Kubrick's all primal psychology and no backstory.
― Eazy, Saturday, 19 January 2008 16:10 (sixteen years ago) link
What do we find out about Norton that isn't part of the 'surprise' and/or sloganeering?
― milo z, Saturday, 19 January 2008 16:41 (sixteen years ago) link
slightly loaded question there milo! we learn he had an absent father, is a bit lonely, hates his job, can't think of anything he'd rather do, separates love from sex with a cleaver. more than you learn about the guys in '2001'. and of course psychology is externalized in fincher too, e.g. 'seven'.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 19 January 2008 17:32 (sixteen years ago) link
We don't get any sense of him as an individual beyond what we're told, and what we're told is all about moving the story (or justifying the gag). It's all shallow and explicit, quirks to drive the plot (or justify the gag).
Where in Kubrick's films, there's much more abiguity to the characters and their motivation. You actually have to read into their words and actions.
― milo z, Saturday, 19 January 2008 17:40 (sixteen years ago) link
zodiac is ALL about character
― s1ocki, Saturday, 19 January 2008 23:20 (sixteen years ago) link
I don't see the Kubrick parallels either (perhaps a certain detachment pervades it, but that's certainly not unique to Kubrick.)
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:00 (sixteen years ago) link
If anything I think Fincher's treatment of actors (like setpieces or as I said above wallpaper) has more in common with Hitchcock.
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:05 (sixteen years ago) link
Curious question: does anyone actually think that Zodiac's characters were unambiguous? That everything was right on the surface? Because I gotta say if that's the case you must have watched a different movie than I did because I thought there was tons of ambiguity with all of these people (in fact that's Armand White's main complaint!) and the movie (to it's credit) doesn't try to neat explain it all away. It just let's it all play out and leaves the viewer to ponder the mystery and motivations of these people (and events). Which given the real life outcomes is exactly as it should be.
― Alex in SF, Sunday, 20 January 2008 00:46 (sixteen years ago) link
i've watched this like 4-5 times now and each time im more convinced it's great. profound, even (in the contrast between certainty and faith, and the necessity of the latter; monastic dedication; the threat of nihilism; and the simple transcendence of the final confrontation). at least that's my personal reaction to it.
best american movie of 2007, for me, easily.
― ryan, Friday, 25 January 2008 07:39 (sixteen years ago) link
Kent Jones wrote in the current Film Comment that it's his Movie of the Year -- and then complains at length that Gyllenhaal is unconvincing as an obsessive fact-monkey.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 25 January 2008 14:15 (sixteen years ago) link
i never know what to make of claims about performances like that...
― ryan, Friday, 25 January 2008 21:51 (sixteen years ago) link
saw this again, always scared to see films i love a second time in case they don't live up. this one really did. it's awesome. the music montage was fun too. forgot how much rdj brought lols.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:13 (sixteen years ago) link
yeah, i never got the hate for his character on this thread.
― deeznuts, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:44 (sixteen years ago) link
saw for the fourth time last week, great as ever
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:55 (sixteen years ago) link
i mean "rescreened"
and yeah rdj is great - character wouldve been killed by some bullshit hammy johnny depp acting but he really inhabits it
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:56 (sixteen years ago) link
rdj is awesome!!
― s1ocki, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:05 (sixteen years ago) link
must get this director's cut editiony thing.
the aqua velvet scene never fails to bring lolz
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:07 (sixteen years ago) link
'THIS... can no longer be ignored'
'hey bullitt, its been a year! you gonna catch this fuckin guy or not?'
― and what, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:09 (sixteen years ago) link
the scene at the bullitt premiere gave me a movie boner.
― s1ocki, Saturday, 9 February 2008 19:19 (sixteen years ago) link
it were DIRTY HARRY!
no oscar nominations AT ALL?? can we have a recount?
― pisces, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:46 (sixteen years ago) link
not anywhere as original as Fight Club, which got one nomination: Sound Effects Editing.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:52 (sixteen years ago) link
holy shit morbz
you are not allowed to have opinions about movies
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:56 (sixteen years ago) link
No, he's right. Long and boring.
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:57 (sixteen years ago) link
who the fuck are you?
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:58 (sixteen years ago) link
no, it's good. But one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 25 February 2008 20:59 (sixteen years ago) link
http://i10.glitter-graphics.org/pub/1/1140r4teg1tiai.gif
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:00 (sixteen years ago) link
all this time i just thought you were acting like a slow 17 yr old, i didnt know you actually were one
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:01 (sixteen years ago) link
seconded
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:02 (sixteen years ago) link
one just-good murder film is interchangeable with another
-- Morbius
Exactly. Which is to say boring at three hours, unless you have some specific interest in the case or detective stories in general. I don't.
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:02 (sixteen years ago) link
Nice clothes, though.
this movie is not a "murder film"
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:03 (sixteen years ago) link
i ... think ... i agree with morbius ... in spite of disliking fc
― remy bean, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:04 (sixteen years ago) link
that was the corniest turd i evah passed
I thought that about No Country for Old Men more than this one, which had the historical/journo angles.
― Eazy, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:04 (sixteen years ago) link
hamlet, clue, weekend and bernie's, all the same really
― gff, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:05 (sixteen years ago) link
^KLASSIK SHIT^
Not if you want to pirouette around it with "limits of our knowledge" crap, Shakey, no.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:05 (sixteen years ago) link
shit tell me which murder films are like zodiac because i want to see them
― omar little, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:06 (sixteen years ago) link
otm
― caek, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:09 (sixteen years ago) link
there's what, like 8, 9 minutes of actual murdering in this?
― and what, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:12 (sixteen years ago) link
I don't get it. What was so great about it? Camerawork was really slick, but kinda distracting. Nice cinematography. Snappy color coordination on the set decoration, but it seemed overdone and (worse) meaningless to me. I gather we were supposed to see the main character being "consumed" by this insoluble case the way Downey was, but that didn't come through at all. Puppy dog hero seemed inward and obsessive from day one and Downey a predictable drug/booze casualty. Pat ending where the killer's identity is finally settled felt cheap: seriously undercut the film's most interesting themes. What's to love? Period detail? Painstaking re-creation?
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:16 (sixteen years ago) link
^^^ ban
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:17 (sixteen years ago) link
I'd say its genre is the procedural
― ryan, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:19 (sixteen years ago) link
Except for the parts that aren't. Like 50+% of it.
― Alex in SF, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:20 (sixteen years ago) link
its genre is the procedural
Yeah, but w/ journalists instead of cops. If you allow a broad definition, with some context & character stuff that isn't related to the case at hand.
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:22 (sixteen years ago) link
that's not really a genre, is it?
i don't think with stuff developed outside studio development departs by name-directors that 'genre' is that useful a category. sure in a way this is a "procedural detective film," but it's not in a genre in the way films were under the studio system, when they were done on a factory basis.
(this isn't to privilege fincher's MO, over, say, the system that produced the noir genre in the 1940s; i'm just saying.)
xpost
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:23 (sixteen years ago) link
It's interesting that the movie that contenderizer is describing sounds virtually nothing like the one I watched.
― Alex in SF, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:23 (sixteen years ago) link
Are you saying that the film wasn't about a character being consumed by an investigation, or that it didn't attempt to provide a solution to its own puzzle (killer's identity)?
― contenderizer, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:25 (sixteen years ago) link
Maybe. Not sure I'd agree about as much as 50%
I guess part of what makes it great to me is how it manages to investigate or even "deconstruct" (sorry) itself and its genre without sacrificing any pleasure. Its an extremely satisfying film.
Xposts
― ryan, Monday, 25 February 2008 21:26 (sixteen years ago) link