Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 20, 2007 22:31:06 GMT
I think it's the best sequence in the film, or perhaps the most effective. I watched this again last night, and it is back to being my number one film of 2007, where I am pretty confident it will stay.
Anyway, the Robert Vaughn guy or the house with the basement:
1) An earlier part of the film briefly mentions Zodiac's plans for a bomb in several of his letters, and there is a small (but present) reference to using a basement to store/produce the bombs. "Basements for future-use" was the way it was worded in the letters. This reference in the film might not hold long with the viewer, but was considered a vital clue early on in the case, and it is referenced in the film.
2) The theater owner was a creep, but I really think Kino is right in the impossibility of truth. There were so many different angles to look at this case from, and many characters in the film did just that. "You can't think of this case in normal police terms", says Downey's character. Some say stick to the evidence, some say stick with handwriting, even though that actually ruled out the character that the film itself implicates! a) Mr. Vaughn owned a silent film theater in Vallejo in the late 1960's, which had screened "The Most Dangerous Game". The man that Graysmith assumed to be the Zodiac, Rick Marshall, worked there during that time and. Marshall and the man who calls Graysmith and leads him on this path are never actually seen in the film. b) Graysmith is given false info that Marshall made the movie posters for the films himself, and obtains one and has Sherwood (who was fired for alcoholism, despite his major impact on determining who the Zodiac could be) analyze the handwriting sample. Sherwood acknowledges similarities in handwriting, more so than other suspects, which prompts Graysmith to visit Vaughn and obtain more posters and learn more about Marshall.
Upon the visit, he is shocked to learn that the posters were not made by Marshall, but by Vaughn himself. This scene is so well done. It works well in covering similar ground from earlier in the film, establishing an unbearably creepy mood and suspense, but this time applying it to a character we've been with for most of the film.
He abandons Rick Marshall (or even Vaughn) as a suspect after talking with the woman in prison, realizing that Darlene did in fact know who her killer was. The book goes into a lot more detail about Darlene and the Zodiac. He was basically stalking her six months before her murder, with many of her friends and co-workers realizing that her life was slipping out of control. Ten days before she died, she told her sister that something big was going to happen in a few days, and that she couldn't tell her, but that she would hear about it in the news. Freaky.
I think it works excellently. I also think the opening murder is the best opening of any film I have ever seen. Donovan's soft hum opening the Zodiac's entrance......chilling.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 22:44:05 GMT
I'm probably way off, but: 1) Thriller/suspense convention (I love conventions and norms) - I haven't been that frightened in a long time. Holy Shit. 2) Driving home the impossibility of truth. It really does seem the dude w/ the basement is the Zodiac killer b/c of the clues. The main one was the movie posters that he did which was a huge clue (I forget why). As for the significance of him unusually having a basement, I don't remember why it's significant, but remember it was also a big clue which along w/ the movie poster eliminated suspects. After that scene, all fingers pointed to him, I think; well, at least for me. Then, we're back to doubting that again b/c of the clues/revelations after that encounter. Yeah, it's a great scene. I just don't understand its significance. The theater owner guy calls Graysmith and implicates Rick Marshall as the Zodiac. Graysmith goes to meet him under the assumption that Rick Marshall drew up the movie posters, and then learns that this guy actually did, which means his handwriting is the closest they've yet seen to the Zodiac's. We also know he loves The Most Dangerous Game; he rattles off production details enthusiastically and calls it a "classic" when Graysmith mentions it. But to know whether his theater ran the film in '68/'69 when Rick Marshall worked there he says he'd have to check his files... which are in his basement. The Zodiac mentioned having a basement in one of his letters, that's why that's incriminating. "Not many people have basements in California." "I do..." He can obviously see Graysmith now suspects him and is extremely upset, and yet he just acts more and more ominously. Is he just fucking with him? And is there someone else in the house? I'd hope that it wasn't just a concession to the conventions of the genre; providing a dose of tension in a film that's not really a thriller.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 22:49:07 GMT
