David Fincher’s 2007 film Zodiac garnered critical acclaim, with a 90 percent freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, there were still some viewers who felt disappointed by the lack of resolution in the movie. Given the numerous theories surrounding the identity of the Zodiac killer, it’s understandable that some viewers were hoping for a more definitive ending or exploration of the unsolved mystery that had captivated people for decades.
During a recent Tribeca Festival panel with Steven Soderbergh, Fincher addressed the criticism. He explained, “There was so much flak after Zodiac came out about people saying, ‘Why didn’t you go down this rabbit hole? Why did you only go down the Graysmith rabbit hole?'” Fincher clarified that the movie was based on Robert Graysmith’s books, recounting his personal obsession with uncovering the killer’s identity. The focus on Graysmith’s perspective was a deliberate choice, as that was the story they had bought the rights to adapt.
Fincher’s response highlights the challenge of adapting real-life events into movies. When working with living subjects, such as the individuals involved in his Facebook origins film, The Social Network, or the inspirations behind his Mindhunter series, he emphasized the responsibility to accurately convey their stories while being aware of the potential consequences. Fincher stated, “You have a responsibility to make sure that you are saying what you want to say because chances are they can deck you in an airport.” He emphasized the importance of being conscious and smart about portraying real people and events on screen.
The choice to adapt Graysmith’s books for Zodiac allowed Fincher to delve into the perspective of one individual’s obsession with the Zodiac killer. The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Graysmith, a newspaper cartoonist who becomes increasingly consumed with unraveling the mystery. The cast also includes Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Chloë Sevigny, John Carroll Lynch, and Anthony Edwards.
Related Post
Making movies based on real events and headlines can be a delicate balance between responsibility and entertainment. Fincher acknowledged the slippery slope of adapting real-life stories, noting that it is important to be responsible while still captivating and entertaining the audience. This balance requires careful consideration of the source material and the impact it may have on the individuals involved.
In the case of Zodiac, the choice to focus on Graysmith’s perspective allowed the film to explore the personal obsession and determination of one individual, rather than trying to encompass all the various theories and perspectives surrounding the case. While some viewers may have desired a more definitive conclusion, Fincher’s decision to adapt Graysmith’s books provided a unique narrative that delved into the mind of an individual caught up in the midst of an unsolved mystery.
Despite the disappointment expressed by some viewers, Zodiac remains widely regarded as a masterful film, showcasing Fincher’s skill in crafting compelling narratives and creating atmospheric suspense. The movie effectively captures the eerie and haunting nature of the Zodiac killer story, keeping audiences on the edge of their seats until the very end.
In summary, David Fincher’s film Zodiac may have left some viewers wanting more closure or a different take on the story. However, Fincher’s choice to adapt Robert Graysmith’s books allowed the film to explore the personal obsession of one individual, rather than trying to encompass all the various theories surrounding the Zodiac killer. While there may have been differing expectations, Zodiac remains a critically acclaimed masterpiece that showcases Fincher’s ability to craft suspenseful narratives.
