On Z List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Zodiac (2007)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
9/25
9/25:
The biggest issue when it comes to the Zodiac case is credibility.
Robert Graysmith is the author of a book that's frequently referred to as the main source: Zodiac, but
he's a former cartoonist with no writing or law enforcement experience in any capacity. It was
published in 1986. Given that the case pretty much died down by 1972 and the fourth and final murder
happened in 1969, what took him so long? Then again, why Robert Graysmith? What about Paul Avery? Here's
the shocker: they both never met each other while working at the San Francisco Chronicle and had no
relationship afterwards. In the film Zodiac, Robert Downey, Jr., doesn't even look like Paul Avery.
Worse, how do we know all of the five murders in four attacks were attributed to a single serial killer?
If we take away the letters and the ciphers, there's actually nothing in common among the four attacks including
forensic evidence. The Lake Berryessa attack is unique as it's probably the work of a copycat killer
since nobody ever did anything like that before or since then. One can guess he learned enough from the newspaper
articles.
Now, I'm curious: what was the chain of custody in regard to the letters and the ciphers? That's an important
point because the following needs to be asked: could it be that they were made up by the
San Francisco Chronicle, most specifically Robert Graysmith? How do we know they weren't? If the envelope
could be externally identifiable based on the handwriting and the way the writing was structured, did the post
office give that straightaway to the police? If not, then the whole thing is suspect. Also, the decision to
publish the letters and the ciphers in the newspaper has to be questioned.
Interestingly, the letters and the ciphers started coming in AFTER Robert Graysmith was hired.
Coincidence or...not? Except for the very first correspondence on July 31, 1969, only one letter was sent to
the San Franscisco Examiner and the Los Angeles Times with the rest going to the
San Francisco Chronicle. By the way, what was the credibility level of the
San Francisco Chronicle before the Zodiac case started? If you want to know, it used to be a
tabloid paper for the longest time although with star investigative reporters who ultimately left in the
early 70's. For example, it made up a story about the invasion of biker gangs in Hollister, California,
in 1947 that became the basis of a film starring Marlon Brando: The Wild One.
When the writer sent the letters and the ciphers, he didn't reveal anything incriminating beyond what could be
learned from the newspapers and/or from police reports (keep in mind that the San Francisco Chronicle had
almost virtual access to them at the time). If you compare Robert Graysmith's books to the
police reports, which are freely available online, a great deal of additional content has been made up. Yet he
wrote so much, matching what's true that's still not known to the public [the documents were officially released
decades later]. Moreover, he plagiarized some newspaper articles to take the place of his own interviews with
the people involved. His style is often akin to the purple prose championed by Truman Capote in
In Cold Blood, forcing skeptics to ask themselves, "How did the author
know? Was he there personally?" when it comes to moments that can only be known to the killer(s) and the deceased.
Arthur Leigh Allen did it? Okay, where's the damning evidence? The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD)
did everything possible to pin the murders on him, but nothing stuck. The whole Zodiac thing has to be
impossible to get away with if he did it. In other words,
Arthur Leigh Allen didn't do it which means he's being framed by Robert Graysmith. I'm only surprised no
lawsuit was filed against him for libel. It's irresponsible of the filmmakers to do that for Zodiac.
Anyway, as a stand-alone, the movie is all right for what it is. The performances hold up, and I like
Mark Ruffalo's the most. As Robert Graysmith, Jake Gyllenhaal is annoying and shouldn't be a participant
in the case at any minute. When a certain phrase was mentioned in the first cipher, I was like, "Yeah, that's
The Most Dangerous Game...duh," but nobody made the connection
for a while.
For the most part, the film doesn't do well in depicting the late 60's and the early 70's. To see what I mean is
to check out Bullitt and Dirty Harry.
Going back to Truman Capote, how did the filmmakers know what exactly happened in these four attacks? But that's
not how true crime works; investigators only see the aftermath and interrogate people including witnesses and
survivors.
One nice piece of trivia is that former SFPD Inspector Dave Toschi was the inspiration behind the famous
characters in the two aforementioned films. Oh, yeah...his removal from the Zodiac case and then demotion in
1978? That's because he, two years prior, "acknowledged writing and mailing anonymous fan letters to the
Chronicle lauding his own work." What about the news program on October 22, 1969? It turned out to be
a mental patient at an Oakland hospital making a crank call. That's when we can safely say there were copycats
due to widespread media coverage, thanks to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The cipher on November 8, 1969, remained unsolved until 2020. By the time it was decrypted, nothing important
could be gleaned. There are two more unsolved ciphers, and both will probably be full of shit, too. Robert
Graysmith never cracked the cipher as stated in the film which had been confirmed by the FBI. Of the film,
director David Fincher later admitted, "I don't know whether or not this really happened," and "I know
this didn't happen this way, but we thought it worked better." Gee, thanks...why not just change the title
and the names of every character and declare the film a work of pure fiction?
All in all, Zodiac is factually bullshit and too long.