Thanks Omar.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 20, 2007 22:57:16 GMT
He can obviously see Graysmith now suspects him and is extremely upset, and yet he just acts more and more ominously. Is he just fucking with him? And is there someone else in the house? I'd hope that it wasn't just a concession to the conventions of the genre; providing a dose of tension in a film that's not really a thriller. Come now wetdog, films can't tell us everything, can they? Once again, Kino's idea of the impossibility of truth is what adds to the ominous quality of Vaughn's character. Perhaps he was just fucking with him, and perhaps there was another person in the house. I don't think Fincher included this scene (or the writers for that matter) to add tension to a part of the film that was less of a thriller (the beginning thirty minutes scare the fuck out of me, and the rest of the film is thrilling as hell, not from scares, but from the mystery and detective like storyline built around Fincher's relentless pacing, at least for me). I haven't gotten that far in the book yet, but from what I've read elsewhere, this part is very faithful to the book. Graysmith's personal life was being taken over by the Zodiac case, he was losing sleep and his home life, and was just going through a lot of pressure around this time. The anxiety finally caught up with him during his encounter with a very odd (but more than likely innocent) character, and I think the film conveys it very well, building on the tension established earlier in the film, and adding it to the central character's storyline, not for genre conventions, but for a sort of symmetry, in my opinion. (In response to a deleted message):And Kino, thank you, I appreciate it. That really means a lot.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 20, 2007 23:20:44 GMT
Although I can accept that there may or may not have been someone else in the house and that that may or may not have been significant, the scene just feels too calculated and purposeful, and the whole film is so exacting and meticulous, I just can't buy a chance combination of all that sudden incrimination and his utterly bizarre behaviour toward Graysmith. Is he fucking with him because he somehow happens to know that his handwriting is almost exactly the same as the Zodiac's and that his having a basement and loving The Most Dangerous Game would incriminate him further? How likely is that?
You can say it thematizes "the impossibility of truth", but do you really think that's the intention of the scene? The film's style is objective and fact-driven, it's not about subjective states of paranoia. I mean, the narrative does deadend again and again and again as the leads dry up. It wouldn't if it was expressionistically exploring the detectives' mindstates. The scene in the prison, in which Graysmith is desperately insisting that the name she's searching for is "Rick", is a demonstration of this. He accepts the fact that it's "Lee", the lead dries up, he moves on. He doesn't succumb to chasing shadows.
I think the scene with the theater owner, great as it is, sticks out. Its meaning must be uncovered. I look forward to hearing Fincher's commentary on it.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 21, 2007 0:00:50 GMT
It's not necessarily about "subjective states of paranoia", but I do think its significance of three main characters must not be overlooked. You've mentioned that theatre-owner-scene standing out, but for me, as good as he is, Downey Jr.'s inclusion seems odd, since he leads us nowhere; he adds comic relief early on and then just fizzles out. Of course the whole film is a deadend, but his arc seems disproportionately imbalanced compared to Ruffalo and Gyllenhall (forgive me, I rarely remember actual character names, it's the way my mind works, lol).
Nevertheless, his inclusion must be significant: the film could easily have distorted facts and made Graysmith the lead "detective" from the off, but it doesn't. Whether or not he's even the main character is arguable. My point is, I suppose, that if the film isn't about subjective states of paranoia, it certainly goes through those cycles. The shift in tones that come from shifts in character focus is quite noticeable, I think. It's confident but somewhat naive in Ruffalo's "segment", arrogant and somewhat indifferent in Downey Jr.'s "segment", and in way over its head once Gyllenhall comes to the fore.
The reason we're interested in Gyllenhall so much early on is because Downey Jr. is interested in him (indeed, if I remember rightly, he's more interested in his code-breaking determination than he is in solving the crimes).
If the basement scene stands out, what of that great expressionistic scene in which Graysmith's back door creaks open and the moving light casts frightening shadows on his home wall? Would the scene be half as scary if it were Ruffalo experiencing it? I doubt it.
