher would probably have trouble staying awake if somebody forced him to direct a Bullitt or a Dirty Harry.

Fincher and screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker ended Se7en with a mind-blowing twist in which the killer won and the good guys lost, and in such a way that the final fate of the killer didn't matter as much as the fact that his vision (which had a certain moral foundation) ended up being fulfilled.

The more I think about Se7en, the more certain I am that it was and is a truly brilliant cop thriller. Not just in the way the story was put together and paid off, but because it echoed a certain clouds-are-forming, it's-all-starting-to-rot-from-within attitude...a kind of geiger-counter reading of the despair in the air in 1994 and '95, when Se7en was made and released.

I attended a Writers Guild event last night that celebrated the 101 Greatest Screenplays ever written, and bless their hearts but the WGA voters were blind as bats for not including Se7en.

I'm not going to spill the Zodiac finale in any detail, but anyone who's read even a little bit about the the hunt for the Zodiac killer knows the culprit was never charged or convicted, although his more ardent pursuers were convinced that he was a pudgy alcoholic and an ex-school teacher named Arthur Leigh Allen, who died in 1992.

The script uses a substitute name instead of Allen's. It wouldn't be that big of a deal to mention it, but I'm trying to go lightly here.

Graysmith is the best part Gyllenhaal has ever had, and I'm including Jack Twist in this equation. If he does it right he'll generate a lot of heat for himself, and I can't see how he wouldn't.

Graysmith is a very strongly written guy with a lot of struggle and frustration inside, and the pressure on him just builds and builds. The coup de grace comes at the end when Graysmith delivers a spellbinding 12-page oratory that ties up all the loose ends. (I was reminded of Simon Oakland's this-is-what-actually-happened speech at the end of Psycho.)

Robert Downey, Jr. has several good scenes as a Chronicle reporter named Avery. It seems at first as if he'll be a prominent costar along with Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo, but nope. Anthony Edwards, as Toschi's partner, has a smaller role than Downey.

Dermot Mulroney, Chloe Sevigny, Ione Skye, Donal Logue and Brian Cox have supporting roles. The IMDB says Cox plays famed San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, but my script doesn't even have Belli in it.

Fincher talks about using Final Cut Studio on Zodiac.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/profiles/?profiles/apple_fcs_profile-fincher_h640

nobody cares about this?

Quote from: Anonymous on April 28, 2006, 01:33:29 PM
nobody cares about this?

uh.. the thread's up to 5 pages now. are you asking just because no one praised your stupid link? otherwise what's there to care about? the movie's not out yet. geez, look at how many news articles Mac posts and no one replies to. it doesn't mean we don't read it or that we don't care. anyway why am i even answering your ridiculous query? oh shit if you dont' reply within 3 days to this rhetorical question it means i'm not loved. woe is me.

how is the link stupid? did you even watch it?

Quote from: Anonymous on April 28, 2006, 01:51:31 PM
how is the link stupid? did you even watch it?

have you encountered this usage of the word stupid before? stupid as in "insignificant".. i could just as well have used "stinkin" or "fucking"..

"how is the link fucking?"
"how is the link stinking? did you smell it?"

go back to lurking, you stinkin fool.

insignificant? Its an interview with Fincher and his editor with clips from the movie, id say thats pretty significant.

I'm never visiting this thread again because of too much reading when I get here.

Thanks

*Just if someone asks for me in the thread

I totally owned this argument any ways....

you just totally owned yourself, you Anonymous Joke.

okay... Hedwigger!

Quote from: modage on January 01, 2006, 07:54:50 PM
4. Zodiac
because before he fell off the planet David Fincher was one of my favorite directors working today.  and unless it's a Guero to Se7en's Odelay, it should be a welcome return.  it seems like an eternity since Fight Club, and though Panic Room was a nice exercise it's been far too long without him.  hopefully he can prove he still deserves his own forum.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

ZODIAC TO 2007
Source: JoBlo

One of my "must see" films of 2006 has just turned into one of my "must see" films of 2007. David Fincher's serial killer suspense flick ZODIAC has been pushed back from a fall date later this year to January 2007. What gives? Isn't January where bad movies go to die? Didn't ELEKTRA open up in January? Paramount didn't offer up an explanation to the move but since it never had a solid release date, they could easily just say there was no delay as it's release was never set. I would think this would be a perfect October/Halloween type release and to me a January date doesn't make sense but perhaps there's more here to the story than we know. It's just disappointing to wait this long for another David Fincher movie only to find out it's been delayed again. Stay tuned for more...

Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Confusion hovers over the release of David Fincher's Zodiac, one of the most highly anticipated dramas of the fall. The IMDB has an 11.22.06 U.S. release date but Coming Soon has it coming out January 19, 2007. There's also a Robert Downey fan site that's reporting the release date as 1.19.07. It says that Fincher is doing some reshoots (which Downey is involved in) and will resume filming reshoots sometime in late June.

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 12, 2006, 09:04:51 PM
Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Confusion hovers over the release of David Fincher's Zodiac, one of the most highly anticipated dramas of the fall. The IMDB has an 11.22.06 U.S. release date but Coming Soon has it coming out January 19, 2007. There's also a Robert Downey fan site that's reporting the release date as 1.19.07. It says that Fincher is doing some reshoots (which Downey is involved in) and will resume filming reshoots sometime in late June.

1.19.2007 is my birthday!

i most likely won't see it on that exact date , for i'll be on heavy doses of jack daniels and xanax at that point, but nonehtless, it's releasing on my birthday!

so ofcourse the movie is going to be badass. :yabbse-grin:

Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Zodiac director David Fincher and casting director Laray Mayfield are looking to hire an African American actress to play a bus driver in a new scene that will shoot in late June/early July. "Unnerved by the Zodiac's threat against children on school buses, this African-American woman asks the police what they are doing to stop the killer...1 speech & 2 lines, 1 scene," the breakdown reads.

film screens.  title has apparently been changed to The Chronicles.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23688

Quote from: modage on June 26, 2006, 08:05:51 AM
title has apparently been changed to The Chronicles.

Soon to be changed again, to "The Chronic--WHAT--cles".

'Zodiac' Attack
He just wrapped his first serial-killer movie since Seven, but did David Fincher's cast survive the shoot?
Source: Entertainment Weekly

David Fincher has many gifts, but managing talent isn't always one of them. Around Hollywood, the 43-year-old director is almost well-known for exasperating casts and crews as he is for flicks like Fight Club.

His next film, Zodiac, showcases all the trademark Fincher ingredients: ambition, visual panache, and offscreen drama. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr., it's a serial-killer movie -- about the Zodiac slayer, who struck Northern California in the 1960s and '70s -- that marks Fincher's second attempt to reinvent the genre. (Seven, anyone?) The film, a massive undertaking, encompasses more than three decades of action. One version of Zodiac's shooting script verged on 200 pages, which could translate to a three-hour plus running time.

A Bay Area native with the forensic acumen of a CSI junkie, Fincher took about three years to research everything from period decor to ballistics. And that unrelenting attention to detail extended to the set. Once production began last fall, the director frayed nerves by filming dozens of takes of even the most routine scenes. "A kid enters, picks up a ball. He must have done that 50 times," recalls an on-set source. "People were pulling their hair out." It was a time-consuming process, and for a number of reasons the $70 million-plus drama has seen one potential release date bumped and is now set to hit theaters in January.

Fincher declined to speak to EW for this story, but Paramount exec Alli Shearmur dismisses negative rumors as trivial. "David is unique," she says. "However many takes he does, he does." The studio expects to have a cut by the end of the month, and those who have seen early footage describe a haunting look with plot twists aplenty. Of course, it's worth remembering that those same things could have been said before the release of a hit film like Seven... or a miss like Alien 3.

Source: Hollywood-Elsewhere

A filmmaker friend has passed along some info about David Fincher and Zodiac, by way of an editor pal who knows a sound mixer who worked on Zodiac a while back.

"This girl is very smart and cool," this guy says. "She's very much the San Franciso arty girl who hates a lot of Hollywood shit and is funny talking about working on all the shit she does. Anyway, she said Zodiac is fucking brilliant and so amazing and smart. I really, really trust this girl. She says the movie is great and that George Lucas was blown away by it.

"She also said that Robert Downey, Jr. gives an incredible Oscar-level performance.

"But here's my favorite detail. The first half of the movie, which takes place in the late '60s, is mixed mono when all of radio was AM and with the advent of FM, in the chronology of the film as the calendar moves into the '70s, the movie turns stereo. Such a great idea. She said that Fincher has the best ears of anyone other than David Lynch.

"The other point to make here is that if Zodiac sucked there's noway Dreamamount would ever greenlight Fincher's Benjamin Button project, which will star Brad Pitt."

Quote from: A filmmaker friend on September 01, 2006, 11:12:02 AM
She's very much the San Franciso arty girl who hates a lot of Hollywood shit... She says the movie is great and that George Lucas was blown away by it.

THE SEASON: END OF YEAR CROWDING LEAVES STUDIOS WITH AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES
By Pete Hammond; Hollywood Wiretap

Although most pundits are now fairly certain the line up of contenders for the 2006 awards race is locked, we should remember it is still only September. Even though most of the major festivals are over, for your consideration ad buys are being placed in the trades and the Q&A train has left the station, there is still the possibility of a late entry getting into the crowded field.

Of course there is precedent for this. Two years ago, eventual Best Picture Oscar victor, "Million Dollar Baby" had not even been officially announced as a 2004 release. Warner Bros. didn't do that until September 30th and the film wasn't screened for select press until mid-November when its heavy courtship with Oscar began in earnest. Ever since then, crafty producers have dreamed of coming up with their own "Million Dollar Baby," a stealth campaign that takes the media and industry by surprise and upsets the entire rhythm of the awards dance.

Is that scenario in the cards for David Fincher's "Zodiac?" This adaptation of the Robert Graysmith book about the notorious Zodiac serial killer who roamed San Francisco in the 60s and 70s is currently scheduled to open through domestic distributor Paramount on January 19, 2007 (Warner Bros. is handling the international release).

Fincher is now completing editing and mixing and the film should be pretty much wrapped in a couple of weeks. Sources are saying it is brilliantly made with great performances across the board. The cast includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards. And even though Fincher's hard edged previous films ("Fight Club," "Panic Room," "Se7en") have received a grand total of 2 Academy nods in tech categories, this is said to be the one that could change that pattern.

That is, if "Zodiac" receives a qualifying run in December ahead of its wide January release. If it has to wait until next year, the odds are long since January films are a distant memory come nomination time. But hope remains that Fincher's film will still be a part of this year's kudos story. We have been told that it is a complex situation and there are "discussions that are probably going to take place."

One hurdle may be that Paramount really doesn't need another picture going for the gold this year since they already have "World Trade Center" and the upcoming Dreamworks'films "Flags Of Our Fathers" (Oct 20) and "Dreamgirls" (Dec 21). And although it is a completely separate entity, specialty division Paramount Vantage has a major contender in Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu's "Babel" (Oct 27).

Further, "Zodiac" co-producer Mike Medavoy who runs Phoenix Pictures, the production entity behind the movie, has two other films of his own to deal with in this week's "All The King's Men" and December's anticipated Renee Zellweger drama, "Miss Potter" for The Weinstein Company.

But if "Zodiac" really does deliver the goods as those few who have seen it believe, then how can it be denied a passport to the Kodak? After all, remember 1974. One studio accounted for three, count 'em , "three" of the five Best Picture Oscar nominations. The movies were "The Godfather Part II," "Chinatown" and "The Conversation." The studio was, you guessed it, Paramount.

Back to the man behind that now legendary "Million Dollar Baby" campaign. Clint Eastwood is creating his own news again this year. Not only is his October 20th World War II epic "Flags Of Our Fathers" imminent, it also has a companion film told from the Japanese point of view, "Letters From Iwo Jima." Apparently Clint would like to see it released in 2006 as well, according to published reports - and no less an authority than the Internet Movie Data Base which has it dated as Dec '06.

This last fact has been picked up by some Oscar-watchers as confirmation that the film will indeed be competing "against" Paramount and Dreamworks' "Flags." Complicating matters though is the fact that "Letters" is being distributed domestically by Warner Bros. (for now at least) and sources there tell us they are only seeing the film for the first time this week and have not yet decided when it will be released but that it will "not" be in 2006. Sometime in the first quarter of 2007 is most likely according to a studio exec who adds that they want to do what is best for the film and it's relation to "Flags."

Ironically, Warner Bros., with its own slate of potential contenders – including "The Good German" (Dec 8 ), "The Blood Diamond" (Dec 15), and "We Are Marshall" (Dec 22) - may find itself in the same boat as Paramount and could choose not to look for another December entry to muddy the competition waters.

But if that's what Clint wants for Christmas, well who knows?

Paramount and Warners, oddly, are the strange bedfellows this year, joined at the hip on both "Zodiac" and "Letters from Iwo Jima," and what they finally decide could have a major impact on an increasingly intriguing race.

And there's one more potential Oscar connection between the two studios: Warner Bros.' impressive "The Departed," directed by long-time Oscar bridesmaid Martin Scorsese, was finally unveiled for press earlier this week and many observers, including this one, are calling it a legitimate Best Picture contender. It was produced by Brad Pitt, Graham King and get this, Paramount chief Brad Grey(!). What an Oscar night it would be if Paramount's Grey were to bring home the gold for Warner Bros.

The prognosticators are drooling with anticipation.

I saw a sneak preview test screening of this tonight and while it was long (2 hous and 45 minutes) it flew by like nothing. Really impressed with it, God, what a rush it is. Let me tell you all, Fincher IS Officially Back, with a one two knock out punch. I'll give ya more later, let it mull over me and think about it some more.

dammit i missed the screening of this last night in la.  it was sent out as 'untitled' but i had a feeling it would indeed be this from the description.  there're reviews from it over at aintitcool.  soo upset.

Quote from: pozer on October 13, 2006, 02:17:26 PM
dammit i missed the screening of this last night in la.  it was sent out as 'untitled' but i had a feeling it would indeed be this from the description.  there're reviews from it over at aintitcool.  soo upset.

Man you really definitely missed out. The opening 20 minutes completely sucks you in and does not let you go until the end.

Where are these screenings at? And is it through the screening exchange? I want in, even though I've been working like 18 hour days and wouldn't be able to attend, still.

I weas hanging aroun  LA near amoeba and they gave me a piece of paper for a private test screening, it's all a luck of the draw.

Quote from: killafilm on October 16, 2006, 08:48:35 PM
Where are these screenings at? And is it through the screening exchange? I want in, even though I've been working like 18 hour days and wouldn't be able to attend, still.

mine was through sreening exchange, yes.  this particualr one was screened at the arclight. 

Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Paramount's done it to Zodiac again!! David Fincher's hunting-the-zodiac-killer melodrama was going to open on 1.17.07 -- now the national release date has been bumped to 3.2.07, according to Box-Office Mojo. And this for a movie that will absolutely be finished and ready to screen by 11.10 or 11.15, according to a well-placed source.

I'm sure we'll be hearing a nicely measured, sensible-sounding explanation within the next day or two. Example: "March is a better release date than mid-January and we want this film to be as big a hit as possible ." I know they aren't burying it -- if they wanted to do that they'd release it in mid-April. One definite advantage from Paramount's perspective is that now they won't have to bother with Zodiac in the middle of their Oscar campaigns for Dreamgirls and World Trade Center, which will be more than enough fish to fry for their p.r. team. One other plus is that guys like me can no longer bellyache about their refusal to give it a late-December platform opening.

All I know is, Paramount just won't stop treating this movie like a poor relation and kicking it around like a tin can. They obviously don't feel it's very commercial, they don't want it in the way, and so they're keeping it on the bench a few weeks more. The delay certainly isn't due to any plans for extra work to be done. Even if Fincher wanted to go out and shoot extra footage right now Par could still release it by 1.17 -- George Hickenlooper's Factory Girl is doing extra lensing as we speak and yet it'll be shown to critics by early December and released into theatres about three weeks later.

I have had time to reflect on this movie and give it more thought. It now has to be my fav. fincher movie. Every shot seems so effortless and perfect. He really used the hi Def DV really well. Every actor has their roles down to the point and the opening shot has got to be one te best opening shots I've seen in a while.
Robest Downey Jr is fantastic as always, he really knows how to play drunk and fucked up really well. There's part of you that will think it drags a bit, but it didn't drag for me at all.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fparamount_pictures%2Fzodiac%2Fzodiacposterbig.jpg&hash=18da6d51541d340098d54c44c6c0b1ab8033c71e)



Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1522103&sdm=web&qtw=640&qth=400)

Wow. That looks really, really great.

Agreed...Wicked poster too.  :yabbse-thumbup:

Yes, can't wait to see it again. Soooo Psyched.

i'm really looking forward to the taxi cab twisty shot in its entirety. or in context. the last five seconds of this are my favourite five seconds of a trailer this year as far as i can remember.

w0rd pico, that outdoes any of mann's gta shots in collateral.

n i thought u could only catch that quality of night with hi-def.

Hell yes.

Quote from: Pink Nightmare on December 01, 2006, 10:49:55 PM
w0rd pico, that outdoes any of mann's gta shots in collateral.

n i thought u could only catch that quality of night with hi-def.

don't mean to be rude, but have you ever watched a movie before?

Over at Apple's Final Cut Pro site, director David Fincher, of Fight Club, Se7en and Alien 3 fame, explains how he used Final Cut Pro to edit his most recent film Zodiac. It's an interesting glimpse into the technology of post-production as well as into Fincher's creative process. With Zodiac, Fincher shot the film digitally using the Viper cam and then it was edited with Final Cut Studio -- a camera system that's only been around for a few years and software you can buy today and use at home on your own Mac.


http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/profiles/?profiles/apple_fcs_profile-fincher_h640

admin edit: some spoils

A reporter finds that all signs point to danger
Source: Los Angeles Times

SOMETIMES a reporter has to stick his neck out just a little. Even if that means putting himself squarely in the sights of a killer to get him to make a move.

Robert Downey Jr. plays San Francisco Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery on the trail of the Zodiac Killer in David Fincher's "Zodiac." The film, which also stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards and opens March 2, revolves around the search for the modern-day Jack the Ripper who held the Bay Area in the grip of terror in the late 1960s and early 1970s while taunting the police and journalists with his letters and ciphers.
 
"He was a serious journalist," says Downey of Avery. "He was a real amalgam of what makes journalists in the true sense of the word."

When the Zodiac case goes cold, Avery decides to push a few buttons by writing that the killer is likely a latent homosexual.

"I don't think he consulted his profiling buddies," says Downey. "He sent an arrow up in the air and it came down and hit him in the ... because around Halloween, he gets a card from the Zodiac saying 'Hi' and 'You're next.' It took the case out of the cold file, but definitely sent him into a paranoid state of mind."

Downey says he found working with Fincher to be a "huge education."

"He's not a teddy bear, and he's not a cruel genius. He's very, very exacting, and he's always the smartest guy in the room, but he's very open-minded to other input sources."

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2007%2F02%2F14%2Fmovies%2Fhalb_zodiac.2.650.jpg&hash=97c0390bed8b3d22a4b0c5ffba445a46f9db399c)

Lights, Bogeyman, Action
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER; New York Times

NEW ORLEANS - DAVID FINCHER, impolitic as ever, is ridiculing the notes he's been getting from the studio executives overseeing his latest film, "Zodiac."

" 'It's easy to get lost in all the details,' " he intones, reading their critique of one scene from his laptop. " 'Are there any trims you could make here to cut down on the information and focus it even more' " on two main characters?

"I love this," Mr. Fincher says, leaving no doubt as to his sarcasm. "It's this weird shell game where they go, 'Can you focus it more on the people by making it be less of them?' And of course what it really gets down to is that they want me to audition their cuts to them."

But he won't. Instead, he says, "you just rope-a-dope."

That same uncompromising attitude extended to his relationship with the cast, led by Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr. and Jake Gyllenhaal, who endured multiple takes of 70 shots and beyond. Mr. Downey affectionately called him a disciplinarian, while Mr. Gyllenhaal, saying that as a director he "paints with people," added, "It's tough to be a color."

At 44, Mr. Fincher remains Hollywood's reigning bad-boy auteur, and his impatience with meddling has become as famous as his tendency to test his actors' patience, stamina and preparation. But not as famous as his films, the most celebrated among them "Se7en," the 1995 thriller that grossed $350 million worldwide, and "Fight Club," his over-the-top answer to young male anomie.

After five years of withdrawing from one project after another, Mr. Fincher will present "Zodiac," about the serial killer who terrorized San Francisco in the late 70s, on March 2. Then, in 2008, comes "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the screenwriter Eric Roth's epic reimagining of F. Scott Fitzgerald's story about a man who ages in reverse. (Of more interest to some fans, "Benjamin Button" will reunite him with the star of "Se7en" and "Fight Club," Brad Pitt, and amounts to a sharp turn for Mr. Fincher into romanticism.)

To trim "Zodiac" to just over two and a half hours, Mr. Fincher said he had to make painful cuts. Gone, for example, is a two-minute blackout over a montage of hit songs signaling the passage of time from Joni Mitchell to Donna Summer; in its place, artless but quick and cheap, are the words "Four years later."

Mr. Fincher has always been outspoken, but if he takes this movie a little more personally, there's a reason: For him, the Zodiac murderer, who terrorized the Bay Area and was never caught, isn't just any old serial-killer story.

Raised in Marin County, Mr. Fincher was only 7 when the area was seized with fear in 1969. "I remember coming home and saying the highway patrol had been following our school buses for a couple weeks now," he recalled in December in an interview in New Orleans, where he was editing "Zodiac" while filming "Benjamin Button." "And my dad, who worked from home, and who was very dry, not one to soft-pedal things, turned slowly in his chair and said: 'Oh yeah. There's a serial killer who has killed four or five people, who calls himself Zodiac, who's threatened to take a high-powered rifle and shoot out the tires of a school bus, and then shoot the children as they come off the bus.' "

"I was, like, 'You could drive us to school,' " he recalled thinking.

