Unfinished Narrative.

Rating: 5/10 (23 August 2008)

The movie industry must be drawn to this story of the San Francisco Bay Area serial murderer like moths to a Klieg light and they always wind up irritated. The Zodiac narrative doesn't fit the required dramatic trajectory. Oh, the elements that have now become conventions are all there in the investigation -- the spooky killings, piecing the tesserae together into a mosaic with a pattern, the problem coordinating efforts between venues, the increasing number of incidents, the involvement of the press, the frustration of the police, the special investigative team, the obsessive pursuer, the red herrings, the "good" suspects who can't be pinned down -- but there is no climax! What is SUPPOSED to happen is that the killer is identified and finally captured, preferably after a chase, and preferably after a shoot out if possible, then brought to justice. The last shot of the movie ought to show either (1) the vicious murderer smiling behind bars or (2) the lead detective finally able to sleep peacefully, undisturbed by nightmares.
Not here. Multiple characters weave their way in and out of the story, so many that some of us may lose track of who's who. Mainly we can identify Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), his wife (Chloe Sevigny), reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.). and Inspector Toschi (Mark Ruffalo). We can identify them because they are familiar faces and because they show up on screen more often than others. And Jake Gyllenhaal is the especially perceptive cartoonist who is gradually swept up in the case, becomes possessed by it, and loses his family and his job in order to write the definitive book about it. I guess we remember Melvin Belli (Bryan Cox) too because he's so fluid. And we remember Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) because he looks monumentally guilty.
The story is all Gylenhaal's. He's the guy who cracks the code, does the leg work, amazes the police with his dedication, and virtually solves the case, though not to the satisfaction of the justice system. His chase, though ultimately fruitless, becomes frenzied. Well, it has to be the story of Graysmith and his sacrifices. He wrote the book the film is based on and he was technical adviser, along with his wife. If I were to be the adviser on a movie about MY life, my ex-wife would have had to leave because of my dedication to justice too, not because I kept a closet full of ladies' shoes or something. (No.) But then, why did the investigation become so fast and sweaty towards the end? The cops had long ago given up the case. Nothing was pending. There were no deadlines looming. The viewer senses chiefly that the pace must pick up speed because that's what the traditional narrative structure demands. The audience expects it. And, further, Graysmith must have found himself with a fascinating and commercial story that had no satisfactory ending, which is why Truman Capote was being driven nuts in the case of "In Cold Blood," and delayed finishing the book until the killers were hanged.
It isn't that there are no recurring treatments of unsolved murders. "Lizzie Borden took an ax," etc. The Black Dahlia. And then there's Jack the Ripper. But the killers in these cases are safely dead, along with all the other real characters, and you can speculate about them as much as you like without fear of their taking legal redress. But with the Zodiac killer, who began his career in 1969 and, as far as we know, is still around, along with the victims and the agents of social control, conjecture has to be kept within the bounds of prudence. The result: an unfinished narrative, with everything left hanging in the air.
It would have been nice if they'd caught the murderous, crowing lunatic. Not only would it have made a better book and better film, but he needs to suffer a little. As it stands, this movie provides us with all the details of the case we're likely to know. It's intelligently done. No exploding heads, no glitzy directorial displays, no lightning-fast editing. We're not likely to see a better description of the case on film.
Yet the film leaves a sour taste. If the hero of the tale is Robert Graysmith (nee Robert Gray Smith), he's a flawed hero in real life and even in this screen portrayal. Or maybe it's just me. I'm chary of over achievers, especially reporters accused of plagiarism and suspected of forging one of Zodiac's letters, shopping his book around, looking so avidly for money and celebrity.