I need to see it again, though. Just talking about it makes me excited.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 21, 2007 0:03:46 GMT
...in a way, that basement scene reminds me of Kevin McCallister visiting his basement in Home Alone, and the boiler shouting at him and coming to life.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 21, 2007 0:30:55 GMT
But you can't write off the theater owner's behaviour in addition to the seriously incriminating evidence that arises in that scene. That has to be explained. When the other suspects are disqualified we're told why. And if he wasn't disqualified, then why is he never mentioned again? There's no mention of it again. I mean, whatever about expressionistic moments here and there, you must agree we're not supposed to feel like we can't believe our eyes, that the film is not representative of reality, that it's not fact-driven. Quite the opposite. So why does this guy have the Zodiac's handwriting?
The film does distort facts, by the way. It says on IMDb that Graysmith and Avary were never friends and that their relationship was fictionalised for the film.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 21, 2007 2:27:32 GMT
You can say it thematizes "the impossibility of truth", but do you really think that's the intention of the scene? Yes, I do. In fact, I think that is the intention of the entire film. I would even go as far as to say that the real life Zodiac killer committed those crimes and taunted the police for that same reason. Let me explain: Nothing in this film really adds up, just like the real life case. And just like the real life case, there were many different scenarios that came up, derailing the investigation of both the police and Graysmith. Despite the implication of Arthur Leigh Allen in the film, I think it leaves a lot open to interpretation, revealing flaws throughout the entire investigation. Like I said earlier, all of the investigators had different opinions on the possible suspects. The Napa investigator believed it to be Rick Marshall, and the handwriting also led to that conclusion..... .....but then the film gives us the portrait of a flawed handwriting "expert". He is revealed to be fired for being an alcoholic by Ruffalo's character, and is even seen refilling his drink while observing a sample of Marshall's handwriting! Surly Fincher presents this to the viewer on purpose. He might be as addicted to detail as Graysmith, but even acknowledges multiple possibilities. I think the film is much more inconclusive than the book. For instance, when the evidence of the Riverside murder are presented by Downey Jr.'s character, the film kind of leaves that open to interpretation of whether or not it was the Zodiac who killed her. The police in Riverside don't acknowledge the killer to be the Zodiac, and Ruffalo and Downey Jr.'s argument in the parking lot ("Hey 'Bullitt'!") led me to believe that it was skeptical. However, Graysmith in the book clearly and unhesitatingly presents this murder as the Zodiac's doing. If you look at the actual case in real life, it's very unlike most serial murders, in that the locations were carefully done in different jurisdictions (even with the two in Vallejo, the first was barely out of the city limits), and the killer completely changed his MO when murdering the cab driver, going for an urban environment, killing a single male (when the others had been younger couples), and taking a memento of the victim, something not done previously in the other murders. I think his whole purpose was to fuck with the police, spreading the murders out and changing his style. And I think the film conveys a failure on the police departments part through interdepartmental jealousy and an absorbing look at police procedure before the information age, and how both of those factors led to the ultimate mystery, which was ultimately covered by Graysmith. It's not necessarily about "subjective states of paranoia", but I do think its significance of three main characters must not be overlooked. You've mentioned that theatre-owner-scene standing out, but for me, as good as he is, Downey Jr.'s inclusion seems odd, since he leads us nowhere; he adds comic relief early on and then just fizzles out. Of course the whole film is a deadend, but his arc seems disproportionately imbalanced compared to Ruffalo and Gyllenhall When I first saw this, I thought Downey Jr.'s character was underused, with the film divided into two distinct parts, separated by the captions "FOUR YEARS LATER". It's an important part of the film, and really reveals to the viewer that at this point, it's not going in any familiar route of other genre films. It's quite daring, if you ask me. We actually Downey Jr.'s character up until the final thirty minutes of the film, so I don't think it's as splitting the film into two parts. If anything can be said, it's ambitious as hell. Whether or not he's even the main character is arguable. My