It was that same sense that initially drew him to "Se7en," he said: the fearsome power of the stranger among us. "That's what Zodiac was for a 7-year-old growing up in San Anselmo. He was the ultimate bogeyman."

"People ask me, 'When are you going to make your 'Amarcord?' " Mr. Fincher added, with a little laugh at the comparison to Fellini's autobiographical tour-de-force. For now, he said, "It'll have to be 'Zodiac.' "

Much has been made of Mr. Fincher's "dark eye," his gloomy palette and dim view of human nature, as seen not just in his hits but in his lesser films "The Game" and "Panic Room." And he's had a reputation for cutting-edge special effects and innovative camerawork since, at 22, he directed his first commercial, for the American Cancer Society, featuring a fetus smoking a cigarette in utero, an ad that led to an early career as a top music-video director.

But the source of his dark-hued lens on life, Mr. Fincher suggested, might be as simple as that original bogeyman. "It was a very interesting and weird time to grow up, and incredibly evocative," he said. "I have a handful of friends who were from Marin County at the same time, the same age group, and they're all very kind of sinister, dark, sardonic people. And I wonder if Zodiac had something to do with that."

Mr. Fincher was first approached about "Zodiac" by Brad Fischer, a producer at Phoenix Pictures, with a script by James Vanderbilt. It was based on two books by Robert Graysmith, a former San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist who became obsessed with the Zodiac, and who built a case against one suspect, now dead. Mr. Fincher said he wanted Mr. Vanderbilt to overhaul the script, but wanted first to dig into the original police sources. So director, writer and producer spent months interviewing witnesses, investigators and the case's only two surviving victims, and poring over reams of documents.

"I said I won't use anything in this book that we don't have a police report for," Mr. Fincher said. "There's an enormous amount of hearsay in any circumstantial case, and I wanted to look some of these people in the eye and see if I believed them. It was an extremely difficult thing to make a movie that posthumously convicts somebody."

Mr. Graysmith said Mr. Fincher's team found evidence that investigators had missed. "He outdid the police," Mr. Graysmith said. "My hat's off to them."

With a finished script and a $75 million budget, Mr. Fincher and Phoenix approached Sony, then invited other studios to bid. The most aggressive, Warner Brothers and Paramount, decided to team up. At the same time Paramount invited Warner to share the $150 million budget for "Benjamin Button." So Mr. Fincher agreed to do the two movies back to back.

The result has been a marathon. "Zodiac" required 115 shooting days, about twice the average, though it came in under budget; "Benjamin Button," which is still shooting in New Orleans, will take 150 days, not counting months to complete the illusion of Mr. Pitt's metamorphosis from newborn old man to demented, dying baby.

Perhaps most challenging for "Zodiac," Mr. Fincher said, were the adjustments he made as a director — both in adopting a quieter visual style and in trying to get the most from his cast.

"It's as unadorned a movie as I've ever made," he said. "It's just people talking, and it's hard to make an audience realize that they have to be paying attention. One way you do that is by not doing very much." There are none of the "perceptual games" that he said he played in "Fight Club," where the subject was "the most unreliable narrator possible," for example. "It was like, cast the movie right, get the script right, shoot the scenes as simply as we can and get out of everyone's way," he said.

Mr. Fincher said the last thing he wanted was for an audience to seize on period details like an avocado-colored rotary phone, or an actor's sideburns, and miss the point of a scene. In several days on the set in San Francisco and Los Angeles in late 2005 and early 2006, he could be seen constantly retaking shots to dim a lamp, remove a too-colorful car, or alter the costume of an extra whose garb seemed lifted from a fashion layout rather than what people really wore.

Mark Ruffalo, who stars as the lead detective, said "Zodiac" was unlike any other Fincher film. "He's just completely gone for the character and the story, and has sort of made that the rule, and not the look," he said. Near the end of filming, Mr. Ruffalo recalled, Mr. Fincher said he'd watched a rough assemblage of about half the movie. "He said: 'I think it's great, but I'm in territory I've never been before. I just don't know if they're going to get it. And that's exciting news: 'Here's my brand, and I'm stepping outside of it.' "

More difficult was changing the way Mr. Fincher worked with, and made demands of, his actors. On "Panic Room" he grew frustrated with his process — detailed storyboarding and previsualization to diagram a movie shot-by-shot — because it left little room for discovery, Mr. Fincher said. "It just felt wrong, like I didn't get the most out of the actors, because I was so rigid in my thinking," he said. "I was kind of impatiently waiting for everybody to get where I'd already been a year and a half ago. And I've been trying to nip that in the bud. I felt like I needed to be more attentive to watching the actors."

He added: "Every once in a while there are actors you can defeat."

For Jake Gyllenhaal, who stars in the movie as Mr. Graysmith, Mr. Fincher's attentiveness was a mixed blessing.

Mr. Gyllenhaal said he came from a collaborative filmmaking family: "We share ideas, and we incorporate those ideas." He added: "David knows what he wants, and he's very clear about what he wants, and he's very, very, very smart. But sometimes we'd do a lot of takes, and he'd turn, and he would say, because he had a computer there" — the movie was shot digitally — " 'Delete the last 10 takes.' And as an actor that's very hard to hear."

Mr. Gyllenhaal, 26, partly blamed culture shock; he'd just finished "Jarhead" for Sam Mendes, who gave him a much freer rein. Mr. Gyllenhaal stressed that he admired and liked Mr. Fincher personally. And he noted that other members of the "Zodiac" cast had far more experience, adding: "I wish I could've had the maturity to be like: 'I know what he wants. He wants the best out of me.' "

That said, Mr. Gyllenhaal spoke candidly about his frustration with Mr. Fincher's degree of control over his performance.

"What's so wonderful about movies is, you get your shot," he said. "They even call it a shot. The stakes are high. You get your chance to prove what you can do. You get a take, 5 takes, 10 takes. Some places, 90 takes. But there is a stopping point. There's a point at which you go, 'That's what we have to work with.' But we would reshoot things. So there came a point where I would say, well, what do I do? Where's the risk?"

Told of Mr. Gyllenhaal's comments, Mr. Fincher half-jokingly said, "I hate earnestness in performance," adding, "Usually by Take 17 the earnestness is gone." But half-joking aside, he said that collaboration "has to come from a place of deep knowledge." While he had no objections to having fun, he said, "When you go to your job, is it supposed to be fun, or are you supposed to get stuff done?"

He later called back and said he "adored the cast" of "Zodiac" and felt "lucky to have them all," but was "totally shocked" by Mr. Gyllenhaal's remark about reshoots.

Robert Downey Jr., impeccably cast as a crime reporter driven to drink, drugs and dissolution, called Mr. Fincher a disciplinarian and agreed that, as is often said, "he's always the smartest guy in the room." But Mr. Downey put this in perspective.

"Sometimes it's really hard because it might not feel collaborative, but ultimately filmmaking is a director's medium," he said. "I just decided, aside from several times I wanted to garrote him, that I was going to give him what he wanted. I think I'm a perfect person to work for him, because I understand gulags."

Mr. Ruffalo too survived some 70-take shots. "The way I see it is, you enter into someone else's world as an actor," he said. "You can put your expectations aside and have an experience that's new and pushes and changes you, or hold onto what you think it should be and have a stubborn, immovable journey that's filled with disappointment and anger."

He said Mr. Fincher was equally demanding of everyone — executives, actors, himself. "He knows he's taking a stab at eternity," Mr. Ruffalo said. "He knows that this will outlive him. And he's not going to settle for anything other than satisfaction, deep satisfaction. Somewhere along the line he said, 'I will not settle for less.' "

Wow, that was an incredible article. Thanks Mac. That made me really want to see this film.

Quote from: Gamblour consider le fountain on February 18, 2007, 07:05:21 PM
Wow, that was an incredible article. Thanks Mac. That made me really want to see this film.

ditto to all that.

the most refreshing thing i learned from it is that Fincher was tired of his old approach and tried to focus more on the characters and service the story through them. OK, but then why is it that Gyllenhaal is talking about Fincher using actors as colours? that was his old style! the only difference i can see now is that he isn't as prepared when he comes to the set, so his storyboards and pre-visualizations are not as rigidly guiding him, and he seems to be making them up on the fly instead of a year before shooting. the stuff he used to prepare before shooting, he's know preparing AS they shoot --- he's still hella meticulous and rigid about what he wants.

i think it's great that he's so visually driven. i'm sure there's some autistic kid out there who thinks fincher is the only person in the world who speaks his palette. whatever that means. i'm just unsure of what to make about this supposedly refined approach which just seems completely ULTRA fincher. i hope in a good way.

benjamin button isn't set in the dark is it?

Quote from: MacGuffin on February 18, 2007, 01:08:08 PM
"Benjamin Button," which is still shooting in New Orleans, will take 150 days

Let me be the first to say Holy Fucking Shit.

This movie is great! Man! It's a complete procedural, from top to bottom, but it's completely enthralling. I can't wait to see the longer version on DVD.

INTERVIEW: MARK RUFFALO (ZODIAC)
Source: CHUD

David Fincher's Zodiac is a masterpiece, a truly great movie that is setting 2007 off on as strong a footing as any film in memory. Part of the movie's greatness comes from two amazing performances – Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of San Francisco Chronicle reporter Paul Avery and Mark Ruffalo as detective Dave Toschi.

Toschi is a larger than life character – he was part of the basis for Steve McQueen's Bullitt, down to the unique holster he always wore. And in the first Dirty Harry, Toschi's famous Zodiac case was reborn as the Scorpio case – and solved in a way that Toschi could not.

I had a chance to talk to Ruffalo at a roundtable here in New York City today. He was candid and unassuming, really coming across like the kind of actor who cares more about acting than being famous.

Zodiac opens this Friday. You must see it.

Ruffalo: One interviewer today said to me, 'How does it feel that your first job, You Can Count On Me' is still your best work?' I agreed with him. [laughs]

Q: You've played a couple of police officers. How do you make this one different?

Ruffalo: 90% of it was being with Dave Toschi. Another 5%, maybe more, was the investigative work I was doing to be a cop, to know about the case. The character I think you would define by the choices he makes in a moment of stress. Dave Toschi, his character, I think is pretty strong. But the character is Dave Toschi, that [gets into his Toschi voice from the film] quiet way of talking, that sincere, measured way of talking... that's Dave Toschi. The idiosyncratic things, the animal crackers, the way he dressed, all of that is original Dave Toschi.. DT!

Q: Dave had been the basis for Bullitt, and he saw his case taken and made into Dirty Harry. When you came to him, was he like, 'You Hollywood bastards!' or was he pretty friendly?

Ruffalo: He was a little reticent. His wife didn't want him to have anything to do with this movie. [The case] cost them an enormous amount as a family, and Dave who he was as a person, and his career. When I showed up our conversation started something like, [Toschi voice] 'Umm, thank you for coming... Why do you want to talk to me? You're the big Hollywood movie star.' I was like, oh shit, here we go. He wasn't mean about it, but there was a certain amount of distrust. I said to him, 'I'm here to honor you. I'm here to get it right. I know this is a big part of your life and I wouldn't dare to try and portray you without being able to hear it from your mouth.' I could never have come up with the Dave Toschi I had in this movie without him. Never in a million years could I have gotten the kind of idiosyncratic behavior that that guy has.

Q: Some of your strongest scenes in the movie are with Jake Gyllenhaal. What's he like to work with?

Ruffalo: He was good. I've known Jake for a long time, and it was good to work with him. It was fun to see him really kind of stretch his wings with somebody like Dave Fincher. They were tough scenes, and they took a lot of building, but I'm happy the way they ended up. It's a good performance, and I think it's one of his best. As much as he talks about being put through the wringers, it paid off for him.

Q: Was that your experience with Fincher as well? Jake talked to the New York Times about how difficult the process was for him, and Fincher is known for being very exacting. Was your experience similar to his?

Ruffalo: I can only respect an artist like Fincher. I can only respect somebody who puts that kind of demands on himself and the people around him. I can only respect a man who doesn't think good enough is good enough. So I didn't see it the way some people saw it – to me that's 'Waah waah waah.' I mean, to me, we get paid a lot of money and there are people who work a lot frickin' harder – most everyone on the set. If you had to do a few extra takes... To hear that makes me cringe. Please god, don't think we're all like this.

Q: Did you find yourself getting more and more fascinated with the case as you researched it for the film?

Ruffalo: I'm not a big Zodiac [guy]. I didn't know it well, I'm not a true crime guy. But working on it, as I started to enter the world of Dave Toschi and the investigation, I did become a little obsessed with it. There was constant conjecture on who did it, and this piece of information... people were coming in all the time with their own theories. You sit around with a group of actors, the last thing you have to worry about is people talking and sharing their ideas. There was a constant debate going on that made it really interesting. That drew us in.

Q: Do you think it's Arthur Lee Allen?

Ruffalo: He's the best suspect there ever was, but I take the side of Dave Toschi, which is there's a due process of law, and where's the beef. That one piece of evidence that really sticks it to that guy never materialized. This movie is as much about due process of law as it is about anything. You see in the world where we are today when due process of law is thrown out and we go by gut feelings and trumped up evidence. The one thing these guys can be accused of is following the letter of the law too closely.

Q: There's so much to the movie beyond your character. What was your thought when you finally saw the whole thing?

Ruffalo: Wow. I saw a rough cut in Dave Fincher's office – it didn't have any music, it wasn't sweetened – and I was really blown away. What I saw, what Fincher was actually going for, is so different from anything else he's ever made. I thought this is something to be really proud of. I didn't know how the rest of the world would react to it, and usually my tastes run counter to the popular culture, so I didn't know how it would be seen, but I just thought, 'Damn, this is a daring piece of film work by a major director for a major studio.' Who's doing that, really?

What's amazing is that you know they don't catch the guy in the end, but you go along for the journey anyway!

Q: This movie is almost like journalism in how it delivers facts and information. For many actors having to give that kind of exposition is a nightmare – how did you keep from crossing the line of making all that information boring?

Ruffalo: There's that stuff, and then there's the desire to catch the guy, which keeps the scene interesting. Then there's what's going on inside them personally – some people are falling apart, some people are eating themselves up. It's everything that's under the words, how richly you can build that life under the words. The simple things like the procedural and the jargon, what's built under the surface of those is what makes it work.

Q: As an actor how do you approach that?

Ruffalo: It's all character work. Your desire has to be so great – what it costs you, what it's costing that character – if that's working inside you and your motor is going as an actor, the audience sees that and they're interested. It happens in a way they're not quite aware of, and what it is is that they're seeing themselves in the movie in a weird way.

Q: You're often seen a serious actor, but you do very light movies like 13 Going on 30 or Just Like Heaven in between these very serious parts.

Ruffalo: I come from the theater, where you can do whatever the hell you want; they expect it from you. You're not stuck as a romantic or comedic or tragedian... you can do what you want. I always thought the best way of acting is one foot in the grave and one on the banana peel. I feel that the best drama has some humor in it and the best humor has some humor in it.

I did a bunch of dark movies, and my nieces could never see anything I had done. I was like, it would be fun to do a romantic comedy. I really admire Marcello Mastroianni, he had such a great career. He was dramatic and he was funny – he did everything. I was like, you know what, I'm just going to do whatever I feel like doing. I'm not going to follow any mold and I'm not going to do what anybody tells me. I'm going to do a movie my nieces can watch – and also a movie I think has a really positive message for young girls. That movie says something, and I'm into that game. I like movies that say something. Even Just Like Heaven is saying something about life, about the way you live your life and love – the power of love. Some of the stuff might seem flip, but to me it has an important meaning. It's another way to reach people and give part of the human experience to them.

Q: Speaking of messages, does this film say something about our lives post-9/11, with the boogeyman out there and this formless fear people experience?

Ruffalo: It doesn't surprise me that this movie is happening at this moment and that it's getting the attention of people and people are relating to it. It might not be so up front as that – this is film theory, this is deep stuff – but as an artist I like to think that is true. You see it all over the culture, we're dealing with dark material right now and paranoia. It's everywhere – even this year's fashions are dark and heavy and gothic and medieval. There's something in the subconscious.

Q: Your next film is going to be with the excellent Rian Johnson on The Brothers Bloom. Can you talk about your character and what you'll be doing?

Ruffalo: Stephen Bloom. I play the older brother of the Brothers Bloom con man couple. They've been confidence men since they were young boys. The younger brother, who's been the sort of the flawed romantic hero of all these elaborate cons is sick of it. He wants to live an unwritten life, so we set up this huge con where, in the end, he'll be able to walk away from being a con man and find true love. It's out there, man. It's very literary. It starts with magical realism and gets heavy at the end. There's a lot of embedded symbolism, but it's a great con man movie, too. A lot of it's based on The Sting. It's a cross between The Sting and The Last Waltz. [laughs]

Q: Was it the script that drew you in or had you seen Brick?

Ruffalo: I got the script and he starts it in rhyming quartets. I was like, what am I reading? It's out there. I have to say it's out there, but this kid has raised 30 million dollars to make a con man movie with real panache and style, and I have to say I think that guy has enormous panache and style and is one of our really interesting filmmakers, so I'm up for that game. Plus it's a part I've never done – it's a lot of language, the character is very flamboyant. It's going to be shot in Eastern Europe and have a lot of anachronistic qualities. It's going to be fun, and I'm excited.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2007-02%2F28141059.jpg&hash=d67164a4999ff8032fd59fb6756c7888d7c93f9a)

2 men, 1 obsession: the quest for justice
Source: Los Angeles Times

Director David Fincher would do well to bring crime writer James Ellroy along to all of his interviews, as he did just days before the opening of his film "Zodiac." Tall, beanpole thin, the 58-year-old author riffs like a jazz musician on violence, masculinity, the toll of obsession.

Ellroy is a charter member of the high-functioning, trying-to-be-happy walking wounded. When he was 10, his mother was killed and her body was dumped near a high school — that's the defining prism of his life and his art in such books as "The Black Dahlia" and "L.A. Confidential" and his autobiography, "My Dark Places." He's been haunted by the fact that her killer was never found.

Fincher has made a movie about a cadre of men haunted by the serial killer Zodiac and whose lives are punctured, contorted and shaped by that hunt. Zodiac was a killer who terrorized the San Francisco area in 1968 and 1969, mowing down lovers in secluded lovers' lanes and getting high off taunting the media and the police with bizarre cryptograms that he sent to the newspapers. He then disappeared — and was never caught — although the film details the investigation by two cops, Bill Armstrong and Dave Toschi (Anthony Edwards and Mark Ruffalo, respectively); a boozing, self-destructive journalist, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.); and a shy cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), who comes closest to solving the deaths.

For all of his interest in crime and the wounds it leaves, the 44-year-old Fincher, who also made "Se7en," and "Panic Room," insists he's not the haunted type. Though gray flecks his hair, he appears the buoyant young techie. He speaks with his hands — as if they could magically render the scenes unspooling in his head and keep their roiling emotions at a safe distance.

He grew up in the San Francisco area during Zodiac's reign, when the killer threatened to mow down schoolchildren as they got off their yellow school buses — and Fincher's own father, a journalist, nonetheless made him take the bus.

Zodiac was Fincher's original boogeyman — a figure who mesmerized a city, much the way a film director mesmerizes an audience. "You are 7 years old and you know people have been bound and stabbed at Lake Berryessa. You go, 'I've been at picnics at Lake Berryessa.' Do second-graders talk about murder? Oh, yeah. Especially when you were in Marin County, which was, is such an idyllic place."

Unsolved mysteries

Other serial killers were caught, but not Zodiac — which as a kid Fincher resented. "When you finally saw David Berkowitz ("Son of Sam"), you got to erase it, because you were, 'Look at you. You are a schlub.' What is the line the Good Witch says in 'Wizard of Oz'? 'Oh, rubbish, you have no power here. Leave before somebody drops a house on you.' "

Fincher remembers when his family left the Bay Area when he was 8. As he watched the hills recede from the back of his family's Audi, he said, he thought about the Zodiac killer and wondered: Are they going to catch that guy?

"It didn't keep me up at nights, but it was one of those things on Halloween when you are 8 or 9 years old and you curb your egging of houses and toilet-papering and go home at 11 because the Zodiac is out there," he says.

"Artists always harken back to that, which aroused the moral and erotic imagination," says Ellroy. "With me it's my mother in conjunction with 'The Black Dahlia.' Sex, justice, morality, the details of police work and forensic detection, lives in enormous duress — that's what gets us inchoate. Years later we become dramatists. We want to get back. We want to know how we got to where we are today. We want to honor the gift that we were given imaginatively."

Fincher and Ellroy know each other slightly, because at one point Fincher was going to direct the screen adaptation of Ellroy's "Dahlia" book. He wanted to make a five-hour, $80-million miniseries with movie stars — and when that fell through, he turned to Zodiac, which dealt with similar themes. They met up recently at Fincher's Modernist Hollywood office — Ellroy came along primarily because he is such a fan of Fincher's movie, which lands in theaters Friday. The conversation turns and returns to what binds the two — a mutual interest in obsession and the destruction it leaves behind. Still, given the nature of their temperaments, the author offers a distinctly more visceral take and the director a more analytical one.

