A good police procedural but a poor psychological study

Rating: 8/10 (13 March 2007)

The Zodiac was a serial killer active in San Francisco during the early 1970's. Unlike others of his kind, the Zodiac loved publicity and courted it religiously. He sent letters and coded messages to newspapers and police. During one killing he wore a complicated hood and cloak costume with his zodiac symbol emblazoned on the front. Another murder was done simply for the press and to tweak the cops. Horribly he got away with all this. The Zodiac killer was never caught. Because of this Zodiac the movie combines a police procedural with a study of the psychological effects the fruitless search had on its participants.
Zodiac tries to concentrates on two individuals, Robert Graysmith, a political cartoonist who becomes obsessed with the killer and David Toschi, one of the cops assigned to the case. To appreciate the psychological toll obsession takes you have to come to know its victims. Despite the movie's long running time we never get that close to Graysmith or Toschi. Part of this is the actors fault. As Graysmith Jake Gyllenhaal is a cipher. He never seems any more than an amiable young man and his inner life remains something to be guessed at. Mark Ruffalo, as Toschi, is a better actor than his compatriot but his part is written as standard TV cop fare. Toschi resembles an amusing Columbo clone rather than a real cop with twenty five years experience. Another hindrance in understanding these two is that we simply don't spend enough time with them. Zodiac must have a hundred speaking roles with an array of secondary characters that easily outshine the leads. Robert Downy plays Roger Avery, a reporter assigned to the Zodiac case, as a smart-alec hipster undone by the '70's drug culture. Brian Cox plays flamboyant criminal lawyer and part time actor Melvin Belli for all the parts worth, which is about every stick of scenery within his reach. As a suspect John Carroll Lynch seems normal but just creepy enough to give one pause. Charles Fleischer outdoes Lynch on the creepy scale as a source who may be more than he seems. These characters flit in an out as the case rises and falls, all drawing attention away from Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo. It becomes increasingly clear is that Zodiac isn't really interested in their characters. The movie would much rather dwell on the search for and identification of the Zodiac Killer.
It is as a police procedural that Zodiac shines. The facts of the case are clearly, almost lovingly delineated. Or, more accurately, Zodiac gives a very complete illusion of delineation. For Zodiac is compelled to give us the killer in a famously unsolved case. Yes, this is the suspect Graysmith and many of those involved with the case truly believe to be the killer and Zodiac is careful to point out the evidence presented is circumstantial. There can be, however, a huge gulf between what a movie pays lip service to and what it implies dramatically.
It must be remembered that Zodiac is based on a book by a man whose psychological health depended on finding the killer. A multi-million dollar movie also has a need for closure. A police procedural needs a conclusion to proceed to. Otherwise you leave your audience frustrated and a frustrated audience is a small, unprofitable audience. Bear that in mind as you watch Zodiac. As informative as the movie is, distrust its conclusions. The real Zodiac was never caught. No one was prosecuted. Everything else is, at best, informed conjecture. Keeps this thought close and you will find Zodiac fine, thought provoking entertainment.