point is, I suppose, that if the film isn't about subjective states of paranoia, it certainly goes through those cycles. The shift in tones that come from shifts in character focus is quite noticeable, I think. Nevertheless, his inclusion must be significant: the film could easily have distorted facts and made Graysmith the lead "detective" from the off, but it doesn't. Oh yeah, definitely. I remember when we see Graysmith approach Ruffalo's character at the showing of "Dirty Harry", I thought when I first saw it, "Oh yeah, he's in this." The whole film is various facts and perspectives on an unsolved mystery, covering an incredible and an ambitious amount of ground. And even though Fincher is unable to get everything in there, I think he brought this story, book, murders, whatever you want to call it, onto the screen the only possible way. The change in character perspective is important in establishing another theme of the film, the obsession of this case and how it destroyed lives beyond the initial murders. Also, a fictionalized account that freaked me out when I first saw it was Downey Jr.'s arrival in Riverside, and his descent through the abandoned gas station during the raining night. The camera takes almost a voyeuristic approach in presenting this sequence, with the camera and Downey Jr. even separated by a fence. I think this sequence is as suspenseful as the basement scene. Very well done on Fincher's part. But you can't write off the theater owner's behaviour in addition to the seriously incriminating evidence that arises in that scene. That has to be explained. When the other suspects are disqualified we're told why. And if he wasn't disqualified, then why is he never mentioned again? There's no mention of it again. I mean, whatever about expressionistic moments here and there, you must agree we're not supposed to feel like we can't believe our eyes, that the film is not representative of reality, that it's not fact-driven. Quite the opposite. So why does this guy have the Zodiac's handwriting? Why can't we write it off? Arthur Leigh Allen is written off as a suspect by many of the investigators, despite some seriously incriminating evidence. Graysmith, the principle investigator and the shift in focus at the end of the film writes off Marshall after the strange encounter with the actual creator of the poster. So it is only natural, seeing that this portion of the film is told through his investigative perspective (closing wonderfully, as you mentioned, with the final confrontation in the hardware store), that this character is written off. If it were told through the Napa investigator's perspective, there might have been a quick dismissal of the Arthur Leigh Allen character, but the Napa investigator did not write the book that inspired the movie, Graysmith did. And as I previously stated, Fincher presents the angle that Vaughn might not necessarily have the same handwriting as the Zodiac. Open interpretation to an unsolved mystery. ...you must agree we're not supposed to feel like we can't believe our eyes, that the film is not representative of reality, that it's not fact-driven. ....The film does distort facts, by the way. It says on IMDb that Graysmith and Avary were never friends and that their relationship was fictionalised for the film. Every film takes creative licenses with real life characters and situations, and there is no way this film could have been an exception. However, I thought the handling of the personalized (and I'm sure mostly fictional) narratives of the three central characters were particularly well done, especially that of the Graysmith-Avery storyline. There part is almost setup like an old Hollywood narrative, of the young and naive reporter (or cartoonist here) seeking the friendship of the more experienced and more popular reporter. The scene where Graysmith passes his employees in a bar near the beginning of the film adds layers to that portion of the film, me thinks. I am not stepping on your toes, but I have to ask, do you think the flaw of the basement scene is based on the fact that the film presents to us a pretty relevant view of "reality", and then steps out of place with playing with the viewers own perceptions? Wasn't it you who told me that films should have no roots in reality, or something along those lines ( not trying to pick a fight)? And if so, does that factor play into the flaws of this film? I feel as if I am becoming less clear as I go along.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 21, 2007 22:29:09 GMT