For Ellroy, who has grown to hate the helter-skelter pace of so many testosterone movies, the film vividly re-creates what he experienced when he teamed with retired Sheriff's Deputy Bill Stoner to reinvestigate his mother's death. "It was read files, talk, engage in interviews that went nowhere. The entire year fueled by what is the great dramatic tension of this motion picture; which was two hours and 38 minutes long; it is almost entirely conversation, discussion, rediscussion, reassertion, and it's a wholly tense, kinetic filmgoing experience. I've never seen a film that so gloriously and intelligently captures their lives and what homicide work is."

"When you talk about obsession, you have to talk about the toll," says Fincher. "Toll is not something you can explain. It's something you have to feel. Can you make a movie — will you ever set out to make a movie where people's necks hurt? I will, I like that."

The film delineates clearly between the two cops — who at the end of the day knew they were doing a job and could go home to their lives — and the civilians: the journalist and the cartoonist whose lives slowly deconstruct as they willfully throw themselves into the pursuit of a killer, which Graysmith believes he's found, although he can never bring the suspect to justice.

"This movie is a whole metaphor for men and how we all go assertively into the world and how we countermand our own personal chaos by trying to impose order on external events," says Ellroy.

His assessment at first sounds a little high-brow to Fincher, who goes on to explain, "I was interested in this whole notion of justice. At what point do you achieve justice? A therapist friend of mine had a great quote: 'You don't have to kill all the rattlesnakes in the world, but you have to know where they are and avoid them.' At the end, Graysmith has identified the rattlesnake and knows where he lives. He's able to go, 'I can't take you to court. I can't get a grand jury convened, but I know it's you.'

"When you look at obsessive characters — my father was a little bit like that — there is going to be something that fuels that. I look back on my 20s and go, 'Thank God there was no PlayStation, because I would never be what I am today.' I would have lost years off my life because it is dangerously fascinating to me."

Indeed, as Ellroy points out, obsessives just need to find an arena to exercise their personality. "A guy like that — and I am obsessive on two marked fronts — I'll find it. Wherever I am, whether I'm in Moosefart, Mont., ... or Los Angeles, Calif. This is Avery and Graysmith — they were looking to take a fall, and they found it."

They're not trying to simply self-destruct, says Fincher. "You're talking of people who are looking for something to feed this part of the makeup. They have to get to the bottom even if it means swimming to it. Got to get to the bottom of the case. Get to the bottom of the bottle. You get to the bottom. That's what they did."

Ellroy knows this impulse and uses it in his work. "I lie in the dark, night after night after night, brooding. And I am either thinking about the work that I do or about women.... That's it! It's a little about 58 years and I am as bad as I was when I was 23. I suspect it's going to keep me alive for a very long time. It turns on me, but I indulge emotion, and I give back generally to the work, to the narrative point."

Two men, different lives

As the crime masters swap notes, it's clear that Ellroy not only talks the talk but was forced to walk the walk, although his devastating firsthand experience with violence provides the well of his art. That doesn't seem to be true for Fincher. One is, in a sense, a method actor; the other opts for the British school — simply using one's imagination.

The director shrugs. "I'm a kibitzer. It's just what interests you." He sighs, suddenly frustrated, slightly defensive. "I'm tired of this moniker of being dark, dark, dark." He says he's not personally, and "for the fact of the matter, I don't even think my work is."

But he goes on: "I'm not interested in making a movie where somebody goes out of their way to kiss their wife to show you that they are a good person," he says, mockingly. "I am not here to placate."

When Fincher leaves the room briefly, this reporter asks Ellroy if he believes that one needs firsthand knowledge to truly understand and re-create the horror of crime.

He holds no one to this standard. Slouching down in his seat, his longs arms outstretched and his head resting on the table, Ellroy sighs like a wise master. "The imagination is unfathomable and endless."

really liked this, with slight reservations, but i'm gonna blame them on the conditions of the theater i saw it in (really fucking hot, sound was really low) -- i'm sure if it were ideal, i wouldn't have gotten antsy the way i did.  or it could be the movie, whatever.  this compares favorably to Vengeance Is Mine, patient in its intensity and descent into areas of moral gray that few films even aspire for.  you never really get a true sense of who any of the characters are but in the case of this film, being a "procedural" (whatever the fuck that means), i suppose it's appropriate.  good start to the year so far, as far as the anticipation:satisfaction ratio is concerned.

Quote from: samsong on March 02, 2007, 12:07:14 AM
sound was really low

It was the same in the theater I saw it at. I was looking forward to the sound design (half-mono, depending on the period, as mentioned a few pages back), and I'm pertty sure it was the theater's fault that it didn't sound too great. This will probably be another film that will be best served by geeky home theater systems, where the sounds is perfect and the original running time is intact (although there'll probably be a bare-bones DVD released first with the theatrical cut).

Director David Fincher: Beyond The Zodiac
Man behind 'Se7en'/ 'Fight Club' talks about new film, Eliot Ness, singing totalitarians.
Source: MTV

No one would be likely to confuse the movies of David Fincher with those of any other director. And yet the man behind such vividly distinctive pictures as "Se7en" (1995), "Fight Club" (1999) and "Panic Room" (2002) has surpassed himself on a couple of levels with "Zodiac," his hypnotic and densely-layered new film about the famous serial killer of the late 1960s. We spoke to Fincher last week by phone from New Orleans, where he was wrapping up a new movie called "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," which is based on a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald and stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Among other things, we talked about such possible future projects as "Torso," based on the Brian Michael Bendis comic about the latter-day involvement of gang-buster Eliot Ness with a Midwestern miscreant known as the Cleveland Torso Murderer. However, for a man who was a Marin Country grade-school kid when the Zodiac murders were underway, his new movie was still the most personally meaningful.

Kurt Loder: When you started working on "Zodiac," were you hoping to actually crack the case after all these years?

David Fincher: No. I don't think there's any hope of that. I don't think it's in the cards. It's one of those things that will go on for years and years, and there will forever be differing theories.

Loder: One of the most interesting things about the movie is that even though the bad guy is never caught, or even conclusively identified, there's a strong narrative satisfaction at the end — we think we know who did it.

Fincher: Well I'm glad you thought that. You may be in the minority. [laughs] There are some people that are a little miffed at the inconclusive nature of it.

Loder: Well, Leigh Allen very strongly seems to be the guy, and that's enough for me.

Fincher: I think a reasonably intelligent cop gets a feeling about some things, you know? And in the Zodiac case, these were all smart guys, and this was what their gut was telling them, that it was Leigh Allen. Also, that was the story we bought in the two Robert Graysmith books that the movie is based on. So we didn't feel the urge to have to tell everything. All the ancillary aspects of the case, we didn't have to get into that.

Loder: Charles Fleischer's character, Bob Vaughn, is kind of ancillary, but I'm glad you left him in.

Fincher: We wondered about that — do we include Bob Vaughn? Because he's such a red herring. Is he necessary? No, but ...

Loder: It's a really scary scene.

Fincher: Well, yeah, it was fun. And I felt that like it kind of talked about the red-herring nature of an investigation that goes on this long.

Loder: Why do you think serial killers have such cultural resonance? The Zodiac; Jack the Ripper; the "Son of Sam" killer, David Berkowitz — each of them killed a relatively small number of people in a relatively brief period of time. And yet ...

Fincher: Well, I think it's the nature of the letters they wrote to the press — the nature of people who taunt others with their ability to hunt freely amongst the citizenry. I don't think if Zodiac hadn't written his letters that we'd be making a movie about him, or talking about him now.

Loder: Where did Robert Downey get his character from? Paul Avery, the reporter he plays, is dead.

Fincher: [laughs] Well, I don't know. When Downey says, "I know what to do with this," you get out of his way.

Loder: You really managed to nail the period the story takes place in — the late '60s and early '70s — without trotting out the usual clichés.

Fincher: That was an important thing to us. I didn't want the movie to look like pastiche. I wanted it to look genuine. I knew San Francisco in those years. I loved that era and that period, and I wanted to do right by it.

Loder: The soundtrack is really smart, too.

Fincher: Yeah, that was the thing. I mean, we originally had this Big Brother & the Holding Company song for the opening. And then somebody played the Three Dog Night song ["Easy To Be Hard"] for me, and I was just like, wow! Because that was it — that was the summer of '69. It's weird how music can be that way. You want it to be all things to all people, but then you find the thing that works for you, and you can't deny how personal it makes that moment.

Loder: What's the feedback on the movie been so far? Has anybody said, "I don't get it"?

Fincher: Well, yeah. But we've had really, really great responses. I mean, look, as with almost everything I've ever done, there are people who really like it, and there are people who think it's cold and manipulative. I have no idea what the consensus is. I've given up trying to understand.

Loder: The movie is like a master class in editing, the way it navigates so much complex material.

Fincher: Editing it was a nightmare. I mean, how do you cut a scene in half that was originally a six-page scene, that had all this richness of detail? But you finally go, "You know what? I don't have time for that right here. I'm wearing the audience out."

Loder: The movie doesn't feel long, though. Is it going to be longer on the DVD?

Fincher: I believe so. It's really a question of ... I mean, right now these DVD windows are so short that we're already talking about the DVD, you know? We were talkin' about the DVD two weeks ago, and I was like, "You gotta be kidding." I mean, can we worry about getting the movie in theatres before we worry about prepping it for the disc?

Loder: Were there any scenes that were particularly heartbreaking for you to cut out?

Fincher: Yeah. There's a scene that I want to put back — although I agreed at the time that it didn't play. It was a great scene before the cops get the search warrant to search Leigh's trailer. Anthony Edwards, who I think is phenomenal, and Mark Ruffalo, who I couldn't be a bigger fan of, and Dermot Mulroney, who's just delicious in this part, go into Dermot's office and just talk to a speakerphone for about five pages. I just loved it. I loved the "Charlie's Angels" thing with the speakerphone. One of the guys would talk, and then we'd actually cut to the speakerphone. It was so much fun. I'll probably put that back, just because I love the idea of police work just being three people in a room talking to a speakerphone.

Loder: I think a lot of people might be expecting a picture from you to be a little more gory than this one is.

Fincher: Well, you know, my movies aren't that gory. I mean, I think "Panic Room" is probably the most violent movie I've ever made. Not in terms of what it talked about, but in terms of what you actually see. I sort of pride myself on not having to ... I mean, I like audiences to feel discomfort, but I don't go out of my way to offend people. This was never intended to be "Se7en." That was a different time and a different place, and it was 15 years ago.

Loder: I know you were concerned with accuracy in this picture, but was there any material you had to adjust a bit just for dramatic reasons?

Fincher: Yeah — the moment where Avery gets the shirt. This little piece of bloodstained shirt came to the "Chronicle," but it didn't really come to Avery. It actually came in another letter the day before. But we needed Avery to open that Halloween card, and for the audience to be able to go, "Uh oh — that's the Zodiac." So we fudged that, yeah.

Loder: One of the creepiest scenes in the movie is when the cops go to search Leigh's trailer, which is filled with guns and fetish magazines — and squirrels. Were there photos of that in the original case files?

Fincher: Leigh's trailer? Yeah. I mean, we don't have photos of the inside, but we have the police reports that talk about the contents of everything that was found in the trailer. He had squirrels and chipmunks as pets, and he performed little operations on them. He was ... how does he characterize himself? "I'm a nasty, nasty man"? It's also interesting that police reports in those days were so much more polite. They reference that he had pornography, but they won't tell you what kind of pornography.

Loder: What conclusion did you come to in the end — was Leigh Allen really the Zodiac?

Fincher: There are things that I think are compelling, certain handwriting characteristics. I know that he was cleared on the handwriting, but we had handwriting experts look at the morphemes, and a lot of other things they didn't really look at back then, and there are definite similarities. But I don't know that we'll ever know.

Loder: You're well-known by now for shooting a lot of takes — something that probably doesn't endear you to some of your actors. What is it that you're looking for when you get up to, say, Take 65? What's eluding you?

Fincher: The most takes we did on this picture was on day one, doing a walk-and-talk scene. Walk-and-talk scenes are really hard. If somebody's delivering five pages of dialogue walking down a hallway, it's got to be just right. We re-shot a couple of scenes because we didn't feel like the information was landing. Because that's all this movie is, it's character and information, and when that stuff isn't working, you have to go back to the drawing board, and find another way in. I understand that some actors can find this frustrating; they like encouragement, and it's not encouraging to say, "Let's do another one." But it's not like I didn't have a reason or didn't have a direction. There was a direction we were going in.

Loder: There's an enormous amount of information in this film — were you worried about whether viewers would be able to take it all in?

Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. No one wants to make something that's boring. No one wants to open in 3000 cinemas and bore people. That's bad. But I love forensic-investigation shows. I love Court TV. And I thought there was a big audience out there for that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that people like getting involved in those kinds of puzzles.

Loder: You obviously have an affinity for the serial-killer genre. I'd imagine you don't want to make a career of it, but you are considering making a film version of "Torso," aren't you?

Fincher: I'm interested in that. I'm not interested in the serial killer thing, I'm interested in Eliot Ness. I'm interested in the de-mythologizing of Eliot Ness. Because, you know, "The Untouchables" was only two or three years of the Eliot Ness story. There's a whole other, much more sinister downside to it. And so that's of interest to me. We want to make it the "Citizen Kane" of cop movies. I also want to make a CG animated movie. And I've been talking about doing a remake of a movie I really liked in the '70s, "The Reincarnation of Peter Proud." Ever see that? And there's a World War II movie that Robert Towne is writing that I really love. All kinds of stuff.

Loder: How did you become involved with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"?

Fincher: I read a script many, many years ago. It's a really beautiful story, but I didn't feel that it was makeable in that incarnation. I told Brad [Pitt] about it years ago, and then it was being offered to him, but they didn't have a director, so they brought it to me, then I worked on it for about four years, and now it's finally at a place where the studio wanted to throw the kind of money that it would take to execute it. So here we are in New Orleans, making it.

Loder: Is there any kind of movie that you've always wanted to do that you haven't done yet? Is there a musical in your future?

Fincher: I'd love to do a musical! I really would. I wanted to do "Evita"! I really did. I thought it was a nasty musical — I liked that about it. It's sort of perverse.

Loder: Singing totalitarians.

Fincher: Exactly. The thing I loved about it is, they understood the corollary between sex and politics, you know? They're almost the same thing.

This was one of my most anticipated movies this year. It doesn't disappoint.

It was somewhat like I thought it would be but yet totally different. As Ghostboy said, it's entirely procedural. It does have a long running time and sometimes you can feel it. But you're loaded with so much information throughout that it's hard to be bored. It's truly a rollercoaster ride.

Amazing movie.

Interview: David Fincher of "Zodiac"
Source: The Oregonian

"What do you think? What are our chances? Do you think anyone will go to a movie that lasts this long and requires this much of its audience?"

Usually it's the journalist who asks the questions during an interview. But these queries come from David Fincher, director of "Seven," "Fight Club," "Panic Room" and, now, "Zodiac." It's a fine new film about the crimes of and hunt for the infamous Bay Area serial killer of the 1970s who called himself by that astrological name in taunting letters to the press and police.

Like other Fincher films, "Zodiac" is full of violence and drama and movie stars (Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo) and exquisite craft. But, also like other Fincher films, it's long and dark and complex and demanding. Although it's likely to satisfy anyone who enjoys Fincher's other films or such dense entertainments as "The Departed" and "The Usual Suspects," an estimated $85 million of studio money is at stake. No wonder Fincher is seeking a little affirmation.

Now in his mid-40s, Fincher spent his childhood in the Bay Area -- where he witnessed the Zodiac era in real time and had George Lucas as a neighbor -- and his high school years in Ashland. He spoke to The Oregonian recently from his Los Angeles office.

"Zodiac" is a story about real people who were brutally murdered or wounded and who are either still around or still have families alive. Do you feel an obligation to the survivors and relatives?

Yes. You know, we could've made this movie without ever having interviewed anybody, and we didn't want to do that. We wanted to get the real story, and we wanted them to know that we didn't just want to depict their anonymous suffering as "Victim No. 4." We wanted to know what really happened and the fallout from it. I feel a responsibility to that. When you're portraying people's real lives, you owe them the responsibility and dignity of telling them what you're gonna do and then sticking to that. My reputation aside, I really don't set out to offend anybody. And especially not people who've suffered.

The film is built around this trio of people trying to solve the crime (reporter Paul Avery, detective David Toschi and cartoonist and independent investigator Robert Graysmith). Do you feel particularly close to any one of them in personality or attitude?

I feel about the same for all of them. They're sort of all pieces of who I am. Avery, the pro, says things like, 'This guy killed only five people; more people die every year in the East Bay commute.' He's the tortured realist; he'd love to get involved and get broken up about stuff, but he doesn't. And then Toschi, who thinks you have to let things go. Graysmith is the compulsive part of my personality.

Internet sites that follow film production have suggested that this film might have been out sooner, maybe in time for Oscar consideration. Was there a lot of delay in finishing?

Well, making movies is hard. It takes a long time. And we reshot a lot of stuff, and some of it's better and some of it's not. We had to play around with it and do some test screenings, with the intent of assuaging everyone's fears. And we didn't. So then you go through that whole rigmarole of, "Let's all see what the movie actually is." And we did that for six months, and it got to the shape that it has now. We reached a concession point. I wasn't gonna make it any shorter, and they weren't going to let me make it any longer. So it's where it should be.

What sort of things did you lose that you wish you had saved?

There was some stuff in the original cut that I would have loved to have seen in the final cut, but they just wouldn't sit still for it. There was an entire scene where the cops run down some district attorney with their case against Arthur Leigh Allen (a suspect). And I just love it because it's so "Charlie's Angels": just three guys talking into a speakerphone. But the audience was, "You're kidding, right? Five minutes of guys talking into a speakerphone?" Well, the audience spoke, and the audience said no.

You took great pains to achieve a period look for the film, it seems to me. What portion of your attention do you reckon you put into things like decor and props and wardrobe?

Probably far too much! I hope it's the right amount. It starts early on. We would always try to find anything that was real. Reality is good enough for me, and that's what we did. "What would the outside of this character's house look like?" Well, we got some pictures and we knew. Between the truth and something that was beautiful, we opted to go with the truth.

Our other mantra was, "Let's make sure that we don't do pastiche." It's one thing to do an homage, but I didn't want to make a movie about sideburns. I wanted it to be a movie about people, and I wanted it to be about the '70s in San Francisco that I knew growing up. So when in doubt, I would reference old photos and go, like, "Yeah, that's about how many Volkswagen Bugs you'd see on the street, so that's what we'll do."

When you did that visual research, did you find that the period differed from your impressions from your childhood?

It was pretty much as I remembered it. The one thing that changed was my understanding of the Zodiac case, which was based on a 7-year-old's memory. As a kid, I always thought Zodiac's body count was much higher and that there was this huge manhunt to find this guy. It turns out it was two guys with these rotary phones and Bic pens. Even when they were telling us on television that they were going through computer files comparing fingerprints, the reality was that the technology didn't exist in any truly useful format until later. The '70s was a little bit of a technological backwater. They didn't have fax machines. And we wanted to talk about that -- not to harp on it but to remind people that those times were more primitive.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 03, 2007, 12:40:49 AM
But the audience was, "You're kidding, right? Five minutes of guys talking into a speakerphone?" Well, the audience spoke, and the audience said no.

the audience needs to shut the hell up.

i enjoyed this very much.

then again, i can sit and watch several episodes of shows like Cold Case Files, etc on tv.

Downey impressed me. the name is always floating around in reference to his troubles, but i guess i really haven't seen many films with him in them.

did anyone else leave the theater kinda checking out other people and cars suspiciously?

Fuckin' astonishing.

Fincher can go either way with his completely computer generated shots. I dug Panic Room, but some of those shots left me cold and indifferent.

Then here... it was like all the love George Lucas claims to have for digital effects actually put into effect. Fincher's love for making the movie was contagious. I loved watching this movie.

You know what I didn't love though? The four young, black girls that sat behind me.

I mean, God Bless 'em for seeing Zodiac...but I didn't need to hear:

in relation to one of the victims pleas: "That dude is a faggot"

in relation to Robert Greysmith's car: "Fuckin' small ass car. Whaaaat?"

in relation to another victim: "Fuck him up."

in relation to Paul Avery: "smokin' a blunt like a pimp."

in relation to the location: "This shit is in San Francisco?" Keep in mind, the Golden Gate Bridge is featured prominently on the poster and, oh yeah, we're seeing this film in a theater....in San Francisco.

in relation to the ending: "They don't even gonna catch that motherfucker?" followed by, "That is a hella stupid ending."

I shit you not. I imagine this belongs in the "worst theatrical experiences" conversation. Sorry. It's more of a tangent because, see, regardless of their comments....that movie was fucking phenominal in every way.

Quote from: john on March 03, 2007, 01:28:19 AM
Fincher can go either way with his completely computer generated shots. I dug Panic Room, but some of those shots left me cold and indifferent.

yeah, those shot took me out of Fight Club and Panic Room.

i liked the long shot at the beginning through the car door - all the fireworks, people in the background.

Ah delicious.

Hopefully this film can be taken as a good sign for things to come this year, especially since it was better than the Best Picture nominees from last year.

Quote from: matt35mm on March 03, 2007, 09:53:34 PM
Hopefully this film can be taken as a good sign for things to come this year, especially since it was better than the Best Picture nominees from last year.

That's what I was thinking; if this movie had been released in December, it would have gotten seven or eight Oscar nominations.  As it is, here in March, who knows if it'll still be remembered by enough people at the end of this year.

