Come anticipate David Fincher's "Zodiac"

its one of those scenes that emphasizes how the movie is NOT about solving a crime - its about how trying to solve a crime magnifies and distorts the crime itself, as well as those attempting to solve it

Yeah, by the end of the film Graysmith is totally leading the witnesses

which also made me re-think the film's "conclusion" that Allen is the Zodiac - its kind of a joke ending to "convict" him on film after spending the last 2 1/2 hours laying out precisely how untrustworthy media interpretations of events are (and of course in real life Allen was exonerated repeatedly based on hard evidence)

it's catharsis for graysmith (and the guy who was almost murdered). i await fincher's dir cut to see if he keeps the end '10 years later' cards.

that scene is great!

the funny thing (well, one of many funny things) is that even just going by the "evidence" laid out in the film, Graysmith gets his closure ("I have to look him in the eye, and KNOW it's him") without actually having any proof whatsoever.

x-post

he works up this convoluted interpretation that allows him to achieve catharsis without actually, y'know, achieving anything.

The fact that the film came down so squarely against Allen was to me its weakest point – I'm not sure why; maybe it's because the film seems to be showing you that some things are unanswerable, only to then suddenly provide an answer?

Whoops, sorry Shakey Mo, i just recapped what you said upthread

Just saw this, so I'm jumping in. The majority of the evidence implicates Allen, so the movie goes that way, but I disagree that it implicates him 'so squarely,' ie, more squarely than merited.

As for Allen being exonerated by 'hard evidence' - unfortunately, that evidence wasn't that hard. Good DNA evidence from a letter that numerous people have had their hands on over so many years? Not likely.

no handwriting match, no fingerprint match, cleared a polygraph test, no evidence linking him to the scenes of any of the crimes. That's pretty goddamned conclusive.

from wikipedia:

Allen had been cleared several times during the investigation of the murders and the simultaneous hunt for the killer. These included passing a polygraph test, clearing a fingerprint screening (from those left at the crime scene of the taxicab murder), clearing a handwriting test and, most recently in 2002, being ruled out by a DNA test conducted based on DNA collected from one of the stamps of the Zodiac letters. Searches of his residence also never revealed any conclusive evidence.

Anybody who believes Allen was the killer based on evidence presented in the movie is totally missing the film's central point.

that you should just get out there and have a good time.

Whether missing the central point or not, here's the thing:

No fingerprint match to anyone, on a fingerprint they weren't even sure wasn't a mistake by a cop touching something. Handwriting - I really don't know much about handwriting analysis, so can't comment. Polygraphs are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate - they are MOST DEFINITELY not conclusive. Very common misconception.

The evidence is NOT conclusive at all.

I think the message of the movie is that if you're going to have sex in a car in a park, do it fucking quick and don't dick around. Well, do dick around.
x

hahaha

No fingerprint match to anyone, on a fingerprint they weren't even sure wasn't a mistake by a cop touching something.

btw its very easy to rule out cop fingerprints - their fingerprints are all on file.

Well I'm just taking that from the film - that it could have been a bystander or someone else. Such doubt certainly does not lead me to christen it 'conclusive evidence.'

no handwriting match, no fingerprint match, cleared a polygraph test, no evidence linking him to the scenes of any of the crimes. That's pretty goddamned conclusive.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:01 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

that's conclusive *lack of evidence*, not proof he didn't do it. fortunately we live in nice places where you need positive proof people did a thing before you lock them up (or whatever you do to killers in the states), but there were reasons he became a suspect, and damn, that scene at the place where he worked was pretty freaky right?

If it was me I would have made him make me a key then I'd try to take him to lunch. Just to see if he'd crack.

I'm flabbergasted that people are honestly making assumptions about a person's guilt based on a movie whose entire theme is that media interpretations are inherently unreliable.

that's conclusive *lack of evidence*, not proof he didn't do it.

negative proofs are a logical impossibility (see Iraq/WMD arguments)

i so want to see this again, and even though i know i will buy the mega-mega all-extras fincher-cut version next year, i guess i have to buy it sans extras now. i mean the scene on RDJ's boat is kind of what it's all about, i think, now.

"do you have the files"
"i live on a *boat*"

xpost

lol shakey i was kidding, but the film was kinda based on real shit at the same time, i don't know that they made a whole lot up re. allen.

negative proofs are a logical impossibility (see Iraq/WMD arguments)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

not really. this is why murder suspects have to produce alibis and whatnot.

But I think people are simply assessing the available evidence - within the world of the film, of course - and coming to a reasoned conclusion. Based on that and reasoning through it, it's clear that he was deservedly the number one suspect. You're argument about 'the media' applies in that the movie does not contain other important information that one would need in assessing the case overall.

"do you have the files"

haha see pre-credits note at beginning of film "this film is based on actual case files". There are so many FLASHING WARNING SIGNS in the film that say DO NOT TRUST THIS FILM

x-post

you guys should really watch this again - and read that Slate piece. (for ex. its telling that the very first scene right after the first murder is of evidence being mishandled by the press)

(er, Slant)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/zodiac/river_1.html

pretty informative about the real-life case for anyone curious..

But Shakey haven't you turned from a discussion of whether the hard evidence is conclusive to a discussion of a main theme within the movie, which are separate things? In other words I don't think that us disagreeing on the conclusiveness of a polygraph test has anything to do with my ability to grasp a main theme of the movie.

I dunno - you're the one who keeps bringing up evidence as its presented in the movie, note me.

(er NOT me)

I mean if it isn't clear, the movie does NOT present hard evidence of any kind, and repeatedly draws attention to this fact.

Latebloomer I'm having a read of that site - it's very interesting.

Ebert's review is up.

so if they ever re-make columbo, mark ruffalo is a shoe-in!!!

this looked really good but i couldn't understand what anyone was saying. i spent the whole thing going "what was that?" "what he he just say there?" and re-winding it to try and catch the bits i missed and still not hearing them.

"Fincher decorates background walls with classic movie posters and includes a self-indicting, pre-opening credit visual clue (elucidated during the third act) that speaks to cinema's potent cultural impact,

wait what is this "clue" he's referring to here

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:22 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link"

i'm not sure but there is an unusual close-up shot of some geese just after the discovery of the first bodies.

anyway, i didn't understand this film.

yea i watched the movie with subtitles. it was a big help. i sometimes do that with movies with tons of tiny little details that i need to keep track of, e.g. syriana. something about reading it, visually understanding it makes it stick a little better.

clue = "based on actual case files" text that precedes the opening credit sequence (joke being that later in the film the "actual case files" are referred to as lost/destroyed)

anyway, i didn't understand this film.

-- jed_, Monday, October 1, 2007 1:34 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

ok i'll take the bait. what did you not understand

I got this from Netflix and it has been sitting in my living room for two weeks. I watched the first hour of it but was not able to concentrate (it wasn't the movie, though, I had a very hard time concentrating enough to even read a newspaper right after that).

watched this last week, struck me as very much a made-for-tv movie with some big stars. quite poor. ridiculous conclusions.

just as said s1ocki, i couldn't understand what was happening because i couldn't understand what anyone was saying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ePYxO-KgXT4

oops wrong thread hahahahahaha

Director's Cut on the way too. That's a bit sudden i find.

not these days

i'm holding out for the supa-dupa multi-disc edition with the director's cut etc, though i hope it has both versions on it.

which is WAY more defensible for a film like this than for, say, 'blade runner' or 'apocalypse now redux'. i think "fincher's dvd cut" has been a possibility since before the film even came out in cinemas. 'blade runner' dircut was an afterthought.