Why can't we write it off? I didn't mean write him off as a suspect in the sense that the characters might in terms of the fiction, as detectives. I meant us, as film viewers, can't write off his extremely peculiar and unlikely behaviour in terms of the fictional cosmology Fincher has established for us (which is one expressly, explicitly, painstakingly culled from, based upon, and in pursuit of a sense of, our reality). Unless you want to go down the route of suggesting that the whole scene is expressive of Graysmith's paranoia and that Charles Fleischer's performance is not supposed to be taken as being representative of what actually happens in that scene (an interpretation I would very strongly object to), I think his creepy Hannibal Lector schtick needs to be explained (in terms of the film, not the real life case). Accepted, but I do think you're overplaying that angle. He acknowledges the doubt, but I don't think the film is about the impossibility of truth (truth/facts?), rather about the difficulty in reaching it and how closure and certainty slipped through these people's fingers so many times. If anything it's about the very real possibility of attaining the truth, and the soul-crushing frustration of not managing to do so for so very long, and now forever. That wasn't a criticism, I was just refuting what Capo wrote. Yes, it seems like a brief dip into genre conventions for the sake of creating a great, great genre scene. But as such it feels at odds with everything around it. It's Fleischer's performance, the way he reacts with seeming self-satisfied glee to Graysmith's sudden rise from unease through fear to blind panic. ¿Por qué? Quite possibly, but I say a lot of stuff. If so I'd now drop the 'should'. Films construct (and stories require the construction of) their own 'reality' or 'cosmology' or 'diegesis' or whatever you want to call it. Vanderbilt and Fincher's intentions are, I believe, to represent the real events of this case as accurately as the available information will permit them to. And this scene (this performance) doesn't work to that end. I don't buy it.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 21, 2007 23:01:11 GMT
I probably would.
I obviously need to see the film again, but what of the three detectives' visit to Arthur Leigh Allen's work? Would you mark that - the casual indifference, over-performed niceness and pretence of cooperation on his part - as a turn into genre (the usual suspect getting questioned, a possible red-herring scene, etc.), or a reflection of the reality of the events? I'm guessing the latter, since you've not mentioned it as problematic. Even if that is followed up on, and Allen is discarded as prime suspect later in the film, is the scene (those close-ups on his watch, for instance) from the subjective state of Ruffalo? I know for one that I felt Allen was the killer at that point, but it could easily have been presented differently. (EDIT: Just read this last sentence back, and I knew fine well what I meant when I wrote it, but fear any meaning has now become muddled. Extract from it what you can.)
I don't know. The more I write the more I feel I need to see the film again... and perhaps until then, any argument I make is strained.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 21, 2007 23:15:03 GMT
No, I don't find his performance to be out of keeping with anything around it, or psychologically implausible, or an isolated piece of scenery-chewing. He almost certainly was the Zodiac, and I think the film makes that clear. That's certainly the sentiment that comes across in the closing run of text.
Fleischer's Vaughn almost appears to be acting himself. The way he turns off the light in the basement and turns the key in the lock is so theatrical, and with that weird sinister smirk on his face all the time.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 21, 2007 23:16:52 GMT
Vaughn looks a bit like my landlord, by the way. Especially when he turns keys in locks and smiles at me with that same old sinister smirk.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 21, 2007 23:45:33 GMT
(In response to a deleted message):He can obviously see Graysmith now suspects him and is extremely upset, and yet he just acts more and more ominously. Is he just fucking with him? And is there someone else in the house? My recollection of this scene is cloudy as fuck; I gotta revisit the movie. Taking in mind my position, I'd like to ask this question not because I know the answer, but b/c it's a thought: Did the basement guy act ominous or is it the viewer's perception of him via our hypothesis-building, the music?, lighting, editing, etc.? This question is related to this issue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_EffectSo, was he really acting that way or was it the viewer perceiving it that way? What if his smile and/or looks was just a harmless smile and/or looks and not a sinister, ominous one? It's an interesting idea, but no, I think the performance is sinister. And even if he were behaving in a normal fashion, he shouldn't be: Graysmith is damn near pissing his pants right in front of him. That 'cheerful' farewell call from the doorway as Graysmith clearly flees for his life couldn't be innocent. The guy is canny, and Graysmith is not being subtle.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 2, 2008 3:35:21 GMT