Dear Editor,

This is the Zodiac speaking. I just watched David Fincher's interpretation of my entire killing spree. And I have to commend him on his accomplishment. He found the perfect tone and pace; never letting the story lag for one second (which is to say the editing was superb) and keeping the focus entirely on me (as it should) and what I did to the victims and the men trying to solve the murders because when you get down to it, the film is all talking (about me, mind you). So to turn this story into a crime-drama version of All The President's Men is an incredible act of story/filmmaking. The film is like an expansion of his masterpiece, Se7en, but going even deeper into the investigation of a serial killer and how the detectives and newspapermen become so obsessed with finding out who I am. Everything clicked into place to bring that sense of time alive, even right from the start with the use of the old Paramount and WB logos. And I will never listen to Hurdy Gurdy Man the same way again. All I can tell you is, I saw it once, and I will see it again!


Sincerely,

Zodiac

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F762%2F762243%2Fzodiac-20070207025351670-000.jpg&hash=d5bb171f598d7733748801708e2cb98cc04f7324)

I knew it was you...
Since there was a mention of the Zodiac being a film buff, I had Xixax in mind and specifically Mac.

I saw it again tonight and it was even better! It was like seeing it again for the first time, because there was so much new information I picked up on.

Quote from: john on March 03, 2007, 01:28:19 AM
Fuckin' astonishing.

Fincher can go either way with his completely computer generated shots. I dug Panic Room, but some of those shots left me cold and indifferent.

Then here... it was like all the love George Lucas claims to have for digital effects actually put into effect. Fincher's love for making the movie was contagious. I loved watching this movie.

You know what I didn't love though? The four young, black girls that sat behind me.

I mean, God Bless 'em for seeing Zodiac...but I didn't need to hear:

in relation to one of the victims pleas: "That dude is a faggot"

in relation to Robert Greysmith's car: "Fuckin' small ass car. Whaaaat?"

in relation to another victim: "Fuck him up."

in relation to Paul Avery: "smokin' a blunt like a pimp."

in relation to the location: "This shit is in San Francisco?" Keep in mind, the Golden Gate Bridge is featured prominently on the poster and, oh yeah, we're seeing this film in a theater....in San Francisco.

in relation to the ending: "They don't even gonna catch that motherfucker?" followed by, "That is a hella stupid ending."

I shit you not. I imagine this belongs in the "worst theatrical experiences" conversation. Sorry. It's more of a tangent because, see, regardless of their comments....that movie was fucking phenominal in every way.

I beat you, I wish I didn't, but I did.  In my theater, when they first went into whatever the facility to visit Lee, people in the back started shouting something about sitting down, and then the threats grew louder.  At the beginning, all of us thought it was some kinda real good THX work, but it went on and then I saw a fat white kid walking out, I'd seen him earlier at the bathroom and I remembered his giant manbreasts.  Then a minute later, four or five kids were laughing and all walking after him.  Though the guy might've just left to tell the security guard, while the five ensuing kids were actually four ensuing kids and one kid running, I dunno, but then those kids made about four more subsequently less distracting runs up and down the aisle.  But yeah, good thing the movie was long so a smaller percentage of the film was ruined.  Oh, and the first half of the movie consisted of the entire theater chitchatting everytime another Bay Area location was named.  Similar thing happened when I saw The Departed in Boston.  I think I saw someone pumping his fist in the air during one of the magnificent establishing shots.

As for enjoyment of the movie, you beat me, I wish I could like it more, but as likable as all the actors were, I just really didn't care that much.  The filmmaking was grand, the acting was superb, I had a good time just sitting and watching, but couldn't really invest much into it.  I reckon I'll have a better explanation for why I felt the way I felt in a few days, but here it is for now.

Quote from: Lucid on March 05, 2007, 12:13:50 AMThe drive home was pretty spooky.

hahah, my walk home was pretty spooky too.

i didn't want this to end, it was so freakin' awesome. definitely fincher's most mature film by far. and scary! a couple of those scenes (specially the one towards the end, you know which one) made my toes curl. there were a couple parts i didn't quite understand so i def want to see this sucker again.

Quote from: pete on March 05, 2007, 02:55:14 AM

I beat you, I wish I didn't, but I did.  In my theater, when they first went into whatever the facility to visit Lee, people in the back started shouting something about sitting down, and then the threats grew louder.  At the beginning, all of us thought it was some kinda real good THX work, but it went on and then I saw a fat white kid walking out, I'd seen him earlier at the bathroom and I remembered his giant manbreasts.  Then a minute later, four or five kids were laughing and all walking after him.  Though the guy might've just left to tell the security guard, while the five ensuing kids were actually four ensuing kids and one kid running, I dunno, but then those kids made about four more subsequently less distracting runs up and down the aisle.  But yeah, good thing the movie was long so a smaller percentage of the film was ruined.  Oh, and the first half of the movie consisted of the entire theater chitchatting everytime another Bay Area location was named.  Similar thing happened when I saw The Departed in Boston.  I think I saw someone pumping his fist in the air during one of the magnificent establishing shots.

As for enjoyment of the movie, you beat me, I wish I could like it more, but as likable as all the actors were, I just really didn't care that much.  The filmmaking was grand, the acting was superb, I had a good time just sitting and watching, but couldn't really invest much into it.  I reckon I'll have a better explanation for why I felt the way I felt in a few days, but here it is for now.

Yeah, that's why I get such a conflicted feeling when I'm in an empty theater. I'm a bit giddy because the chances of someone fucking up my experience of the film is slim...but, at the same time, I WANT a crowded house for a new Fincher film....even if the possibility of the audience being assholes is much higher. I just want them to shut the fuck up.

I really hope you expand on why you didn't care for this film. I did, and so did a lot of other people on the board... so I'm more intrigued about contrary opinions on this film rather than unanimous praise.

I kind of thought I was bored by it, but that's because I kept waiting to be.  It far surpassed All the President's Man, a movie about an event and a search for the truth that doesn't cover nearly the same range of emotional ground, that doesn't cover nearly the amount of frustrations, or enter into the nature of the search through the structure of the narrative.  What about that narrative by the way, that somehow snuck in at least two major characters with separate if overlapping periods of obsession, and a large number of small characters that made punctuated entrances.  I'd call it immersing, and I've been stuck in it since I saw it.  The opening shot, the car crawling down the neighborhood street, that's how this movie is moving through my memory.

Fincher vs. the Zodiac Killer
David Fincher stunned us with Seven and Fight Club. Can he do it again with his take on the Zodiac killer?
Source: Premiere Magazine

In a gloomy third-floor study tucked away in a classic New Orleans mansion, oblivious to the rain that's lashing the windows, David Fincher is editing his sixth film, Zodiac. It's the story of the serial murders that plagued the Bay Area — and in particular, two San Francisco Chronicle journalists and a pair of cops — during the late '60s and early '70s.

Glimmering on his laptop is a scene featuring inspectors Dave Toschi and Bill Armstrong, played by Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards, pleading for a search warrant, and Fincher pretty well knows it's headed for the director's cut on DVD.

He's trying to trim another five minutes from the film, which when he awoke this morning was clocking in at two hours and 38 minutes, and his deadline to decide what to cut is near. Meanwhile, some 20 feet away on the other side of the door is a cast and crew of more than 100 people, who, once the lighting is reset, will be waiting on Fincher's legendarily explicit instructions as they shoot a feature adaptation of an 85-year-old short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald called The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

When Fincher looks up, however — his watchful eyes widened like those of his kindred nocturnal creature, the owl — his question is unexpectedly general and ruminative: "Do you think people are gonna come see our movie?" He seems to actually want an answer. And the query is a bit of a stumper.

"It would be nice," the 44-year-old director had said a bit earlier, "to make a movie that everybody just goes, hands down, 'Thank you for making this movie.' I don't see that happening. It's not been my experience." Although his dark and disturbing films have won Fincher a loyal cult following, he has crossed into $100 million territory with only one, the 1995 serial-killer thriller Seven. And it's been five years since Panic Room arrived to respectable box office and mixed reviews — his reward for slogging through what he calls a drag. "I like those actors so much, but I probably squeezed a lot of the juice out of it. I was trying to make something super-taut and efficient. The thing that was so great about [Sam Peckinpah's] Straw Dogs was the juice." Since then, he has flirted with a few projects (including Lords of Dogtown) but worked mostly on lucrative if largely anonymous advertising shoots. "I think he took some time off," says Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith in Zodiac, "to look for things that he felt like he was moved by and that were authentic to him."

Now, with the $70 million Zodiac slated for a March 2 release and the Cate Blanchett-Brad Pitt-starring Benjamin Button in production, Fincher is in the midst of what's starting to look like a second act to his career. The former music-video director (Madonna's "Express Yourself" and "Vogue," among others) had a rocky beginning in Hollywood, when he took on Alien 3 as his feature debut and ran up against the daunting legacies of Ridley Scott and James Cameron, but he hit big with Seven. His follow-up, The Game — in which Michael Douglas suffers a series of misadventures that may or may not be real — was considered murky and self-indulgent; it earned about half of Seven's take and Fincher took a similar cut in adulation. Two years later, he reteamed with his Seven star Pitt for Fight Club, which, though it earned even less than The Game, attracted a rabid fan base on home video. Fincher recalls Fight Club's painful bellyflop at the Venice film festival: "I remember being introduced to the crowd and [thinking], I don't know if this is the audience for this movie... And then this gaggle of women coming out afterwards dressed in their Venetian finery. They saw me and gave me this withering look of disapproval, which — because of the way I was raised — is kind of water off the back of a duck."

Which brings us back to the implications of the question Fincher asked in that New Orleans study: What if he follows Panic Room after all this time with another film that the crowds don't buy? The director shrugs. "You can't really worry about it," he says. "That's like saying you worry about your children and who they're hanging out with and how they spend their time. But ultimately you've made as much of an imprint as you can. You let the thing go out there, and it has its own life." Fincher's involvement with the Zodiac murders goes all the way back to his own childhood. Though he was born in Denver and went to high school in Ashland, Oregon, he spent much of his childhood in Marin County's San Anselmo, easy driving distance from the territory the killer so savagely worked. He knew the real fear that set in after the killer's threat to target a school bus full of kids. "Hired guards were following [us] to school," he says. "It was a big deal. San Francisco views itself as a sort of glittering jewel, a cosmopolitan little city. And then a guy who looks like a disgruntled postal worker with military boots writes some nasty letters and gets inside everybody's imagination and turns the whole thing upside down, two years after the summer of love. A guy with a crew cut and horn-rimmed glasses, wearing a windbreaker. You know, the FedEx man is bumming our trip."

Authorities blame the Zodiac, as he was called for short, for numerous attacks that left five dead (although the killer publicly claimed 37 victims). Fincher's film opens with the second incident, the July 4, 1969, attack on Darlene Ferrin (who was killed) and Mike Mageau (who survived) at a lovers' lane by the Blue Rock Springs golf course in Vallejo. When the assailant's clumsily written letter arrived at the Chronicle on August 1, Graysmith was intrigued; he nosed his way into the quest for answers begun by reporter Paul Avery (played by Robert Downey Jr.), churning up his own leads and pushing for clues (as well as supplying some) from cops in the four jurisdictions touched by the murders. As Avery burned out from work stress and drug use, Graysmith — a onetime Eagle Scout who had a feverish need to get to the bottom of the case — compiled the data that led to his 1986 book, Zodiac, and its follow-up, Zodiac Unmasked. These books formed the basis for the script by James Vanderbilt (The Rundown).

In late 2003 Fincher was handed the screenplay, then 158 pages — and headed for almost 200, as the director, Vanderbilt, and producer Brad Fischer opened their own investigation into the stone-cold case. "We made multiple trips to the Bay Area," says Fischer. "We met with witnesses, family members of suspects, retired and current investigators, the mayors of San Francisco and Vallejo. David was completely involved with that process — really, leading it."

The film became a tale of investigation and obsession. "The question is," Fincher says, "when you're that far down the well, what will satisfy you? I can see how the Graysmiths of the world go, 'I don't want to sacrifice my family to do this but just let me... just give me two more weeks, and then, just give me another week after that, and then tomorrow — I'm this close!'" The mind-set was familiar, he adds. "I just drew from my own personal experiences. A lot of creative and driven and obsessive or compulsive artistic friends. My father was that way — he had projects outside of what he did [as a journalist for Life magazine] that became the focus for him. So I've seen that happen and it's hard on families, when a male authority figure kind of goes AWOL to explore this [obsession]. But it's weird — our society is sort of set up for that, 'cause most heroic characters start out misunderstood."

During his 18 months of research, Fincher kept his eye on Gyllenhaal for the Graysmith role.

"I really liked him in Donnie Darko," he says, "and I thought, He's an interesting double-sided coin. He can do that naive thing but he can also do possessed."

Gyllenhaal knew he was in for an arduous shoot ("He entered into an insane crucible," says Downey), as the central character in a production that would sprawl across some 112 shooting days — notoriously long days that the famously meticulous Fincher makes extra-long with painstaking tweaks and many, many takes. "There are two very difficult dreams that you learn a lot from as an actor," Gyllenhaal says. "One is a Shakespeare and the other is a David Fincher. Someone said to me, 'He paints with people.' The word 'perfectionist' is oversimplifying it."

"We promise you that in the course of filming Zodiac no animals were hurt," Downey says with a laugh. "That's where the humane behavior ended. No ego was left untarnished. We're doing a scene and I realized after we'd done it about 40 times, I was tied to the mast. Dave's like, 'Everything that Downey has just spent the last six hours doing? Let's delete that, go to lunch, and start over.' But that's the shit, dude. It's — Fincher."

Downey also recalls how Fincher would point out Edwards's acting chops: "'Watch this consummate professional. Every time he adds variety to it, but every time he hits his mark.' It basically came down to this ballet dance of who's the most technically proficient motherfucker on earth today."

Fincher admits that there was a delicate balance between the sparks Downey brought to the film and the demands of the story itself. "Look, Robert is brilliant, he's a genius," he says. "And I'm all for taking a certain amount of time to explore other... But there are limits to where improvisation can help a taut thriller. In certain cases, things have to be said. If there's going to be a payoff, then the legwork has to be done. I like to think that I gave Robert a lot of room." As for Fincher's reputation as a detail fanatic, "I think perfectionism has gotten a bad rap," the director says. "It's so often considered a derogatory thing. It's probably different to somebody whose name is on the movie."

Fincher's meticulousness came down to ensuring that Gyllenhaal had the felt-tip pen favored by Graysmith in his pocket, and that Ruffalo, in deference to Inspector Toschi's bleeding ulcer, would discard the tomato from a sandwich. He was similarly focused on searching out, with music supervisor George Drakoulias, the right pop songs to reflect the era. Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" is used both for its almost ominous, breathy theatricality and for the grinding instrumental break that punctuates an early, terrifying moment. As for Three Dog Night's cover of "Easy to be Hard" (from the musical Hair!), "it's so ingrained in my psyche as being what the summer of '69 sounded like in northern California," says Fincher. "When you smell the eucalyptus and the sun stays out till 8:40 at night and you're playing basketball with your friends till after dinner. And chlorine and completely being unmonitored. I heard it and I was transported."

The director makes a final tap on his keyboard; perhaps it's the valediction for the warrant scene he had marked as a possible cut, a scene that summarizes information that will later be summarized again by Gyllenhaal. "It's incumbent on the movie to cover the same ground twice, which is a hard thing for an audience to sit through," he says. "You have to have an initial idea of what's going on and then be given more detailed information and then finally it has to build to a place where you can go, 'Wow, fuck, maybe that's it.' I couldn't tell you where the three act breaks in Zodiac are. And I don't know how much I care."

Overall, says Downey, "this wasn't just 'a Fincher movie.' This was very personal to him. I guess the only thing I can really compare it to is doing Natural Born Killers with Oliver Stone, because Oliver felt he really had something to say about the state of the American psyche and the media. But I think more than that, it was a bit of a curve ball for [Fincher] to throw his fans because it's not Seven and it's not Fight Club. It's a very straightforward, chilling, and humanely paced character study of these guys."
"There's a lot of talk in [Zodiac] about how investigations proceed," Fincher says with a kind of resignation. "That stuff's interesting to me. And that's a tricky thing. They had a screening for international [Paramount is releasing the film domestically, Warner Bros. overseas]; apparently the word was, 'Well, this isn't Seven.' And you go, 'Huh. No, it's not.' It's a serial killer movie in a different way."

He seems reconciled to whatever fate awaits in the marketplace. But, not unlike his protagonists — who are "resolute in their belief that they found their man," even though the crimes were never officially solved — he wants his efforts to be understood for what they mean in a larger sense. "Ultimately the movie isn't about knowing. It's about belief," he says. "Really, the drama is about people who won't let go."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zodiac
by Larry Gross

Zodiac is an important postmodern work. It's an authentically "new" and even experimental thing attempting, to quote from Susan Sontag's essay Against Interpretation, to put content in its place. It's very very much a film constructed on a 21st century conception of information as a non-substantive, purely relational digital phenomenon, and the fact that it was shot on video and exists immaterially as digital information is thus not a merely decorative issue but crucial to its meaning.

In the seventies conceptual artists referred almost apocalyptically, to the dematerialization of the work of art. Zodiac is one of the first mainstream movies (The Matrix would be another, JFK from an entirely different direction, another) moving to embrace some of that aspiration.

Zodiac stands to Se7en very much the way Inland Empire stands to Mulholland Drive. It's auto-critique. It takes an artist's admirable if relatively conventional accomplishment and smashes it deliberately into several oddly shaped but ultimately connected pieces.

The most important disturbing, disconcerting aspect of the film is that, despite competent dialogue, and an excellent cast, it is not character centered, but structure and theme centred
...the major theme is representation itself.

How do you represent representation? Fincher does it by telling the story of someone who resists representation, someone who is unknowable, someone about whom there is only a history of not-knowing.

As the two recent major works by Van Sant also photographed by Harris Savides, (A coincidence? I think not.), Last Days and Elephant, demonstrate, when you work with the limits of representation, you seem invariably to be engaged with Death. Death is the real world or thematic term for the problem of representation.

Zodiac is more an elaborate anthology of episodes than a story. In the course of it the problematic of this strange "extraordinary" killer, turns out to be that like Death itself, the more you scrutinize him, the more he merges with the ordinary.

Death is the most extreme thing in life, yet it happens to everybody, everywhere, all the time. In a crucial line of information Downey reminds Gyllenhaal and us that more people die in random traffic accidents than at the hands of mythic devils like Zodiac. But revealing the banality of evil in the Zodiac himself, is far from the main point of the film, only one of its juicy incidental thematic by products.

The great triumphant device strategy is the ordinariness of everything about it, from editing and lighting patterns to down everyone in it, bit players to leads. Gyllenhaal, Downey, Ruffalo and Edwards are directed so that they are just above the water line as "leads". In fact they are as close to being background characters like Elias Koteas, Philp Baker Hall, Donal Logue and Dermot Mulroney as they can be without disappearing into that background. And if you hadn't noticed that this was the case, Fincher points patiently in the background to the conventional moveistar versions, of those characters who stand out beyond their situations in (classic) movies like Bullitt and Dirty Harry.

At the moment of every dramatic "heightened" moment Fincher subtly and expertly slides by any conclusive revelation of character or defining content. There are four fascinating examples of this; Ruffalo's confrontation with Downey over procedure, the three police detectives interrogation of their most likely suspect, Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo piecing together a network of data old and new into a convincing narrative, and finally, Gyllenhaal facing the guy he thinks is the killer.

Depriving these 'big" moments of their conventional dramatic explosiveness is risky but central to Fincher's project: Partly he wants in a very clear and simple way to prepare the audience for the dissatisfaction of not literally catching the bad guy but what is also going on here is a careful mimicking of conventional thriller tropes, in a processs that patiently and exhaustively empties them of all there regular power to console or edify,

Thus if the Zodiac unknowable, that is only because he is an emblem of the entirety of the universe. What is masterful about Zodiac is that every aspect of its structure plays back upon its central disturbing theme. "Knowing" the tiniest thing in the world, precisely, is depicted over and over and in each and every fresh instance, and character perspetive until the very end, as fragmentary, incomplete, frustrated, frustrating.

What is fascinating and so perplexingly compelling about the last three or four scenes in the film is that cognitively we are given a solution, but it is now empty of affect, reversing and upending all conventional narrative results. The Graysmith character, a cartoonist, works through with the cop played by Ruffalo, a kind of schematic of all the events we have seen over and over, handled, mishandled, misinterpreted,, knowledge has become pure form, stretched out precariously as an abstract "story" across the abyss of the lives that have been swallowed up in the failure to become its content. The haunting final scene exquisitely utilizing characters we barely know and can identify, "completes" the abstract search for truth. An i.d. is judged eight on a scale of ten, ten being positive. It and the subsequent crawl gives us everything and nothing.

In any event, Zodiac is far more about our present and future than about our past.

I agree with a number of people who are already descrbing this as a film of/about the information age we're living in now. It is in no way a meaningful "statement" about the late sixties seventies, except in so far as it reminds us that millions of people went through that period leading utterly humdrum non-revolutionary non-counter cultural lives, not particularly pschedelic lives. The Zodiac is a purely timeless monster, and hence utterly askew to, if not satiric of, the period's self-consciousness about itself as historic. Much in the manner of Kubrick's forays into "period," it uses the past as a theatre on which to get out our current and future anxieties and fears, into clearer simpler more mythic focus.

Just for the record, I doubt David Fincher personally knows from or much cares about Conceptual Art or avant guard rhetoric about the Dematerialization of the artwork. He has said he was intent on telling a good story as cleanly and simply as he knew how and I see no reason not to take him at his word. There are certain ways in which the film nearly/almost works at that immediate non-reflective level, though its failures there are conspicuous too-and too obvious I would say not to be (artistically) deliberate. Just a good story told directly? And I'm sure Hitchcock was content to be labeled the 'master of suspense.' He WAS that, but he was the critic of all that at the same time.

Even when he's a nice and sincere guy, never trust the teller, trust the tale.

Larry Gross is a 25 year screenwriting veteran and Winner of Sundance's Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award for his most recent release, We Don't Live Here Anymore.

I'm torn on this movie, but in a good way.  I can't decide if I feel it is a 4 star film or a 5 star.  As of last night, I was thinking 4 stars because it is a bit long at 2hrs 40minutes and lacks a satisfying conclusion.  After a night to sleep on it, I've changed to 5 because I cannot think of anything that could have been cut or scenes that dragged.  It was then that I realized that the film's major flaw isn't really anyone's fault.  The performances and direction are great and as I said before, the script is very tight even with the long running time.  The problem lies in the source since the case itself doesn't have a satisfying payoff.  I just look at Zodiac as an incredibly challenging project, and considering all of that, the result is a film that probably couldn't be any better.

I noticed a lot of you mentioned All the Presidents Men, and I would agree but throughout the movie I was thinking of a different 70s film, The Conversation.  Zodiac is kind of like The Conversation x 4, with the Zodiac obsessed with murder, and the other 3 main characters obsessed with the Zodiac and the different avenues they pursue him with.

Quote from: SHAFTR on March 07, 2007, 11:07:56 AM
The problem lies in the source since the case itself doesn't have a satisfying payoff.  I just look at Zodiac as an incredibly challenging project, and considering all of that, the result is a film that probably couldn't be any better.

I think that this is part of what makes it better source material than most, and a better film.  The lure, the continuing obsession... some people have said that the movie keeps going in their mind, which I don't feel would be the case if the killer was caught, convicted, and put in jail or executed.  The last few scenes are haunting and evocative, and I have the feeling that repeat viewings are going to be far stronger than they would be if they had caught the murderer.

After all, why is the idea of the Zodiac killer still so interesting to us today?  Or Jack the Ripper?  In these cases, there still remains enough fuel to fire up an obsession, or keep an old obsession going, and it also forces us to confront our limitations, in seeking justice and, I think, in a deeper sense as well.

And so Zodiac plays as more than just a serial killer movie, with much richer philosophical subtext than would have been possible if there was any real conclusion at all, and makes a very real connection to the present day instead of just playing as a contained period piece.

That, and also because of the tight screenplay, direction, and great performances that you've mentioned, is why Zodiac is really a very strong film, and better than The Departed...

SPOILERS FOR THE DEPARTED

When everybody just dies by the end of The Departed, there's just nothing more to talk or think about.  Nothing is left continuing, and as far as I could see, there was no deeper philosophy than simply: if you fuck around in the cops and mob crew then you're gonna die.  I liked the film as I was watching it, but really, it went no further than the last frame of the film.  That's fine, and it was a decent romp, but all I'm saying is that Zodiac is a richer, deeper film, which justified its 2 hours and 40 minutes, and didn't have a nearly entirely pointless female character.

And also it looked too CG when DiCaprio and Damon were shot in the head.

Quote from: SHAFTR on March 07, 2007, 11:07:56 AMThe problem lies in the source since the case itself doesn't have a satisfying payoff.

*SPOILERS*

But at that point the film becomes more about Graysmith's obsession to find out who Zodiac is. The payoff for him is finally putting all the pieces together at the diner and then, as he said he wanted to do, look into the eyes of the killer and know that it is him. And he got his chance to do just that at the hardware store. That's the film's conclusion, knowing the identity; not the catching of the killer.

I dunno, it was a very nice film to look at, a lot of great filmmaking and performances went into this.  but I just didn't feel it.  I liked how they de-bunked the myths of the killer, how he started out all ominous and then turned out to be a lot less powerful than he pretended to be, that was cool, but then what?  I watched the film because it was watchable, but nothing about it particularly moved me or stayed with me.  in that sense it was exactly like The Departed.  I was never fully convinced why I oughta care about the guy's obsession aside from it'd be kinda a waste if he gave it up then.  there were all these scenes that had little to do with each other--scene in the projectionist's home being the best. 

spoiler

it's a movie that looked and sounded like a period piece, like it was about to say something about the times, which it never did.  in the end it was just another true crime, with apparently some kinda payoff just because the dude stood there and looked at the other dude, just as he promised earlier in the script.  So what? 
I've been obsessed with David Simon (of The Wire fame) and Werner Herzog lately, so I'll first recommend y'all David Simon's book "Homicide: A Year in the Killing Streets" which goes way more intensely into the psychology and mechanics behind a homicide than any movie could afford.  Then, Herzog's always been a big fan of this "Facts vs. truth" battle, in which he laughed at people obsessed with facts, because facts, as he loves to state, "contain only the superficial truths."

I recently saw this again. All the cuts that david made from the 3 hour cut I saw last year were the right ones. I am glad with the finished film and none of the scenes dragged or were there just to be there. Man, can wait to see what they do for the DVD.

i hope they have a feature length extra of Fincher and his research and all the real life people they interviewed, etc.


*spoiler*



one thing that sticks out in my mind - in the first murder of the couple in the car, isn't the male still alive when the cop arrives? the cop just looks at him and does nothing. why is he not trying to stop blood with a towel or something? did this victim live? the one that picks the man out of the lineup towards the end is the man from the couple by the lake, right?

Minkus!

Quote from: Lucid on March 07, 2007, 09:38:26 PM
*SPOILERS*

No, the male that was shot in the car, Mike Mageau, survived the attack.  He's the one who picks out Leigh from the lineup at the end.

ok. what about the pond male then? he lived, too, i thought.

thinking on the first murder later, they show the female definitely knowing the killer when he first pulls up behind them. if her actions in the car that are in the film are confirmed by Mike in real life, then that would seem that the guy who came to her party was no doubt the killer then.

Quote from: bigideas on March 07, 2007, 10:02:19 PM
ok. what about the pond male then? he lived, too, i thought.

Yeah, you see him again after the TV broadcast, when he tells the cops that the guy who called in claiming to be Zodiac wasn't the real Zodiac.

International Trailer here. (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbol/uk/movies/zodiac/zodiac_tlrf2_qt_500.mov)

Quote from: polkablues on March 08, 2007, 12:17:58 AM

Quote from: bigideas on March 07, 2007, 10:02:19 PM
ok. what about the pond male then? he lived, too, i thought.

Yeah, you see him again after the TV broadcast, when he tells the cops that the guy who called in claiming to be Zodiac wasn't the real Zodiac.

ok. i think what threw me off is that the older 'minkus' wears glasses, so in my mind i just assumed that was pond guy.

sorry for the lame titles, i can't remember character names. they're not around that long in the film anyway.

I forgot to write about this, I thought the film was great, amazing. In the way that a whodunit or a thriller naturally locks you into an obsession with the ending, this film capitalized on the inherent urge with actually feelings of obsession. I really thought it was just a brilliant film, and perfect for a its running time.

Spoilers:

The only aspect I'm confused about is the man who painted movie posters and took him to his basement. Why was he acting like the killer? Or why are we led to think that? It really confused me when they then went back to Lee as the killer. Was it that other people too were becoming obsessed, manifesting aspects of the case? Was it to exhibit Graysmith's paranoia?

-i liked the soundtrack
-i liked anthony edwards, ruffalo, downey
-i liked the cinematography
-i liked the production design and props...i've never seen the 70's captured so meticulous in a non-70's made film

-i liked the inner city blues montage...it was a different way to show the progression of a city via a single time lapsed building shot

-i liked cloe but she was underused...please have more in the 3 hour cut on dvd
-i liked the scary shit w/jake and the crazy guy's basement..very tense
-i liked how this was not that gory but left me more disturbed than any other fincher film
-i liked the almost end scene w/jake finally staring at the zodiac

Quote from: Gamblour consider le fountain on March 08, 2007, 08:30:26 PM

Spoilers:

The only aspect I'm confused about is the man who painted movie posters and took him to his basement. Why was he acting like the killer? Or why are we led to think that? It really confused me when they then went back to Lee as the killer. Was it that other people too were becoming obsessed, manifesting aspects of the case? Was it to exhibit Graysmith's paranoia?

i think it's just a red herring. Fincher does shoot him very eerily though. i like how you see him in the mirror first when Graysmith is trying to leave.

Quote from: Gamblour consider le fountain on March 08, 2007, 08:30:26 PM
Was it to exhibit Graysmith's paranoia?

I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

The thing I love so much about that scene is that, were it a fiction film, that would have been the big twist and the climax of the film, in which Graysmith would have been trapped down in the basement, moments from death, when suddenly a shot rings out, the bad guy falls down, and we see Detective Toschi standing at the bottom of the basement stairs with a wisp of smoke coming out the barrel of his gun.  But it's not a fiction film, and that doesn't happen, and that's awesome.

I love that scene, too. The second time I saw it, I payed attention to Roger Rabbit's performance and noticed that he was playing it as if he knew exactly what was going through Graysmith's mind, and was aware how much he was freaking him (and us) out. When he unlocks the door, he even laughs a little bit,

Sevigny Found 'Zodiac' Book Too Tedious To Read

Chloe Sevigny felt foolish on the set of new thriller Zodiac - because she found the book the movie is based on too boring to read. The actress attempted to read Zodiac Unmasked before shooting began but found it so "tedious" she gave up, only to find that all her cast mates had studied the book about San Francisco's Zodiac Killer, and found it riveting. She explains, "I started reading Zodiac Unmasked before we went into production and I couldn't get through it. I found it slightly tedious. He (author Robert Graysmith) went so in depth into the details and I just wasn't that interested. I was frightened by the scarier bits and the details of the crimes. I did, however, feel slightly embarrassed because all the men on the set knew so much about it and they had all these crazy details from the book."

also saw this last weekend and really liked it, as much as someone who does not himself make films or read books about Zodiac could.  i think the film is definitely frustrating by design.  i don't think you're supposed to watch it once and LOVE IT.  it's not built that way.  it's definitely not a traditional 3 act structure plot based film, and it's not a character based film either.  the snippets of articles and interviews i had read about the film beforehand had prepared me somewhat for what i was getting into but had misled me about certain things.  one was, yes its about the obsession the men had trying to track down the zodiac.  but it was more about the facts of the case.  thats why these characters drifted in and out of the story, we werent really supposed to feel for them.  we didnt get too many scenes of family life falling apart and things that would help us relate to them, instead the story would jump forward to the date of the next event. 

there were more title cards in this film than in any film i have ever seen in my entire life. 

oct 14, 1969, two weeks later, dec 1969, 1 year later, 2 months later, 4 years later.  it was CRAZY.  the movie was SO concerned with the facts, getting them right, that where other films would've molded these events around something that resembled a movie, fincher resists and sticks to the facts.  he uses almost no dramatic license!  the funniest bit of one of the previous interviews was asking him what he had to fudge to make the story work and the ONLY thing he could come up with was having the halloween card arrive at someone elses desk first.  for a movie THIS drenched in specifics, that is damn incredible. 

so i was never bored.  when it ended i couldnt believe it.  the final scene seemed almost designed to infuriate.  why hadnt they ended the story earlier, why did he feel the need to jump forward to the 90s for that little epilogue?  why not include that in the title cards at the end with the rest of the facts?  or why didnt he film a few of those facts and include them?  i'm not sure.  but had the film really been about graysmith or avery or toschi it would've ended with one of them.   but it wasnt.  the acting was great all around, visually incredible, as restrained as fincher was it was still perfect.  and it wasnt anything like Se7en so there was no repeating himself.  i think this is probably one that will age really well though i can't imagine wanting to jump into another viewing anytime soon.  still, really good, probably great.  welcome back fincher.

Quote from: modage on March 10, 2007, 12:24:59 AM
but had the film really been about graysmith or avery or toschi it would've ended with one of them.   but it wasnt.

That's a really good point.  It's almost as though the film didn't have a character or even multiple characters as the protagonist, but rather cast the investigation itself as the protagonist.

Safekeeping a precious commodity: the image
Pictures today often are captured not on film but as digital data, which on a project like 'Zodiac' are handled by an engineer.
Source: Los Angeles Times


R. Wayne Tidwell; Supervising engineer

Credits: David Fincher's "Zodiac," currently working on Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

The data: "The digital equipment we [shot 'Zodiac'] with is relatively new — the Viper camera and the S2 digital recorder from the S.two Corp. Unlike a film camera, the Viper digital camera does not record anything; it is the electronic camera that has the lens and the three chips that make the picture. The S2 records [the images]. There is a dual length cable [attached to the Viper camera]. That is where I get my signal for the data recorders. We had two data recorders on 'Zodiac.' One for A camera and one for B camera, and I had one backup just in case."

Job description: "The job I do is called data capture, and I would be the data capture engineer. I record each take we do. I am responsible for the stock of digital magazines, which is basically our shooting stock. I am responsible for managing the stock with my assistant. I am also monitoring a waveform monitor for each camera image. I am assisting the cameramen by watching the light levels that are entering the lens — more specifically the amount of light hitting the color sensors in the camera.

Review, keep, delete: "In addition to recording the image and monitoring the waveform monitor and managing the stock, I am also doing the playback as a video assist operator would. So as soon as we 'cut,' I am immediately playing back for the director on the monitors the master footage, so he can review each take. Now, we take that a step further. With the S2 data recorder, you have the option to delete unwanted takes from the magazine, thereby recapturing hard drive space.

"One of the more critical functions I perform is deleting unwanted footage while retaining the keeper takes. That took a little getting used to because my background is in many years of normal video assist on feature movies where I am recording the reference material. I don't have a hand in the master footage to any degree. Now I have gone to this position to where I am responsible for the master footage throughout the day and, needless to say, I have to pay more attention than I have in the past."

"Go learn how to do it": "Fincher started doing tests and commercials with the Viper camera roughly four years ago. Fortunately, he called and said, 'I want to try this digital system. This is how I want to shoot, so go learn how to do it.' There was no class. We started with a different data recorder, and it didn't serve David's needs, but I went to the company that reps the data recorder and the engineer taught me how it worked and how to use it. Then David went to the S.two Corp. with the S2 machine, and their engineers taught me. Their representative, Steve Roach, was present with us on just about all the commercials we did leading up to 'Zodiac' — he helped me with questions I needed answers to throughout the commercial shooting."

Background: "I was born and raised in Ventura. And I was in law enforcement for a while. I was a police officer for three years.... I realized I wasn't going to make a career of that. My mother said, 'Why don't you look into the film business? It's California. Everybody makes movies.' So we started looking into it, and I eventually got into the sound union and got into video assist."

Working with Fincher: "He makes everybody better. The sound mixer on this show called me before we started working and he said, 'Do you have any advice?' I said the best advice I can give is you do your job thoroughly, do it quickly and if you have a problem, be honest. That is it in a nutshell. He expects 100% from everybody, but he's very loyal and likes to take the same people from show to show."

INTERVIEW: ROBERT GRAYSMITH (ZODIAC)
Source: CHUD

Sometime when I do a press day or a junket I get interviews that I know cannot be appreciated until after the movie is out. Occasionally these just never make it on to the site while other times they run before the movie's release as part of the standard week-before hype up. With Robert Graysmith I decided to do something different. The author of Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked and the person who Jake Gyllenhaal is playing in David Fincher's masterpiece Zodiac, Graysmith is a guy who lives and breathes the infamous murder case. His interview was made up mostly of case-specific talk, the kind of stuff that would be meaningless until people saw the film. Judging by the box office, not enough of you have (seriously, it's so fucking good), but for the people who did see the movie, I present Graysmith.

He walked into the room at the Regency Hotel on Park Place in Manhattan warning the assembled journalists that he had a tendency to talk long and go off on tangents. He wasn't kidding. I tried to clean up some of what he said for clarity, but much of it I left as Graysmith spoke it, often seeming like stream of consciousness, like these facts are never very far from the top of his thoughts.

Can you talk about Jake Gyllenhaal's portrayal of you? Did you have to walk him through your mannerisms and personality?

I don't think you have to walk Jake very many places. I was just talking to Mark Ruffalo in the hallway. One of my best friends is Dave Toschi, and that's one of the benefits of this, he really calls himself my best friend. We go and have lemon meringue pie and French fries over at the Copper Penny in San Francisco. We talk about the case maybe once a week. Mark Ruffalo came back as Toschi – he had the Toschi hair, he talked like Toschi. Where as Jake, he just watched me, we talked about Jarhead, I looked at his cell phone, which was all beat up. So we make this movie, and I never tell a person on this Earth that when I was living in Japan I was in the Boy Scouts... and by God, he got it! I don't know how he knew. And he got the deferential thing and the obsessive thing – apparently I was very obsessed with this case. I did not know this until I saw Jake's performance!

Of course, the other portrayal [was by] Robert Downey Jr. We have the meanest, nastiest bunch of editors at the Chronicle. They are so cynical. They hated Star Wars. That's George Lucas' morning paper! Just to be mean to him, I think. Anyway, I thought they'd hate this movie and they said, "We knew Paul Avery for decades and Robert Downey Jr. has nailed it. He is Paul Avery." So I didn't see that coming because they're both different physically. So they are the three leads and they all did great jobs.

How long did you spend working with David Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt?

Three years. I found them. I wrote seven true crime books and had two movies. At the premiere of my Auto Focus movie, I met [producer] Brad Fischer and James Vanderbilt, who wrote the script. I really liked him. Zodiac Unmasked ended in present time with finding the witness, the boy who was shot in the beginning, and as you saw he finally got to see the suspects and he didn't hesitate – he pointed right at Arthur Leigh Allen. Right then my phone starts ringing; I had Goldie Hawn, I had CAA, I had a lot of really good people, including I think Michael Mann, who loved James' script. But since I knew Brad and James, I chose them. They wanted David Fincher, and David Fincher had only one person in mind – that was Jake Gyllenhaal.

I couldn't have asked for anything more. David Fincher had done Seven and he got it out of his system; this is a newspaper film. He said it would be the serial killer to end them, because he finds them rather pornographic, really. He's one of the brightest guys I've ever met. We went up to Lake Berryessa [location of one of the Zodiac murders] and the original detective who discovered the bodies is with us. He says, this is where they were, here's where the picnic blanket was and so on. So David Fincher looks at it, he goes back to the road, he gives a yell and listens for an echo. He feels the ground, gets up, goes all the way around, comes back and does the same thing again. He says, 'The murder site's over there.' And [the detective] says 'You're absolutely right. My god, I took you to the wrong spot!' I thought, my god, I'm looking at Sherlock Holmes here.

And he's gone on. He's not let up. The movie's done and he's still finding out facts. It'll all be on the DVD they're doing. After a while I was writing everything down – the fact that it's three Hollywood detectives, come on, that's great! And [Fincher] doesn't like to be photographed, so I have one of those little throwaway cameras and I'm taking pictures. I've got tapes. So I wrote another book. I didn't want to do another book about Zodiac, but this one is about them. It's called Shooting Zodiac, and I was going to hold it back, but if you guys make the movie a success, I'll bring it out. Otherwise we'll wait until it's a cult film. It ends with 'We've been greenlit!'

You talk about how you still meet and talk about the case. With our favorite suspect long dead, meaning you can never bring him to justice, what is the point for you of still talking about it?

That's what David Fincher said. He said to me, 'I see the end of this movie where the cartoonist goes to the Ace Hardware, looks him in the eye and he's satisfied.' You know my therapist tells me, you don't have to corral all the rattlesnakes, you just have to know where they are.' We got so close to whoever this was, and there was a point where [all the suspects] were being watched, and he could no longer be Zodiac. I think in a way the fact that I've made the case vivid enough to see it and that there's a film, that's what I wanted. I didn't want all these nice young people that got wiped... [chokes up] Excuse me. These young people that got wiped away, I try not to think about them. I try to keep it cerebral. But I thought they deserved a certain amount of justice and that it was an important case, and that's what the film will do.

But some critics don't buy into your theory about Allen...

Absolutely. It's not a matter of that but you know, let's just pretend real quickly: you're Arthur Leigh Allen. You stand on your porch and you take a quarter and you toss it. Do you know what you hit? You hit [Zodiac victim] Darlene Ferrin's workplace. He's watching her. He's the janitor across the way from the first girl. He's a suspect in the first two sets of murders.

He not only predicted it two days before the murders, he tells Don Cheney, 'I'm going to be Zodiac. I'm going to hunt people at night. I'm going to taunt the police and call myself Zodiac.' He's just gotten a Zodiac watch on the 18th, the murders start on the 20th of December. This is a guy up at the lake when there are only ten people. You have the two victims, two sets of fathers and sons, one on the lake, you have the two park rangers and three college women. You interview one of the college women and she identifies him. You interview a surviving boy, he identifies him. Allen says that he was at the lake that day and that he left an hour before. He tells his friends, he writes from prison. Zodiac left footprints that are exactly Allen's size and weight - about 220 pounds or 230. He's the same height. He wears a very unique shoe size that Allen's size, a 10 and a half R. That's a shoe you can only buy at naval stations and you can only buy it if you're in the Navy or a dependent, and his father is a naval commander. There are a limited number of only 169,000 pairs made total and distributed throughout the United States. He's a guy who we know has certain skills. He's a chemist because of the bombs. He has to know cryptology. It's amazing - we could do three pages. But the one thing Zodiac had to be was a skillful draftsman. If you look at the symbols, the 312 symbols, there are no guidelines. You need a light table, you need a T square. Allen's father, at the time, was a draftsman in Vallejo, the Vallejo city planner. You go on with the fact that he was involved in the Southland, that he worked near a very similar murder in 1966 up to the Bay Area. This guy is wearing his watch until the end of his days and is giving interviews. He either wants us to think he's Zodiac or... Dave Toschi sayd, 'My god, he has to be. He has to be.'