Refreshed from a re-watch this afternoon, some thoughts regarding the basement scene: Throughout the film, Graysmith is a nerdy outsider who isn't really taken seriously. From the early editorial meetings when he's always told to leave, to the reluctance with which Toschi deals with him, to the frustration and rejection shown from his wife, he's constantly doubted and understimated. There are more examples, too. It's worth noting, then, that even Vaughn handles him with some sort of indifferent suspicion. The actor's deliberately cast and/or performs so as to be hunch-backed, creepy in demeanor, with darkened eyes and an assured voice. We suspect him (if Graysmith doesn't) even when he pulls up in his car and suggests Graysmith follow him to his house. He knows Graysmith isn't a cop, and I'd assume he knows of or suspects his boy scout reputation, and thus probably underestimates his detective skills. It's he, remember, who reveals that he wrote the film posters, and that Rick Marshall didn't. He is, I assume, fully aware of its implications, but is confident of his own innocence, whatever of coincidence; he has nothing to hide. He may of course be incredibly naive in assuming his innocence will win against any circumstantial evidence, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since Fincher goes to great lengths with the scene between Graysmith and Toschi in the diner when the former explains to the latter why Arthur Leigh Allen is (again) prime suspect. (And as it happens, by the end of the film, Vaughn isn't prime suspect. Even if it had turned out he was the killer, I'm sure there'd be cases for why Arthur Leigh Allen acts the way he does when first questioned - "So Vaughn was the killer, but why was Arthur Leigh Allen acting the way he was in the scene at his work? Very smug, very knowing.") My point: in this scene (the one before the brackets) Toschi dismisses all evidence that points to Allen as "circumstantial", mere coincidence. Even when he and Graysmith conclude that Allen lived next door to the victim Darlene, their conviction is still, nonetheless, coincidental (more probable than evidence thitherto, but still not fact). Stay with this line of thought; I'm going to meander and come back to it... Vaughn probably doesn't think Graysmith's investigation is going to lead anywhere, and toys with him for his own humour (he's a lonely old man with a big house, who has a lonely job to boot, and this is probably the highlight of his conversational week). You're still asking, "Yeah, but why? It needs to be justified." Well, here's a theory; bare with me... A major theme which develops is "information": the search for it, acquiring of it, use of it, withholding of it, the perpetual chase for the "Truth of Information". Journalists scramble and compete for it, police deduce and cross-reference it and make cases for justice out of it, etc. Bits of information conflict with one another, things don't add up; sense of the entire events only came about (and come about, in the film) when Graysmith began (begins) to cross-reference all the different - and differing - case files. And it comes about, with brief but telling mention, that people are withholding information from everyone else: note Toschi's frustration when Graysmith reveals a certain bit of information the Vallejo dept. had that they hadn't shared with any of the other counties. They're all in it for their own gain, save for (in the film, anyway) Toschi, perhaps Graysmith too. Vaughn's a sore thumb in all this because (and I believe him to be innocent) he willingly and deliberately gives information that incriminates him. Why do I believe him to be innocent? Because a) he willingly offers the information that incriminates him, not thinking much of Graysmith's deductive skills, and b) the information Graysmith learns in the scene after this overrides the revelation discovered in the basement scene. And that's what a lot of this is: Information is, a lot of the time in the film, coincidence not fact. The fact that Darlene knew Allen and lived very close to him is coincidental, but it's a coincidence which, in my opinion (and apparently Graysmith's too) overrides in significance the "fact" that "some old guy" - for he is now insignificant - matches in handwriting with the letters. NB: we all know watching the film the division of opinion (and thus fragility of "fact") regarding the reliability of the Zodiac's handwriting. The reason why this scene may strike one as problematic is perhaps due to the "final act syndrome" of the narrative (Graysmith's obsessive delve into the investigation): everything's in place and so it rushes along without in-depth analysis - or, without the need to analyse in-depth. The fact that this new piece of information - Leigh Allen's involvement with Darlene - even comes into the open should be evidence enough of a more significant, convincing and worthy need of pursuit... just as coincidental information prior to