Now, there are two other suspects that are very interesting but you know what? The whole thing was that I had to reach a point where I made the case come alive. I provided all the information I could find and it's very difficult because I give all my documents away now. But those are very hard fought; you had to feel them out and ask questions. I'm satisfied, Dave Toschi is satisfied... by the way, Captain Dave Clark of Vallejo PD thinks it's Leigh Allen. Paul Avery thought it was the second suspect. He really believed that and so did Ken Harlow. They had the same suspect.

So, we'll find out. That's the nice thing about this; I keep my mind open. I'm not in the game of being right, but I would like to write that last chapter and the fact that people are interested, we'll have that information I think.

There is some evidence that shows it wasn't him, though.

A guy named 'Lee' was sitting outside Darlene Ferrin's house and watching her. He was just back from Mexico, our guy [Arthur Leigh Allen] was back from Mexico. But somebody said either he lit a cigarette or the light inside came on, and Allen doesn't smoke. That bothers me.

America's Most Wanted just had a handwriting expert who said –

But that's a graphologist! Right up there with fortune telling. That's personality.

But there's DNA evidence on Zodiac letters that seems to exonerate him.

In 1978 all the letters were taken to Sacramento. They're sat in wonderful style in cardboard boxes in 112 degree heat for 12 years, they're never refrigerated. They bring them back – OK, that's great, they're in custody and I'm thinking maybe we'll get DNA. But no, they're outside police custody and in private hands. There's a chain of evidence that's gone. But they bring them back, that's fine. They test the back – and I talked to the guy who hired the people who did this – test the front, test the back of three letters and probably the gummed label. They get one [DNA] print, and it's a fragment. And if one of those letters is a hoax... But they only get a partial DNA fingerprint, and they can't even run it through Codus, really. Fine still, it still could be the guy. But Arthur Leigh Allen, from prison, writes a letter with no stamp on the envelope, doesn't seal it and asks his friends to mail them from outside prison. This is a guy who is thinking of the very primitive ABO test, which will tell you from saliva your race, if you're male or not, so on. He knew not to lick an envelope.

Why did a political cartoonist like yourself become so fascinated with this case?

Well I just don't give up. That's my thing. I'm the long distance walker. I was there [at the Chronicle], we're sitting at a big conference table and all of a sudden, Carol Fisher comes in and she throws this letter down and it began with that. You got to remember: I was 24, had lots of hair and was really thin. I'm watching Dave Toschi and he comes in with the trenchcoat, big bow tie, he's handsome and they based Bullit on him and they will base Dirty Harry on him, and there's Paul Avery and there are cameras around him with his silk shirts and scarves. Believe me, they were really romantic so I did what I did in the film and that was be in the background and listen.

After a while, I watched the lights dim and these guys just got burned out and the leads fade. So I thought, I can't let this die. So I went in and asked Avery's permission. But what really attracted me were the visual aspects. The costume, the symbol, the movie madness, the wonderful cryptograms and weird symbols, and the fact that I did political cartoons – I would use symbols to make a change in real life and I thought this guy was using symbols and pictures to cause fear. I was going to put all my information that I was going to use as an editorial cartoon and people would read it and catch him. That's what happened. That's why we have all the suspects because people read it and were interested in it and so I've achieved my purpose.

Some of those cryptograms haven't been solved to this day...

That's right.

Is it possible that there aren't any solutions to them?

I don't think so. We call those "nulls". He had 16 symbols in the letter E in the first set [that was solved]. That's very time consuming. It could be that that was the big thrill he got, which was composing those letters. And he really hated Toschi, really hated the SFPD because they got really close.

But there are all kinds of weird leads in this case. [This next bit is a little confused. Here Graysmith refers to the murder of a cab driver, which was witnessed by some kids in a nearby house] At Washington and Cherry... he stopped at Maple originally, but had the driver go on. By the way, that little girl that saw the shooting, she identified Allen as well. The policeman around the corner – Vallejo didn't give up, and as late as 1990 they were interviewing witnesses – identified him. So he goes around the corner, and the street around the corner from Maple was very steep, he was going to shoot the driver and run down the block and get into his car, but something makes him go another block. Once he sees the officers he runs into the Presidio and he's going past Letterman Hospital at a diagonal. Well, one of the [future] Zodiac victims, Donna Lass, is working there that night. A year later, supposedly the Zodiac kills her in another state. You think, that's impossible, but Darlene Ferrin lived close to [victim] Paul Stine's house at one time. You look at all these leads and you go... the case offers so many possibilities for an armchair sleuth.

Why is this movie bombing so bad? It's only at $29 million with a budget of $85 million.

One of my favorite movies of the decade so far.

it's long and they dont catch anyone at the end

and "there weren't that many kills"

and it was "too brown," so said a girl i talked to this weekend about it. "it was like a black and white film, only they used brown instead of b/w."

:brickwall:

Quote from: RedVines on March 18, 2007, 06:50:26 PM
Why is this movie bombing so bad? It's only at $29 million with a budget of $85 million.

THE BIG PICTURE: '300' vs. 'Zodiac'
Was it idiots vs. critics at the box office?
PATRICK GOLDSTEIN; Los Angeles Times

DON'T tell the critics, but "300" is a new kind of action movie, a clever synthesis of the stylized epic storytelling practiced by Peter Jackson in "Lord of the Rings" and the stop 'n' start fast-motion cutting of the Wachowski brothers' "Matrix" series. Let's call it Hyper Cinema. "300's" entire visual environment — its billowy wheat fields, its stormy gray skies, even blood that miraculously evaporates before it hits the ground — is a fabricated universe, created by 1,300 effects shots generated in a computer after the actors have gone home.

It's a gamer's view of the world that film critics don't relate to because they seem to have forgotten the kick they got from reading comics as kids. When I went to see "300" last week, the theater was full of scruffy guys who looked like they spent a lot more hours playing Final Fantasy X11 or God of War II than working out at the gym. In an era when it's increasingly difficult to reach young males, "300" offered a vivid spectacle of glistening pecs — as one admirer put it, "Ray Harryhausen crossed with Leni Riefenstahl" — that couldn't be replicated at home.

"We took a singular idea and went all the way with it, which I think resonates with audiences," director Zack Snyder, whose only other feature was a remake of "Dawn of the Dead," said on the phone from London. "It gives you that feeling that made you go to movies in the first place, as in 'Holy [smoke], that was awesome!' "

Populated with unknown actors, the retelling of the gory battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC was airily dismissed as hokum by America's leading critics.

Where the fanboys saw an easily identifiable theme — "me and my buddies are gonna band together and kick some butt" — critics spied pandering trash. The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris called "300" "action porn." The New York Times' A.O. Scott said " '300' is about as violent as ' Apocalypto' and twice as stupid." And the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter, dripping with disdain, exclaimed, "Go tell the Spartans that their sacrifice was not in vain; their long day's fight under the cooling shade of a million falling arrows safeguarded the West and guaranteed, all these years later, the right of idiots to make rotten movies about them."

Those idiots grossed $129.2 million in just 10 days. And Snyder says he wasn't perturbed by the nasty reviews. "Nah, I love 'em, they were funny," he says. "The reviews were so neo-con, so homophobic. They couldn't just go see the movie without trying to over-intellectualize it."

The critics were disturbed by a host of issues, not the least being the film's macho belligerence, cartoonish lack of interest in history and racial stereotyping of Xerxes' Persian hordes as dark-skinned, decadent club queens. But a key reason critics reacted so harshly is because they have been trained to value realism over fantasy, whether it is the stoic drama of Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima" or the cool psychological precision of David Fincher's "Zodiac," which has flopped at the box office, despite critical raves.

"Zodiac" had everything a critic could love. It was smart, full of context and armed with a compelling narrative about an obsessive search for an enigmatic killer. Unfortunately, Fincher is a filmmaker who has little interest in what audiences — or studio executives — think about his movies. He makes them for himself.

In contrast, Snyder's "300," with its Xbox ethos, is a movie made for a generation of visual sensation seekers. Critics are largely shaped by the aesthetic of the cinematic past, which is why you often get the feeling they've been dragged, kicking and screaming, into a new world they describe as coarser, more superficial and less intellectually stimulating than the golden age of their moviegoing youth.

The complaints are almost always the same. "It's an epic without a dream," said one critic. "The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing, and the relentless pacing drive every idea from your head, and even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension — a sense of wonder, perhaps." Those words were written 30 years ago by Pauline Kael, reviewing "Star Wars."

If anyone knows how late critics come to the party, it is Fincher, whose breakthrough 1995 thriller "Se7en" was roundly dismissed by many of the same top critics who were "Zodiac's" biggest admirers. The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern called it "ponderous," Time's Richard Schickel dubbed it "twaddle" and Newsweek's David Ansen described its style as being a cross between "a Nike commercial and a bad Polish art film."

Now that his work is more familiar, Fincher is considered an old master, at least compared with a nervy upstart like Snyder. As it turns out, the two men's backgrounds are surprisingly similar. Fincher, who is only four years older than the 40-year-old Snyder, began his career at ILM doing optical effects on George Lucas films before directing a series of commercials and music videos for everyone from Aerosmith to Paula Abdul. Snyder had a similar career path.

"I'm part of the 'Star Wars' generation — it's what made me want to become a director," Snyder says. "Blade Runner," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Excalibur" — films he saw in his mid-teens — are the ones he cites as big influences.

It's obvious that Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" series has served as an influence as well. "300's" deformed hunchback, Ephialtes, who betrays the Spartans, is uncannily reminiscent, both in physical form and in moral ambiguity, to "LOTR's" Gollum.

Snyder has learned that film is a subliminal art, in the sense that he uses his visuals to supply the film's emotional underpinning. In "300," the sky is always dark and unsettled, as if to signal the bitter bloodshed to come. "We tried to make the sky reflect the emotion in the movie, which you can't do in a regular movie," he says. "That's what is great about this kind of green-screen filmmaking. It's not just the actors who matter. Every element in the frame supports the emotion of the moment."

Sadly, our critics, who seemed content with hooting at "300," have lost touch with what makes movies different from other art forms. Hollywood's mass-audience films are not a literary or an intellectual genre. Never have been, never will be. They are built around visuals and emotion, the two elements that "300" used to capture the public imagination.

No one understands this better than 13-year-old Tristan Rodman, who saw "300" (with his dad, since the film is R-rated). "I guess the critics have not liked the movie for the same reason that the majority of people in America did like it," he told me. "Most people just went to see it. Not for the acting or the story, which was just OK, but for the spectacle."

Tristan got a great thrill from seeing "300." And whether you're a critic or just a fanboy, isn't that what people have always gone to the movies for?

well that guy's a douche.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 20, 2007, 12:33:49 AM
It was smart, full of context and armed with a compelling narrative about an obsessive search for an enigmatic killer.

I didn't blindly love this movie or anything, but what does that even mean?

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 20, 2007, 12:33:49 AM

Quote from: RedVines on March 18, 2007, 06:50:26 PM
Why is this movie bombing so bad? It's only at $29 million with a budget of $85 million.

THE BIG PICTURE: '300' vs. 'Zodiac'
Was it idiots vs. critics at the box office?
PATRICK GOLDSTEIN; Los Angeles Times

DON'T tell the critics, but "300" is a new kind of action movie, a clever synthesis of the stylized epic storytelling

Give me a fucking break! Goldstein is so full of shit. That 13 year old kid was probably right about the audience (no story, just visuals), but they're saying this is a good thing???

the 300 PR campaign has really waged a war against the critics this time around.

Quote from: pete on March 22, 2007, 02:46:20 PM
the 300 PR campaign has really waged a war against the critics this time around.

this is what my co-workers always say more or less:
"I don't go by what the critics like 'cause I usually like what they don't like," etc...

Quote from: RedVines on March 18, 2007, 06:50:26 PM
But a key reason critics reacted so harshly is because they have been trained to value realism over fantasy,

haha, i like that. especially the part about being trained to value things in film.

The Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey, Jr. thriller, Zodiac, will be getting a DVD release from Warner on 26 June. The David Fincher film will come with a 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, a Dolby Digital 5.1 sound mix, and extras to be determined. Retail is $29.98.

I bet it's at least a two-disc set, with at least another 20 minutes of gore.  it'll be unrated.

Quote from: pete on April 06, 2007, 03:25:59 AM
it'll be unrated.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk256%2Fcoffeeblood82%2F247poster.jpg&hash=b17496981776f53b2fd715038ec0360cafbb9599)

that pic of jake is priceless. it made me snort my coca-cola.

eff!  I thought I was posting under the 300 section.  I meant 300 will be unrated and gory.

Quote from: MacGuffin on April 05, 2007, 03:13:44 PM
The Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey, Jr. thriller, Zodiac, will be getting a DVD release from Warner on 26 June. The David Fincher film will come with a 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, a Dolby Digital 5.1 sound mix, and extras to be determined. Retail is $29.98.

Mac, not to question your info but where di you get that piece of DVD information? I went on Video ETA and it said July 31st, it also says that on DVDaficionado. Actually I'm quite hopeing it comes on June 26 rather than July 31st, because I really can't wait.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on April 17, 2007, 07:11:14 PMMac, not to question your info but where di you get that piece of DVD information? I went on Video ETA and it said July 31st, it also says that on DVDaficionado. Actually I'm quite hopeing it comes on June 26 rather than July 31st, because I really can't wait.

DVDFile. DavisDVD also had a June 26th announcement.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on March 07, 2007, 09:12:03 PM
Man, can't wait to see what they do for the DVD.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on March 07, 2007, 11:53:46 PM
I can't wait to read it

Quote from: SiliasRuby on March 31, 2007, 05:47:29 AM
Anyway, I can't wait.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on April 07, 2007, 03:50:03 PM
I really can't wait for the DVD.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on April 17, 2007, 07:11:14 PM
because I really can't wait.

silias.. do you have a terminal illness?

ha ha!  also reads funny as one complete quote:

Quote from: SiliasRuby on April 17, 2007, 07:11:14 PM
Man, can't wait to see what they do for the DVD - I can't wait to read it... Anyway, I can't wait.  I really can't wait for the DVD, because I really can't wait.

...

Quote from: flagpolespecial on May 14, 2007, 07:32:26 AM
Best Looking film of 2007!

Quote from: RedVines on April 06, 2007, 09:23:48 PM

Quote from: pete on April 06, 2007, 03:25:59 AM
it'll be unrated.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk256%2Fcoffeeblood82%2F247poster.jpg&hash=b17496981776f53b2fd715038ec0360cafbb9599)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davisdvd.com%2Fimages%2Fcovers_big%2Fzodiac.jpg&hash=59d275a4a5cd8a218fc86b44fbdfe426dec0763d)

it's frightening how close you were

 :bravo:

I always worry that maybe we're getting too jaded about this stuff, but then that happens, and I realize that we might still not be jaded enough.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fhr%2Fphotos%2Fstylus%2F5514.jpg&hash=e1487eee9475981902a0253e9e8d66b6f09c5a01)


Fincher made exception for 'Zodiac'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

CANNES -- "Zodiac" director David Fincher said he promised himself not to make another film about a serial killer after 1995's "Seven." But he said the script for "Zodiac" was too good to pass up.

"Really, it's only about a serial killer for the first 35 minutes," Fincher said Thursday during a press briefing after the film's In Competition screening at the Palais. "After that it's a newspaper movie and a movie about the reactions to what was happening."

Does that mean he's back to staying away from serial killer films in the future?

"I'd do another newspaper film like this one," he said. "But a straight film about serial killer film? It would have to be pretty interesting in some way."

The early Thursday screening of the 158-minute film was full and well received, with star Jake Gyllenhaal the main attraction at a lighthearted briefing afterward. One two-part question posed asked Fincher if he felt Gyllenhaal was one of the best acting talents of his generation -- Fincher said he was -- with a follow-up to Gyllenhaal about working with co-star Robert Downey Jr.

Gyllenhaal at first deflected the question. "I'm sorry," he said, "I was still thinking about being one of the best talents of my generation."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gyllenhaal ponders Downey Jr: mad or genius?

Jake Gyllenhaal compares acting with Robert Downey Jr. to playing jazz and says he had no fears about being upstaged by his flamboyant co-star in the murder thriller "Zodiac."

The film, in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, is based on the true story of the unlikely quest by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist on the San Francisco Chronicle, to identify a 1960s serial killer known as the Zodiac.

Graysmith's character, played by Gyllenhaal, gradually moves to the centre of the picture but much of his time is spent jousting with the newspaper's dissolute crime writer Paul Avery, played with palpable relish by Downey.

"A very good, typical actor has about 25 really interesting choices and ideas within a minute. And then there's Robert Downey Jr. who has, I would say, 500 to 750 ideas," Gyllenhaal said after the press screening of the film at Cannes.

"Some people would call that madness. I would call that genius," he said.

"You're running around an actor and then they're chasing you, all of a sudden -- that's a wonderful thing where rhythms are all over the place, it's like playing jazz with somebody."

Downey's character, sarcastic and whining by turns, is a stark contrast to his strait-laced colleagues in the newsroom and he dominates the film until his drinking and general excess prove too much.

GRAND THEFT LARCENY

"Zodiac," which has already opened in the United States, has had generally positive reviews, despite disappointing audience numbers and Downey's performance has attracted special praise.

"His cast is uniformly splendid, but if the Zodiac killer got away with murder, then Downey ought to be charged with grand theft larceny given how often he steals his scenes away from his competent co-stars," the Hollywood Reporter wrote in its review.

"Zodiac's" recreation of the atmosphere of San Francisco in the 1960s and 70s is meticulous and it conveys a huge amount of information as the investigation tails off and Graysmith, who wrote the book the film is based on, carries on alone.

Gyllenhaal joked that director David Fincher told him for the first part of the movie he would be "an extra" and much of the film is centered on his deepening obsession with the case and the way it gradually takes over his life.

Fincher, who made his name with the dark thriller "Seven," said he had initially been reluctant to do another serial killer movie, but had been won over by the film, which described events he had lived through as a child in San Francisco.

"I don't think this is a serial killer movie, I think this is a newspaper movie," he said.

"It's not a process by which somebody dismembers other people. It's not that kind of movie. It's a movie about the search for some kind of truth, the human mind's need to make sense of something that's randomly chaotic," he said.

Life with a serial killer
In Cannes, director David Fincher talks to Andrew Pulver about the unsolved case that inspired his latest film, Zodiac - and why he has been drawn back to murder
Source: The Guardian

Like it or not, having your film selected to compete for the Palme d'Or at Cannes really means something. Most obviously that the French, a nation of unashamed cinematic snobs, have taken a shine to you, and that you are considered worthy of admission to the elite group of auteurs that Cannes reveres. And, considering the love-hate relationship between the two countries, if you're American it means lining up alongside Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Gus van Sant and - yes - Vincent Gallo. Has David Fincher joined the ranks of the super-directors? Is he facing a future where "Fin-shair" is as ubiquitous as "'Itchcock"? David Fincher strokes his goatee beard as he stares out over the Mediterranean and wonders what it all means.

Not much, as it turns out. "I never really thought about film festivals before," he says. "I don't think of myself as making festival pictures. I was shocked when they said they wanted the movie for competition. I thought it was a little too ... lurid." Fincher says he initially offered Zodiac, his account of the serial killer who terrorised northern California in the 1960s and 70s, to Cannes for an out-of-competition screening, thinking that's where they normally dump product they sneer at but want the stars to decorate the red carpet. But no: with his sixth feature film, Fincher was in. "I don't know. It's an odd choice. It doesn't seem arty enough."

Zodiac may or may not be arty, but it's certainly artful. Fincher's source material was a book written in the mid-1970s by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist on the San Francisco Chronicle, the newspaper to which the Zodiac sent a number of his mocking, threatening letters. Mindful of his past form - in the shape of his second feature Seven, one of the best-known serial-killer thrillers of the 1990s - Fincher went out of his way to establish clear water between that undeniably lurid carve-em-up and his far more sober true-crime project. "I knew people would think: why would you make another fucking serial killer movie? There's plenty of reasons not to. When I sent it out, I just said, read this, tell me what you think. It's not that Seven thing. We already did that."

Instead, Fincher turned to the downbeat tropes of docudrama and historical account: "If I'm going to recreate murder scenes, I just want the facts. I'm not interested in prurience." He cites earlier film treatments of the same story, particularly Dirty Harry and its "Scorpio" killer. "I remember going to see Dirty Harry when I was 12 or 13 years old and thinking: 'Wait a minute ... that's Zodiac. You can't just take people's suffering and turn it into a plot device.' I didn't want to do that. My movie ... my movie made the audience suffer." Fincher grew up in Marin County, just across the Golden Gate from San Francisco, at the exact time of Zodiac's operations in the same area. He says it was impossible not to be affected. "In northern California we were at a major fork in the road. I was seven and it was the first time it ever occurred to me that people could derive satisfaction from hunting other people. It was very scary.

"Growing up around Zodiac warped your little mind. I don't think it's coincidence at all that during the peak of the pharmaceutical and sexual revolution in California a guy with a crew cut and horn-rimmed glasses started shooting kids who were newly sexualised. In some way it was a lashing out, gaining control. I don't think it just happened."

Much has been said also about the effect Fincher's film may have on finally identifying Zodiac. Graysmith's chief suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen, died in 1992 and, unlike the case of John Humble and the Yorkshire Ripper hoax, DNA testing hasn't established a connection between Allen and the Zodiac letters. Fincher says he certainly didn't go into the project to try to solve the murders; he was just making a crime film, he says. He waxes much more lyrically on the subject of the high-definition digital filming system he used, which allowed him (surprisingly, perhaps, for a film so evidently grasping at realism) to entirely dispense with fake blood on set, which saved valuable clean-up time. "We just had little air cannons for people to react to."

As a film-maker, though, Fincher really needed Zodiac. His talents have never been in doubt, but Zodiac is only his second film in eight years, since Fight Club put him firmly at the head of the New Hollywood pack. The intervening period has been a series of aborted projects and missed opportunities. He was down to direct The Black Dahlia, as well as Mission: Impossible 3, Lords of Dogtown and The Lookout - any of which would have been a good match for Fincher's special brand of savage visual panache. The only film that did emerge was Panic Room in 2002, a strangely conventional affair, and not the most propitious follow-up to the extraordinary Fight Club.

"You do things for different reasons," says Fincher. "It's not often you get an opportunity like Fight Club and, quite honestly, not a lot of people went to see it. If all the people who later discovered it on DVD had been there on the opening weekend, we would have been looking at Fight Club 2. Fact of the matter was, after Fight Club, nobody was saying to me: 'We'll do anything you want to do.' I waited three years to find something. I liked the discipline of Panic Room, the limitations. Everybody involved in it was slumming a little bit, but for the right reasons."

The uncomfortable reality is that, while Fincher was at the forefront - along with Paul Thomas Anderson and David O Russell - of a new Hollywood wave in the mid-1990s, he quickly found himself in danger of being eclipsed by another wave of American directors - Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne - who prized quirkiness and wit over Fincher's high-octane muscle cinema. He has always had a more conventional, overtly commercial approach than these younger film-makers: handed the third film in the Alien franchise as a young director, following Seven with the pumped-up chase movie The Game ("a glorified Twilight Zone episode"). Panic Room and its $30m opening weekend, he considers, is like "lesser Hitchcock", which perhaps is pitching it a bit strong. Zodiac hasn't got anywhere near it in box-office terms, but has got Fincher his best reviews for a long time. At 44, he's far too young to be a has-been; thankfully for him, Zodiac looks like it's given him a whole new lease of life.

Taking no prisoners
Director David Fincher is hard to please . . . as Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr found out many times, writes NEALA JOHNSON
Source: Sunday Herald Sun

ROBERT Downey Jr wanted to garrotte him. Mark Ruffalo was intimidated by him. Jake Gyllenhaal was exasperated, saying that after 90 takes of the one scene, he didn't know how to give him what he wanted.

Welcome to the set of director David Fincher's latest film, Zodiac.

"I don't know what my reputation is with actors," says Fincher, the man behind Se7en, Fight Club and Panic Room.

"I know with some actors, some of 'em don't like being told what to do or where to go or how their work's gonna fit into the whole. It's your responsibility as the director to have an idea of what this world is supposed to be like -- you're not supposed to make it up on the day.

"I mean, how am I supposed to tell people how many days it's gonna take to do something if it's just 'Oh yeah, I dunno, what do you think should happen?' It's my job to say this is important and this is not."

It would come as no surprise to Downey -- who also says that he was the perfect actor to work for Fincher "because I understand gulags" -- but Fincher, 44, doesn't enjoy making films.

The director famously described filming Panic Room -- basically Jodie Foster trapped inside a metal box for 90 minutes -- as a "drag".

"All movies are a drag to shoot. Anybody who tells you different is a liar, trying to make them sound interesting," Fincher says.

Zodiac -- the true story of the hunt for an infamous serial killer in 1970s San Francisco -- was a drag because it required so much exposition.

"It's people walk into a room and talk, that's basically all that happens," Fincher says.

"So it was hard, because it got boring. It got boring to shoot, you were like, 'Oh my God, I have to figure out some other way . . . Can't I have one car chase?'," he says.

But, just as he won't let his actors off the hook, Fincher didn't allow himself a car chase.

"I just thought to myself 'Well, that's not very disciplined of me to feel that way'."

Why, then, has Fincher made filmmaking his life? After all, when he's not making films, he's making commercials or music videos for the likes of Nine Inch Nails -- "playing in the sandbox" as he puts it.

"I really like pre-production. I like the people I get to meet. I like rehearsal. I like casting. I don't like the actual shooting," he says.

"I like the editing though, that part's fine. On set it's like, you can't get the wall where you need it to go, you can't get what you need done. It's always compromise. You sit there and you go, 'Well I'm spending $70 million, how come I can't do this? What's wrong? Is it me?' "

SOMETIMES, of course, it's not Fincher, it's the actors. And that's where Gyllenhaal's multiple takes come in.

But how does a director get a better performance on take 43 than on take seven, with his actors surely getting progressively more frustrated with each take?

"Well, I think the question becomes then, what's better?" Fincher argues.

"It doesn't always seem to me that the most excited or the most virgin a performance, the better it is."

He points to the fact that, in Zodiac, Gyllenhaal and Downey are playing newspaper men, professionals who should look and sound at home in their workplace.

"These guys know everything they're talking about, there's not a line of dialogue they haven't said 30 times, so you want it to look like they can deliver this stuff in their sleep.

"So you're going for something different than in some cases what the actor's going for."

Fincher will admit to a top tally of 56 takes on a scene in which Ruffalo -- playing the long-suffering detective assigned to the unsolved Zodiac case -- lets Gyllenhaal's idealistic cartoonist in on a few trade secrets.

"We shot 56 takes on the first day of Jake and Mark because we needed to get them to understand 'This is the tone of this interaction. You will be expected to deliver this information with this kind of specificity at this kind of speed'," Fincher says.

"Maybe they weren't ready for that. We shot a lot of takes of Jake's stuff because there's a very fine line between naive and disingenuous. Sometimes it looked disingenuous.

"But, you know, 20 to 21 takes, that can be a lot. But sometimes we did stuff in nine takes, depending on who was in front of the camera."

Fincher does not push for no reason -- he knows exactly what he's after in these takes.

"I'm waiting to feel 'Bingo!', that's my whole thing. For me, it's all about that thing you get a hit off of, you go 'OK, that was it'. And most of the time, if you don't have one that you go 'Yeah that was it', you probably didn't get it."

Fincher is now filming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, an effects-heavy film starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett.

He had already started filming it while editing Zodiac, trying to "make a dent in the length".

The length of the film -- the version in cinemas clocks in at 158 minutes -- was a big battle, but not the only one on Zodiac.

"Marketing was a big battle -- like should they sell the movie like Se7en? Should they sell the movie like an adult procedural? Will anybody come to see an adult procedural? There was a lot of that," he says.

"But most of the insecurity has been about the length, because it's a lot to ask of an audience. But that was the reason I was interested in it. I didn't really wanna do it if it was gonna be, I dunno, the trite version."

Indeed, Fincher went to great lengths for Zodiac. Though he had two books on the murders to work from -- written by Robert Graysmith, the character Gyllenhaal plays in the film -- he didn't just adapt for the screen.

Along with screenwriter James Vanderbilt, Fincher spent about a year on research, digging into case files and meeting those involved in the Zodiac case, including survivors.

"We did all that stuff because we felt these were real people, real people lost their lives, this is not a big joke. It's not an entertainment in that respect," he says.

And when the Hollywood duo turned up on a survivor's doorstep?

"Rightfully so, they think you're a scumbag," Fincher says.

"I don't blame them. They suffered. And when somebody shows up and says 'Hey man, we'd like to make a movie about your suffering' you're gonna be . . . reticent."

Similarly, the Benjamin Button project has been on Fincher's radar since 2001.

If making any movie is a drag, six years of one flick must be hell. How does Fincher stay inspired now he's actually making the film?

"Inject steroids into the base of your skull," he deadpans.

"I dunno. I don't know how you . . . I don't. I don't! Again, the thing you realise, if you've made any movies at all, by the time you're done reading it, as far as your enjoyment is concerned, it's over.

"It's not about you, it's about this whole other experience, and everything that surprises you about it the first time you read it is gone by the time you cast it and look at all the wardrobe . . . You're basically just along for the ride."

At that point, it's just about giving that initial excitement he felt at reading the script . . .

"To somebody else, I hope," Fincher says.

"Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. You know, I've made movies where I went, 'Oh, you bought tickets to that thing? I can't apologise enough'."

Yeeeeeah, check out the page before this.

Fuck.

Quote from: Ginger on May 31, 2007, 09:59:55 AM
Yeeeeeah, check out the page before this.

what?

Quote from: pete on April 06, 2007, 03:25:59 AM
I bet it's at least a two-disc set, with at least another 20 minutes of gore.  it'll be unrated.

No extra material will be included. :(

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/zodiac.html

2/3 disc set.  i will wait for you always.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davisdvd.com%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Fzodiacad.jpg&hash=5f1826dad72e0a0d9aa615121eefcf4ea00a5825)


From Davis DVD:

Zodiac: Director's Cut

With the upcoming July 24th release of Paramount's Zodiac less than two weeks away, you might be wondering why David Fincher's thriller is arriving as a bare bones release. Good question. Thanks to one of our friends in the rental industry, we have gotten a look at a promo spot on the vanilla DVD officially announcing a "Zodiac: 2-Disc Director's Cut" arriving in 2008. Among the bonus matreials to be included are:

* Audio Commentary by David Fincher, actors Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr., screenwriter James Vanderbilt, producer Brad Fischer and crime novelist James Ellroy

* Extensive behind-the-scenes featurettes detailing the production from start to finish

* In-depth looks at the actual Zodiac crimes, including all new interviews with the original investigators and survivors


We don't have any other details as of yet, but you can bet this is going to be one hell of a pckage. Stay tuned for more information on this release in the coming months.

i was hoping for cooler "fincher" special edition cover art, but meh, who am i to complain...

A little more info:

Zodiac to Dip Again
A Director's Cut double dip issued for 2008 for Fincher's thriller.

"Double dipping so soon?" you might be asking yourself, looking down at your copy of the feature-free release of David Fincher's Zodiac on July 24th. The DVD release is arriving with zero - count 'em, ZERO - items of extra beefy goodness to complement the film itself, but it looks like a double dip containing several bonus features is in the works for 2008.

The Zodiac (Director's Cut) DVD, in true Fincher tradition, will feature the following bonus materials:

*Audio Commentary with David Fincher, Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Jr., screenwriter James Vanderbilt, producer Brad Fischer, and crime novelist James Ellroy

*Behind-the-Scenes Featurette

*An in-depth look at the actual crimes of the Zodiac killer, with interviews from survivors and criminal investigators from the scenes


IGN recently caught up with real-life journalist Robert Graysmith, played in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal, who stated, "David Fincher doesn't like to be photographed; he doesn't like to be interviewed; and all I did for three months was photograph and interview him...We've got that material, plus a ton of stuff from old police reports to audio interviews to new information that Fincher and his team dug up. I wouldn't be surprised if the DVD were enormous!"

No date, price, or final artwork has been set, but stay tuned to IGN DVD for more information about this and other upcoming releases!

laaved it.

spoils
- it's long but never felt long. it's all too interesting. factually, dramatically.
- mostly great soundtrack but i thought there was some inappropriate usage right after one of the near murders during the newspaper montage.. too rockin'.
- i think these are the most disturbing/real murder scenes i've ever seen. the lake scene was truly terrifying.
- not one bad performance. except from one guy who was in it for 5 seconds being interviewed.. forget what he said.. ruffalo was perfect, gyllenhaal was perfect and lovable. i don't usually like chloe but she was great here. and that's the best performance i've seen from the guy who played leigh. he perfectly captured his messed-uppedness. every delivery had some kind of odd, twisted subtext or feeling to it. you could sense his feeling of detachment but it never beat you over the head.
- the hardware store scene was a rare kind of fantastic. the interview/basement scene actually got my heart beating really fast which is crazy rare for me.
- oh and obviously brilliant editing, cinematography, visuals etc.

i sure hope this extended dvd doesn't turn into adaptation.

ps. does anyone know if that's the actual zodiac speaking in the first call to the police?

spoils

after thinking/rewatching my theory is (and it's a slight long shot) that zodiac was two people: basement guy and leigh. though mostly leigh. basement guy wrote the letters, possibly taking dictation from leigh, which explains the handwriting mismatch on leigh and the lack of letters during leigh's time in jail, while leigh did the killing, though they may have shared this. they were gay/lived together which explains the hearing of footsteps in basement guy's house as well as leigh mysteriously vanishing from his trailer for a couple of days, and they targeted couples possibly due to a hatred of heteros. i get the feeling from basement guy that he enjoyed being close to something so terrible and unsolvable but maybe he just got a kick out of gyllenhaal being so obviously frightened.

another thing i loved
- "just cause you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true."
that scene in the diner towards the end summarizing the whole timeline and how it fits too perfectly with leigh goes beyond movie.. it's like a case is really being solved in front of you. and it'll probably always have that effect because evidence will vanish and the case will never officially be closed.

Quote from: picolas on July 22, 2007, 04:23:26 AM
- i think these are the most disturbing/real murder scenes i've ever seen. the lake scene was truly terrifying.

I felt EXACTLY the same way, in fact I think I gasped in that scene and some ppl looked at me like wtf, those fucking hostel freaks may not get shocked with anything but for me it was pretty brutal.

Your theory is pretty interesting, at least with the movie as the sole resource of information about Zodiac doesn't seem so far out.

Good posts btw pic.

its all about boz scaggs's "lowdown" playing on the radio in the background during that diner scene. 

this movie sits really well with me, i'm scared to watch it again. 

Quote from: JG on July 23, 2007, 06:28:19 PM

this movie sits really well with me, i'm scared to watch it again. 

If you're worrying it won't hold up as well on second viewing....

it will.

I think it wasn't until the second time I saw it in the show that I was certain I was watching what will be one of this decades most accomplished cinematic moments.

That's a silly way to say it... but you get the point.

in my opinion, one of the best films ive ever seen.  loved the pragmatic, non-sensational approach to the story, and think its execution was incredible. it's the most fascinating exploration of unadulterated human darkness ive ever seen. loved the look of the film. loved the performances. loved everything about it. its great to see fincher back at the top of his game after pr. its a shame this had to come out in the same year as IE, which i've yet to see. would have loved to label it best film of the year.

Quote from: brockly on July 24, 2007, 10:12:04 PMits a shame this had to come out in the same year as IE, which i've yet to see. would have loved to label it best film of the year.

INLAND was released last year.

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 24, 2007, 10:19:24 PM

Quote from: brockly on July 24, 2007, 10:12:04 PMits a shame this had to come out in the same year as IE, which i've yet to see. would have loved to label it best film of the year.

INLAND was released last year.

not here  :yabbse-sad:

i finally saw it in its entirety. i went to see it when it came out here, but there was a misunderstanding and i only saw the last half, even though i arrived to the theatre on time. it was a bizarre experience because i started watching it, thinking i had only missed the credits, but then i was watching the ending cards (is that the name? the things that go 'In 2004, the investigation was closed bla bla bla' ?)  and thought
that's weird, that they're showing this in the middle of the movie. and then the credits started rolling.

after that super uninteresting and pointless introduction,  here's what i have to say about this movie:


it's great.  it reminded me of JFK stylistically, narratively, lenghtwise. its style is cool and constructive, the acting is monstrous.  it used to be true that long movies were long for a reason , and they were usually good. nowadays it's all or nothing, but zodiac justifies its lenght because it earns its drama so well. everybody in it is confused and depressed, but they take their lives and professions seriously, which works in a movie about murders. so it's very serious, but also very organic. it's beautiful how the characters grow and the story advances with scene after scene of people working and doing their jobs. and it's such a miserable affair for everyone. they feel like the type of unsatisfied  interviewees  you see in a documentary, the kind of people whose life got boring after being involved in something big and relevant. a very big error in storytelling is forgetting to remind the characters, and me, what makes the story important and  zodiac never forgets that. by the way, this is all written by a person who couldn't care less about serial killers.

in conclusion, libia is a land of contrast. thank you

It was a little long but I enjoyed it for the most part... very well done, good acting and keeps you interested even though the story is flat most of the time. I was looking forward to this for some time and I missed it in theatres, so I'm happy I was able to finally see this.

CGI effects demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tiN7BWakII

EVERYBODY WATCH THAT.  :shock:

David Fincher is officially the master of incorporating CGI seamlessly into a film.

It's pretty amazing all right.  Although the shot of Mark Ruffalo standing with the city lights behind him is the one shot that I and a few other people could tell was bluescreened.  And it was fairly obvious that the slow motion blood and cheek rippling was CGI (the blood the flies out when the couple is stabbed at the park also doesn't look quite right).

But those were the few things out of what looks like maybe hundreds of CGI shots, most of which I never would have thought about, let alone catch.

And to create a great film on top of all that is a stunning feat.  I want to see it again!

Quote from: modage on September 19, 2007, 01:49:29 PM
EVERYBODY WATCH THAT.  :shock:

David Fincher is officially the master of incorporating CGI seamlessly into a film.

Indeed he is. I think this was one of the best making-off featurettes I've ever seen. I mean, there were shot where I had NO ideia were CGI'd. Trully great and, as matt35mm says, to create a great film on top off all that is amazing.

Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Ever since David Fincher's Zodiac opened early last March the hardcores have been eagerly awaiting the "Directors' Cut" DVD, in part over expectations that something close to a three-hour version of this classic crime-obsession movie would be offered, especially as I'd heard from various sources that something close to a 180-minute cut has been screened, with one publicist telling me in particular that he preferred the longer version to the the final release-print version, which either ran 156 minutes (according to Variety's Todd McCarthy), 157 minutes (per Amazon) or 158 minutes (says the IMDB).

Now for some mildly shocking news: the Zodiac "Director's Cut" DVD that will be released on 1.8.08 (official stories have run over the last couple of days) will run 162 minutes, according to a story by DVD Lounge's Travis Leammons. That will make it a mere five minutes longer than the theatrical version (if you go by the Amazon running time) or six minutes longer if you go with McCarthy's count.

The whole point of Zodiac is obsession. The fun is in the obsessive wading through detail after detail, clue after clue, hint after hint. It follows, therefore, that the Director's Cut DVD should give free rein to the film's investigative intrigues (Jake Gyllenhaal's, Mark Ruffalo's, Robert Downey's...everyone's). This naturally means more details, hints and clues and more running time to explore each one. In this light, five or six extra minutes isn't nearly enough. I was looking for at least an extra 20 or 25 minutes. This is very disappointing.

I called Phoenix Picture to see if the 162-minute running time was correct. One guy expressed surprise at this length ("I would have thought it would be closer to three hours") but said "we have nothing to do with the director's cut." I called Paramount Home Video publicity to double-confirm the running time, but the person I was looking for wasn't in. I tried to reach David Fincher's Benjamin Button crew but gave up after a three or four calls. This sounds obsessive in itself.

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 19, 2007, 08:47:52 PM
Zodiac to Dip Again

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/zodiac4.html

Paramount has announced  Zodiac: Director's Cut which stars Jake Gyllenhaal. This David Fincher directed thriller will be available to own from the 8th January. Extras will include:

-Commentary by David Fincher,

-Commentary by Jake Gyllenhall, Robert Downey Jr, Producer Brad Fischer, James Vanderbilt and James Ellroy, a

-Zodiac Deciphered documentary

-Visual Effects of Zodiac featurette

-Digital Workflow featurette

-Sequence breakdowns (Blue Rock Springs, Lake Berryessa, and San Francisco)

-This is the Zodiac Speaking featurette, a featurette on Linguistic Analysis

-His Name Was Arthur Leigh Allen featurette

-Jeopardy Surface: Geographic Profiling

-Dr. Kim Rossmo's Geographic Profile of the Zodiac

-The Psychology of Aggression: Behavioral Profiling

-Special Agent Sharon Pagaling-Hagan's Behavioral Profile of the Zodiac

-Trailers and TV spots.

"For anyone wondering - the runtime is listed as being 2 Hr. 42 Min which makes it around 5 minutes longer than the theatrical cut."

Dammit. someone please explain whether this is just 5 extra minutes or an actual different cut with more new minutes and some footage deleted.

Probably just the inclusion of that speakerphone scene he loved so much...

Fincher showing 'Zodiac' director's cut
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- Eight months after its theatrical release, David Fincher will present the director's cut of his thriller "Zodiac" at an event hosted by the Film Society of Lincoln Center.

Fincher will make a rare appearance to discuss his work Nov. 19 at the Walter Reade Theater on New York. Although he's known for shooting an extensive amount of footage, the new cut of his film about the infamous Zodiac serial killer case runs only seven minutes longer than the 158-minute original.

FSLC associate director of programming Kent Jones will interview Fincher about his directing career onstage following the screening.

A bare-bones DVD of the original "Zodiac" theatrical release was issued in July. The director's cut will be given a two-disc release with bonus featurettes and documentaries about the film and real-life events that inspired it on Jan. 8.

ATTN: NYC
a few more details...

An Evening with David Fincher
Series: Directors/Actors/Writers 2007
Runtime: 223

A screening of Zodic: THe Director's Cut (US, 2007; 163m). Afterwards, David Fincher will make a rare public appearance, joining Kent Jones, associate director of programming at the Film Society and editor-at-large of Film Comment magazine, on the stage of the Walter Reade Theater for a conversation about this remarkable film.
6:30PM    Tickets go on sale 10/23/07 at 12:00 PM
http://www.filmlinc.com/

tix onsale now...

http://filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/davidfincher.html

cbrad and i are going. :)

It's no Blood screening.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51%252Bp2q2IhDL._SS500_.jpg&hash=3d07a7fa599a1a0f50bf0de93585e6300675e44b)

I want that in my home.

i want that in my life.

213.net's Jason Coleman has provided very precise descriptions of the nine (9) additions on the 162-minute Zodiac Directors Cut DVD (due January 8th), including (a) a scene with Detectives Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and Lee (Dermot Mulroney) speaking to a superior on a voice box about the details that make Arthur Leigh Allen a prime Zodiac suspect and (b) the famous black-screen sequence in which the passage of four years -- from the early to mid '70s -- is conveyed with a sequence of songs and news stories from the period. The Paramount executive(s) who forced this sequence to be removed from the theatrical version should be brought up on charges.


http://www.the213.net/php/article.php?id=796

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 19, 2007, 08:52:18 PM
Fincher showing 'Zodiac' director's cut
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- Eight months after its theatrical release, David Fincher will present the director's cut of his thriller "Zodiac" at an event hosted by the Film Society of Lincoln Center.