that point follows the same line (Leigh Allen suddenly being ticked off as suspect because the already-unreliable handwriting angle didn't add up). That in brackets there is just as coincidental and insignificant a dismissal as a new piece of information "replacing previous certainty". Are you following...? So, why is Vaughn, as you (rightly) say, acting sinister? For the hell of it? My opinion: Probably, yeah (for reasons above). Think of the film's decision (and I assume Graysmith's book's decision, too) to make, in its final leave, Arthur Leigh Allen as prime suspect slash likely killer. In retrospect, one can look at Vaughn's incrimination as coincidence, and as Allen's as (merely) bigger incrimination, again by coincidence. That's what it comes down to, too: the case was never closed, it remains open; it wasn't solved, and so because of that any likelihood is just that - a probability, not fact. Any theory is going to be based on instinctual feeling, not factual evidence. Think of Graysmith's need to look the Zodiac in the eye - and the dramatic significance of his visit to the DIY store. Like you said, that scene is "dramatically masterful", but the fact you even remember it means it's got some sort of significance in lasting impressions. To me, then, there's no doubt that the circumstances provided in the way they are, are meant to lead us to suspect, when all things are finished, that Allen was the killer (the final line of the final footnote is key). You say that the scene with Vaughn isn't followed up on, but as I've hopefully offered here, it's fully justified, however much it seems like a dip into more generic formula. Fincher needn't follow up with it, because other, more "worthy" information replaces it. Hope this helps. You might need to read it again, though; I'm quite drunk.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 3, 2008 3:58:25 GMT
Refreshed from a re-watch this afternoon, some thoughts regarding the basement scene: Throughout the film, Graysmith is a nerdy outsider who isn't really taken seriously. From the early editorial meetings when he's always told to leave, to the reluctance with which Toschi deals with him, to the frustration and rejection shown from his wife, he's constantly doubted and understimated. There are more examples, too. It's worth noting, then, that even Vaughn handles him with some sort of indifferent suspicion. The actor's deliberately cast and/or performs so as to be hunch-backed, creepy in demeanor, with darkened eyes and an assured voice. We suspect him (if Graysmith doesn't) even when he pulls up in his car and suggests Graysmith follow him to his house. He knows Graysmith isn't a cop, and I'd assume he knows of or suspects his boy scout reputation, and thus probably underestimates his detective skills. It's he, remember, who reveals that he wrote the film posters, and that Rick Marshall didn't. He is, I assume, fully aware of its implications, but is confident of his own innocence, whatever of coincidence; he has nothing to hide. He may of course be incredibly naive in assuming his innocence will win against any circumstantial evidence, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since Fincher goes to great lengths with the scene between Graysmith and Toschi in the diner when the former explains to the latter why Arthur Leigh Allen is (again) prime suspect. (And as it happens, by the end of the film, Vaughn isn't prime suspect. Even if it had turned out he was the killer, I'm sure there'd be cases for why Arthur Leigh Allen acts the way he does when first questioned - "So Vaughn was the killer, but why was Arthur Leigh Allen acting the way he was in the scene at his work? Very smug, very knowing.") My point: in this scene (the one before the brackets) Toschi dismisses all evidence that points to Allen as "circumstantial", mere coincidence. Even when he and Graysmith conclude that Allen lived next door to the victim Darlene, their conviction is still, nonetheless, coincidental (more probable than evidence thitherto, but still not fact). Stay with this line of thought; I'm going to meander and come back to it... Vaughn probably doesn't think Graysmith's investigation is going to lead anywhere, and toys with him for his own humour (he's a lonely old man with a big house, who has a lonely job to boot, and this is probably the highlight of his conversational week). You're still asking, "Yeah, but why? It needs to be justified." Well, here's a theory; bare with me... A major theme which develops is "information": the search for it, acquiring of it, use of it, withholding of it, the perpetual chase for the "Truth of Information". Journalists scramble and compete for it, police deduce and cross-reference it and make cases for justice out of it, etc. Bits of information conflict with one another, things don't add up; sense of the entire events only came about (and come about, in the film) when Graysmith began (begins) to cross-reference all