Fincher will make a rare appearance to discuss his work Nov. 19 at the Walter Reade Theater on New York. Although he's known for shooting an extensive amount of footage, the new cut of his film about the infamous Zodiac serial killer case runs only seven minutes longer than the 158-minute original.

FSLC associate director of programming Kent Jones will interview Fincher about his directing career onstage following the screening.

Fincher Kills at Special Zodiac Screening
Source: Vadim Rizov; The Reeler

A sold-out Walter Reade Theater audience greeted Monday night's screening of the director's cut of Zodiac -- seven minutes longer, with an eager, adulatory crowd for once. The film's commercial failure (it grossed "more than $75 million worldwide," the press release noted with inadvertent self-parody) doesn't seem to have dampened the well-deserved ardor for David Fincher's magnum opus; for my money, it's one of the finest films of the decade. Host and chief interrogator Kent Jones wasn't the only one confessing to having seen the movie five times or more; one man prefaced his question with such ecstatic praise that Fincher interrupted him before he could even get to the question: "Thank God for you, sir."

Then again, if everyone in America had cottoned to Zodiac this much, it wouldn't be the same stubborn, obsessive film -- a long, minutely-detailed chronicle of the years-long hunt for the Zodiac Killer, from its opening murder to the investigations, concurrent and overlapping, of San Francisco Chronicle crime journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), homicide detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and final true believer Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), whose diligent investigation blossomed into two separate books accusing Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) of being the never-caught serial murderer. Graysmith's obsessiveness, conveniently for film writers, mirrors Fincher's own; this is one staggeringly detailed work, from every minute piece of evidence sifted to the note-perfect 1970s period drama.

For Fincher, the parallel fascination dates to childhood. He recalled growing up in San Francisco during the killings, when Zodiac threatened to kill schoolbuses full of children. He was, he said, "the kid on the bus, my dad going 'See you later.' And I was going, 'You work from home, couldn't you give us a ride?' People think of San Francisco as being the Summer of Love and hippies and flowers, and, you know -- that was the Haight. That was part of San Francisco, but the majority of San Francisco was cosmopolitan but pretty conservative. It was such a big deal for so long -- it was almost two years that the guy was in the paper every day, and then all of a sudden it just disappeared, and I remember thinking 'What happened with that?' When I got the script, I kind of thought I didn't want to make a movie about it; I didn't want to make a movie that exploited him. I wanted to make the movie about it that turned over every rock. The Chronicle was in a neck-and-neck tie with the Examiner and catapulted to the forefront because Zodiac chose to communicate through the Chronicle. So a lot of the landscape of San Francisco changed because of Zodiac."

Writing the screenplay for the nearly three-hour work was, predictably, a problem: "[James Vanderbilt]'s first draft I was sent was structurally different," Fincher said. "It wasn't as long -- you have me to blame -- and it was more of a movie. It was more of a straight line, there weren't as many digressions. It wasn't quite as -- one critic said it was like being locked in a filing cabinet. We had two books to cull from: 'We want this to be in the movie, we want this to be in the movie, we want this.' And then it was just a year-and-a-half of trying to figure it out how to get it all in under five hours."

The cut's additions are barely visible to the casual viewer, if such a creature was in attendance. One sound montage and a scene of Toschi and his colleagues presenting the case for an arrest warrant were the major additions highlighted by Fincher. "When we got the version we were happy with, we did one more screening," he explained. "We hijacked people from malls and gave them the power of life and death, and made them Siskel and Ebert." Those two scenes were the most contentious in testing; for DVD, Fincher wanted to restore the film's shape to that of "the final screening before we lopped the ears off."

The soft-spoken Fincher bore little resemblance to the terror whispered about in the press -- where was the man who instills fear in actors and crew members alike? Only once all night did his voice rise above a murmur. A question about how he navigated the transition from music videos to films brought him to actors, who, he says, "give you an enormous gift and an enormous responsibility." He paused, and his voice went up a notch. "Do you know the best way to get an actor to stop fucking around? Stop giving them direction. Say 'Just do another one.' Three takes of that, they're done. 'What do you want me to do?' 'I want you to come through the elevator and turn and say the line like this." Suddenly you could see the perfectionist's killer instinct that led many smart-ass critics to say Zodiac feels like a movie not just about a serial killer, but that feels like it was made by one as well.

Director's Cut DVD review:

QuoteFrom the inspired Amaray packaging, which re-creates the killer's letter to The Chronicle, the DVD immerses the viewer into a world that actually existed, comparing the exhaustive dead-end investigation with the filmmaker's exhaustive, detail-sensitive recreation of that world.

Fincher's commentary is full of anecdotes and tech speak, typical fare for his fans. But what distinguishes this track from his others is the near-obsessive enthusiasm in his voice when discussing the painstaking process of recreating the crime scenes, or how he set out to make the best – and last – serial killer movie. Great stuff here that carries throughout the long running time.

The cast and crew commentary, with special guest star James L.A. Confidential Ellroy chiming in, is hit and miss. Screenwriter Vanderbilt is the dominant presence and his radio DJ aplomb wares thin. But he does provide some observations that do not overlap with those found in the behind-the-scenes featurette.

And speaking of behind-the-scenes, Zodiac Deciphered delivers in less than an hour a filmmaking retrospective simple in its execution, but epically insightful in the creative and mental labors necessary to service not only the sprawling story, but also the attention to authenticity needed for the film to succeed. Deciphered's thesis is arguably that Fincher set out to solve the case with his movie, as various production staff talking heads look into the camera and share their experiences with the director, which boil down to him being "a specific artist" to his peers, but almost obsessive/crazy to non-initiates. Fincher's anal process is watercooler fodder for movie fans and industry insiders, and we see this on display courtesy of actual on-set footage showing Fincher mounting a car's chassis to a dolly to get the desired shot because it was smoother than the traditional camera mount. We see Fincher insist on 36 takes of a book dropping into a car's passenger seat. For an insert. Through the on-camera accounts of Producer Brad Fischer, Writer Vanderbilt and the real Robert Greysmith, we are allowed insight into the development process, and an unexpected access to a movie that sets out to find a killer first and deliver box office at a distant second.

From re-creating era-specific newspapers (page by page) to building a street corner on a backlot, attention must be paid to the rare and exceptional filmmaking that went into Zodiac, which is only missing an on-camera sound bite from Fincher defending or supporting his auteur approach. Must watch: Greysmith's account at the 38-minute mark of Fincher at the Lake Berryessa crime scene, telling the story of how Fincher realized that the then-case officer had lead crew and advisors not to the exact scene of the crime, simply by walking around, fingering the soil, and inspecting the lay of the land all his own. This anecdote is what best summarizes Fincher as a director, and what solidifies Zodiac as Hollywood's first big-budget, feature-length "investigative report".

The Visual Effects of Zodiac and Previsualizations are self-explanatory and provide brief-but-technical insight into visual effects; This is the Zodiac Speaking is the best HBO never made, providing a factual account of the murder investigation as engaging as the film itself. And the featurette on Arthur Leigh Allen, the suspect the film implicates without a doubt, is chilling in that guy-driving-a-windowless-van sorta way.

Thankfully, these extra features are EPK-free. Only things missing are theatrical trailers and TV spots.

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/843/843301p1.html

New Oscar hopes for 'Zodiac'
The March film is on many Top 10 lists, so an ad campaign now hopes to raise its Oscar star.
Source: Los Angeles Times

The serial killer at the center of "Zodiac" was always just beyond the grasp of the police and journalists: tantalizingly close, yet ultimately unreachable. The film's Oscar chances have looked just as unpromising, but now Paramount Pictures is staging a last-ditch Academy Award campaign, hopeful a critical "Zodiac" groundswell can lead to some surprise nominations.

Paramount's new "Zodiac" for-your-consideration advertisements in Friday's Variety and next Monday's Los Angeles Times arrive as David Fincher's movie keeps appearing on film critics' Top 10 lists.

According to one online survey of more than 400 reviewers' favorite films (criticstop10.com), only two other 2007 movies -- "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will be Blood" -- have turned up more frequently than "Zodiac." Showing up on 143 best-of-the-year lists, "Zodiac" has claimed 19 No. 1 spots.

"Suddenly, everybody is waking up to the fact that this is a good movie," said Mike Medavoy, one of the film's producers. Fellow producer Brad Fischer said Paramount may have underestimated the film's critical support. "I don't think they expected 143 critics to put it on their Top 10 lists." Paramount is hoping that with no clear best picture favorite, "Zodiac," which grossed a modest $33.1 million in domestic release, might draw sufficient attention for best picture, director, cinematography and screenplay.

It's an uphill fight. "Zodiac" largely has been blanked in awards announced over the last several weeks. It did not receive any Golden Globe nominations, and some of "Zodiac's" honors have come from uninfluential organizations: a nomination for star Jake Gyllenhaal from the Teen Choice Awards and a selection for David Shire's score from the World Soundtrack Awards.

On Thursday, however, USC's prestigious Scripter Award nominees included James Vanderbilt's "Zodiac" screenplay. The other Scripter nominees were the writers of "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood," "Atonement" and "Into the Wild."

Paramount's biggest problem is time: Ballots for the 80th Academy Awards are due at 5 p.m. on Jan. 12. And since "Zodiac" opened in early March, the film may not be prominent in many Oscar voters' minds. (Fincher's director's cut "Zodiac" DVD arrives Tuesday, however.)

But Medavoy, who formerly ran Orion Pictures, knows that movies that premiere as early as February can still be remembered come Oscar time: Orion's "Silence of the Lambs" opened on Valentine's Day and still won five Academy Awards. "And that surprised everybody," Medavoy said.

David Fincher Didn't Want To Make 'Another Serial-Killer Movie' ... Until 'Zodiac' Came Along
'All of a sudden you only see scripts about deranged maniacs,' director says of post-'Seven' career in part one of two-part interview.
Source: MTV

It was arguably the best-reviewed film of 2007 and yet, almost from the start, "Zodiac" felt like an underappreciated classic. Chalk it up to unrealistic expectations (a serial-killer flick from the director of "Seven" that didn't titillate so much as hypnotize) and a strange release date (March, where little Oscar bait traditionally swims), but "Zodiac" never found a huge audience.

Now, thanks to appearing on a bevy of year-end top 10 lists and a new extras-laden DVD, "Zodiac," the mesmerizing tale of obsessed cops (Mark Ruffalo) and newspaper men (Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr.) on the trail of the infamous Bay Area killer, is getting a second shot with audiences.

The movie's notoriously press-shy director, David Fincher, spoke with MTV News at length about his own obsession with making the film, how "Seven" was about more than decomposing bodies and why he's sick of his reputation as a director who puts his actors through endless takes.

MTV: Perhaps the best compliment I can give you is that I've seen "Zodiac" four or five times now, and it's holding up with every viewing.

David Fincher: Jesus. I don't wish that on anybody.

MTV: Let's go back to the genesis of the film. Did your onetime involvement in a "Black Dahlia" film feed into "Zodiac" at all?

Fincher: Yeah. When it became apparent that I wasn't going to be involved in "Black Dahlia," I didn't go, "All right, find me another obsession tale." I wasn't looking to make another serial-killer movie. But when I read "Zodiac," I just thought I'd hate to see this and not have been involved.

MTV: Why the reluctance to do another serial-killer movie?

Fincher: So much of that sh-- kind of rains in on your transom after you make a movie that makes some money. So those are the only scripts you get. After having convinced people that I was the right guy for "Seven," all of a sudden you only see scripts about deranged maniacs.

MTV: And now you're probably getting a ton of serial-killer scripts again, just as they were petering out.

Fincher: Yeah. Like an idiot. [He laughs.] When I was working on "The Black Dahlia," I never really felt like it was a serial-killer movie. It was an obsession tale to me. Maybe that's just the department of rationalizations. When "Zodiac" was sent to me, I said, "All right, I'll take a look." Growing up in [the Bay Area's] Marin [County] in this time, there were a lot of questions that had never been answered for me, like, "Yeah, whatever happened to [the Zodiac case]? How did that end up?" It disappeared off the front page, and then it was off page four, and then it was in the metro section, and then it was gone. There was no real sense of, "Did they ever get close?" I opened [the script] going, "Uh-oh, I don't know." And then halfway in, I was like, "This is pretty interesting."

MTV: It's as talky and information-heavy a film as I can recall in the last year. Did you see that aspect as a challenge?

Fincher: The way characters talk and how fleshed out they are are usually the reasons you say yes to a movie. The action set-pieces are the stuff you kind of feel obligated to do in order to give them something to cut into their trailer. "Seven" for me wasn't about decomposing bodies and jolts and scares. I liked the world and what they were talking about. I don't normally choose things by the whiz-bangs. As much as people thought "Panic Room" was a chance to fly a camera around and show off, that was an extension of our philosophy about how the story should be told and not like, "I'd really like to rent this piece of equipment." When somebody says, "You don't want to make this movie — it all takes place in one house," those are fighting words.

MTV: Of course, the interesting thing about "Zodiac," this serial-killer film, is it defies so many of the clichés that go along with the genre.

Fincher: And that was interesting to me. Not just from the standpoint of luring people into theaters under false pretenses. That's just icing. [He laughs.] It was a different take on that. It was the geopolitics and the socioeconomic landscape of that place and that time and how it was altered — it was not a huge body count. Five people died. It wasn't such a big deal, but it was such a big deal, and that was interesting to me. It was the dawn of the serial killer.

MTV: Is the case out of your system?

Fincher: I'm CC'ed on everything. Every time there's a new suspect of interest, I get the links. I don't hold out a lot of hope. One of the things the movie is talking about is, what is closure? There was a time that I wanted to do a television show where I wanted to take famous criminal cases and take 16 or 25 episodes to explore it over time and from all these different views. Before "Capote," one of the aspects of it was to do the "In Cold Blood" case. What did the people in Kansas think of Truman Capote? And that is part of the fabric of that tragedy, that moment. It's part of the ripple effect. Sharon Tate's family goes to San Quentin [State Prison] every 10 years for the parole hearings [of the Manson Family killers], and you go, "Wow, this many years afterwards, what is that like?"

MTV: We tend to only dip into these stories at their apex.

Fincher: "Zodiac" was the perfect example. We were interested in it until it got too boring. People were outraged that this guy hadn't been brought to justice until they drafted Joe Montana and nobody in San Francisco gave a sh-- anymore.

MTV: You are infamous for the number of takes you subject your actors to. That reputation must feel a little old.

Fincher: It's like, who gives a sh--? It's not like it costs you an extra three bucks to see the movie. I don't know why anybody cares.

MTV: Do your actors by and large go with it?

Fincher: Most of the time I haven't had issues with it. The whole crybaby thing of, "Are people working too hard?" I don't know.

MTV: What annoys you on set?

Fincher: I don't want to see people making off with the group's time. My whole thing has always been, if you're talking about how we can make this thing that we're doing better, I'm all ears. If you're talking about how you want to be perceived as a contributor, that's between you and your parents. I try to give actors a lot of opportunities to contribute. The first three or four takes, do what's in your gut, and then let's start honing it in. You can feel when a scene is constructed out of close-ups. And people feel it whether they know what I'm talking about or not. When you see "Animal House" and this f---ing amazing cast moving in these amazing masters with the timing as perfect as it is, it's just great. Everybody is firing on all cylinders. You shouldn't have to cut around people based on their ability. Movies should be cut for what the story needs, not because of what the actor needs. Everybody serves the story.

Building Suspense Along the Trail of an Invisible Man
By MANOHLA DARGIS; New York Times

YOU don't ride with the devil in "Zodiac," that rare American movie that doesn't turn murder into kicks. With cool intelligence, David Fincher's masterly opus tracks the years-long efforts by several detectives and newspapermen, including Robert Graysmith (who wrote the book on which the movie is based), to find the killer — the self-anointed Zodiac — who committed a string of murders in Northern California starting in the late 1960s and perhaps continuing into the early 1970s. For these men the search is not only about seeking knowledge but also seeking justice. It is consciousness and conscience both. 

The Carpetbagger Blog "Zodiac" is about thinking, it's about working things through intellectually, hazarding guesses, trying to solve puzzles (the killer largely communicates through ciphers) and about the dawning of awareness, which encapsulates the experience of watching it. The movie solicits your contemplation rather than your excitation, which helps put some emotional distance between you and the murderer. You don't exult in the Zodiac's power, mystery or clever killing ways. You don't take awful pleasure in his company. The murders are grotesque; they are performed (of course) without being turned into performances. You are made a witness to the agonies of the victims instead of becoming the killer's accomplice.

Because the murders occur within the first half-hour of the original 158-minute running time (the director's cut runs about four minutes longer), they don't serve the usual narrative functions. This front-loading creates an air of sustained dread, but the murders are not exploited to punch up the action. Although they're anxious-making (one comes out of nowhere), the overriding suspense is largely created by the subsequent investigations. Neither do they aid the climax. There is no head in a box waiting like a present (surprise!) at the finish, as in Mr. Fincher's "Seven." The murders happen — during three separate assaults — and then for the remainder of the story a group of men go about the work of trying to find the killer.

The detectives and reporters in "Zodiac" sift through the clues, pound the pavement and hunker down in cars, offices, homes and bars. Mostly, though, they talk and they talk — to one another, to survivors, witnesses, informants and suspects. (In "Zodiac" talk is action.) Mr. Fincher is a virtuoso, but despite some stylized passages this movie looks almost austere compared with his earlier work. It isn't that he's become a minimalist (far from it); rather, the beautiful surfaces of his movies (and they are all beautiful) and the stylized flourishes do not have to fight the inanity or contradictory aims of the stories. Here the plot is an epistemological inquiry, as is the movie's meticulous, obsessive form.

One unsettling scene involves four men just talking in a room. Two are San Francisco detectives, Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), and the third is a sergeant, Jack Mulanax (Elias Koteas), from another city where the killer has struck. They have arranged to meet a suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch), at his workplace, an oil refinery some 30 miles southwest of San Francisco. The scene takes place almost precisely halfway into the movie and opens with a sweeping pan across an industrial vista crowded with belching smokestacks and oil tanks. It then cuts to the detectives filing through a hall in the refinery and past a mounted wall sign that warns, "Be Careful Safety First."

The detectives, dressed in muted shades, settle into the room, which has both brick and painted walls. The bricks are taupe, and the painted walls are the pale, institutional green familiar to any American who attended public school in the 1960s and 1970s. A smattering of bright, almost luminescent yellow chairs and a vividly red Coca-Cola machine daub the room with color like beacons. The movie cuts to an adjacent hall in which two other men are walking, one with a lumbering gait that seems to keep time with the low rhythmic pounding first heard (and almost unnoticed) when the detectives entered. This is Allen, who, after calmly settling into a chair, will make a chilling case for his character's guilt.

The three detectives sit in a semicircle — with Armstrong behind a table — facing Allen. Initially the scene unfolds straightforwardly with a series of over-the-shoulder shots and countershots. (In these shots, as the name implies, the camera seems to peer over the shoulder of a character whose body is only partially visible.) This shot-countershot pattern is interrupted only when Allen crosses his legs, a gesture followed by a cut to Mulanax looking at one of Allen's feet, which now looms in the lower center of the frame. (The killer wears similar boots.) The over-the-shoulder shot-countershot sequence resumes until Allen volunteers that he was carrying bloody knives in his car the same weekend as one of the assaults.

Allen's startling admission leads to a shot of Mulanax looking straight into the camera in close-up. This shot is soon followed by similarly framed head-and-shoulder close-ups, first of Armstrong and then of Toschi, each staring directly into the camera. With these near-identical, shared looks, the three finally seem to see — perceptually, intellectually — the stranger before them, the story's invisible man. In this moment sight becomes knowledge, however tenuously grasped. Not long after, referencing one of Zodiac's ciphers, Toschi tells Allen, "Man is the most dangerous animal of all." Allen responds, "That's the whole point of the story." It is also the point of this scene, which in under six minutes lays out the movie in miniature.

"Zodiac" is about an investigation and is itself an investigation. As is always the case with Mr. Fincher's movies, it is also about extreme human behavior and an example of the same. Extremes possess the murderer and those who chase him, men whose desire to solve the killings burns away large swaths of their worlds. "I need to know," Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) tells his wife, whom he eventually drives away with his compulsive pursuit. That need is ultimately frustrated — the Zodiac killer remains uncaught and officially unnamed — which gives the movie a strange pathos. In the end there is no confession of guilt or triumphantly condemned prisoner, no trial or justice. All that remains is the search, and the filmmaking.

i just got around to getting the DC cut.

one bit that seemed to be missing - did the theatrical cut not have Avery showing his gun when he meets the informant?

this crossed my mind while watching, and then later when i watched the trailer i noticed this is in there, so maybe i've just "grafted" it in subconsciously.

another odd thing - after buying this, i decided to look at wiki just to see what was there and i was very shocked to see that there was something from just last week where a guy is claiming his father is Zodiac and that he found a hood hidden inside a PA system his father owned.

Obviously Fincher's film is one of last best American films made before the end of Hollywood. How apt that Zodiac is nostalgic for the past (e.g., the opening Paramount tag). Also, 2007 was the year of massively wondrous facility with widescreen. The use of the widescreen format, in its geometry (composition; mobility; editing), is expert in this film, in No County for Old Men (2007), and in TWWB (2007). These films determine that 2007 was one of the last finest years in Hollywood history. And obviously this comment will only be a preface of an extended exploration of the theme. I could always go on.

Best wishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbvRG53y1KU