the different - and differing - case files. And it comes about, with brief but telling mention, that people are withholding information from everyone else: note Toschi's frustration when Graysmith reveals a certain bit of information the Vallejo dept. had that they hadn't shared with any of the other counties. They're all in it for their own gain, save for (in the film, anyway) Toschi, perhaps Graysmith too. Vaughn's a sore thumb in all this because (and I believe him to be innocent) he willingly and deliberately gives information that incriminates him. Why do I believe him to be innocent? Because a) he willingly offers the information that incriminates him, not thinking much of Graysmith's deductive skills, and b) the information Graysmith learns in the scene after this overrides the revelation discovered in the basement scene. And that's what a lot of this is: Information is, a lot of the time in the film, coincidence not fact. The fact that Darlene knew Allen and lived very close to him is coincidental, but it's a coincidence which, in my opinion (and apparently Graysmith's too) overrides in significance the "fact" that "some old guy" - for he is now insignificant - matches in handwriting with the letters. NB: we all know watching the film the division of opinion (and thus fragility of "fact") regarding the reliability of the Zodiac's handwriting. The reason why this scene may strike one as problematic is perhaps due to the "final act syndrome" of the narrative (Graysmith's obsessive delve into the investigation): everything's in place and so it rushes along without in-depth analysis - or, without the need to analyse in-depth. The fact that this new piece of information - Leigh Allen's involvement with Darlene - even comes into the open should be evidence enough of a more significant, convincing and worthy need of pursuit... just as coincidental information prior to that point follows the same line (Leigh Allen suddenly being ticked off as suspect because the already-unreliable handwriting angle didn't add up). That in brackets there is just as coincidental and insignificant a dismissal as a new piece of information "replacing previous certainty". Are you following...? So, why is Vaughn, as you (rightly) say, acting sinister? For the hell of it? My opinion: Probably, yeah (for reasons above). Think of the film's decision (and I assume Graysmith's book's decision, too) to make, in its final leave, Arthur Leigh Allen as prime suspect slash likely killer. In retrospect, one can look at Vaughn's incrimination as coincidence, and as Allen's as (merely) bigger incrimination, again by coincidence. That's what it comes down to, too: the case was never closed, it remains open; it wasn't solved, and so because of that any likelihood is just that - a probability, not fact. Any theory is going to be based on instinctual feeling, not factual evidence. Think of Graysmith's need to look the Zodiac in the eye - and the dramatic significance of his visit to the DIY store. Like you said, that scene is "dramatically masterful", but the fact you even remember it means it's got some sort of significance in lasting impressions. To me, then, there's no doubt that the circumstances provided in the way they are, are meant to lead us to suspect, when all things are finished, that Allen was the killer (the final line of the final footnote is key). You say that the scene with Vaughn isn't followed up on, but as I've hopefully offered here, it's fully justified, however much it seems like a dip into more generic formula. Fincher needn't follow up with it, because other, more "worthy" information replaces it. Hope this helps. You might need to read it again, though; I'm quite drunk. Damn, hate to read ya when ya sober. ;D Anyway, a great article and you know what? You're right.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 9, 2008 16:51:58 GMT
I absolutely agree with this:
By the way, Wetdog, see Pakula's excellent All the President's Men.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Feb 13, 2008 6:18:41 GMT
This is my favorite movie of 2007 so far.
It was intense, and it kept you thinking. I was thrown right into it and hooked. This is the best movie since The Illusionist.
I feel bad that I have to speak of films in such cliches, but I can't find much else to say now. I just liked it very much. It was really entertaining, and I appreciated a well made movie that is very entertaining.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 9, 2008 22:33:13 GMT
In light of your last viewing, wetdog, and the fact it's now a 10/10 for you, have you cleared your thoughts up anymore on the basement scene?
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on Apr 13, 2008 1:09:56 GMT
I'm not a fan of the movie, but I'll agree with omar (and Capo, right?) that the basement scene is part of the "impossibility of truth". Great review for fans (and non-fans): www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=600
|
|