But there’s yet another way that Zodiac seems to romanticize the past, and that’s in its depiction of good old fashioned detective work. Consider that if the Zodiac struck today, the case might be solved in 30 minutes with a pair of tweezers and a DNA lab. Open and shut. And what’s the fun of that? Instead, here’s a drama that relies on handwriting samples, timelines, informants and alibis. This is factual, of course, and many of the details come from Graysmith’s novel and James Vanderbilt’s screenplay, but there’s no question that Fincher is fascinated by the significance of the minutiae—not that it should come as a surprise. As his previous films have shown, Fincher admires those willing to slog through the unpleasantness. He likes guys who get dirty.
EH: He also loves documenting the processes involved in all this hard work, the step-by-step systematic operations behind the stories he’s telling. We’ve seen this before in isolated moments from his earlier films—the tracking shot of the break-in from Panic Room; the processes of making soap or projecting films in Fight Club; the credits of Se7en with their breakdown of John Doe’s daily activities—but Zodiac is entirely about process. It takes these moments that had always been there in Fincher’s work and makes them the center of the movie, the structural foundations for everything else that happens. Again, it’s not a surprise by any means, but it’s working on a different level than the similar elements in Fincher’s other films.
I think the nostalgic tendency you’ve teased out here is similarly a magnified version of threads that have woven through all of Fincher’s work. There is often a sense in his films that we have lost something, that there is a possibly apocryphal past that was better (morally superior, less debased or degraded) than the world we have today. Thus his characters are always rooted in the societal climate in which the film is made. And his villains reflect the elements of modern society that Fincher wants to call to his audience’s attention: the abuses of marketing, corporate greed, the invisibility of poverty. It is very rare that he represents what might be thought of as a timeless evil, the kind of evil represented by Javier Bardem’s merciless hitman Anton Chigurh in another great 2007 movie, No Country For Old Men. These two films, which came out in the same year and arguably represent their directors’ responses to the post-9/11 climate of fear and violence, actually display very different interpretations of the concept of evil that is so central to both films.
In the Coen brothers’ film, the sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), views Chigurh’s shadowy killer in the same way as Fincher’s heroes tend to view their opposite numbers, as reflections of a degraded modern age that is much, much scarier than anything encountered in the past. In many ways, Bell is that film’s Somerset, feeling overwhelmed and outmatched by this new, modern evil. He feels incapable of dealing with what he sees, and is forced to retire, having been made obsolete by a changing world. The film doesn’t stop there, though, which is possibly where it would stop had Fincher made it. Instead, the Coens, following Cormac McCarthy’s original novel very faithfully, go further, suggesting in the film’s meditative coda that Bell is wrong, that Chigurh is not a specifically modern evil but simply the same old ancient evil in modern guise. Zodiac’s villain is, ironically, far less of a concrete presence than Chigurh, but he’s more of a flesh-and-blood person: Chigurh is an archetype, a metaphor with a pageboy haircut, while the Zodiac Killer, whoever he might be, is an actual person, most likely with psychological and emotional motivations for what he does. One thing I may have glossed over in my discussions of Fincher’s themes during this conversation is that his films are always, no matter what else they might be, about people first and foremost.
JB: They are indeed about people. You know, from a historical perspective I’m a tad uncomfortable with Zodiac’s final scene, which could be misread as a case-closed conviction of Arthur Leigh Allen, when in reality it only means that for Graysmith the case is closed. But I’m not sure I can think of another film that humanizes a killer as effectively as Zodiac does when it shows the simple Leigh in the simple hardware store, wearing his simple vest and nametag. A ruthless killer Leigh might be; Anton Chigurh he isn’t. Meanwhile, in Zodiac we also feel the geeky obsession of Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith, who is otherwise so ordinary. And we feel the frustration of the all-too-average David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), who was cool enough that Steve McQueen’s Frank Bullitt was modeled after him, but who still doesn’t have the detective smarts to bring down a killer arrogant enough to dangle clues in his face. And we feel the loneliness of Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), whose initial swagger is eventually obliterated by his ever-mounting fear.
Appropriately enough, this actually brings us back around to our initial discussion of Benjamin Button, because so much of what I feel is missing in that film can be traced to Benjamin’s un-humanness (and I’m not referring to his backward aging). You can call Benjamin a cipher, and that’s fine. I don’t dispute the point. But 166 minutes is a heck of a lot of time to spend with someone who has all the emotive range of the Terminator. There are exceptions to this, the hotel romance with Swinton’s Elizabeth being the most significant, but they are few and far between. So I think my disappointment in Benjamin Button’s lack of mood is a byproduct of the hollowness of Benjamin behind his (frequently CGI-animated) skin. In contrast, think for a moment of Mills’ face as he tries to figure out what to do with John Doe in the field. Think of Nicholas’ face on that bench in Mexico. Think of Jack’s face when he sits in those self-help meetings, seething with disdain over “tourist” Marla. Think of Meg’s face ... ah, screw it, we’re always looking at her boobs. So instead think of Graysmith’s face when he excitedly confronts Toschi with yet another clue. These are the very visceral, very human emotions present in most of Fincher’s work. And I don’t see that in Benjamin Button. I wish I did.
EH: Maybe this pinpoints what constitutes a completely “Fincherian” film. You’re making a joke about Panic Room there, but it says something (and not something good) if our most tangible impressions of the film revolve around a tracking shot through a coffee pot, Jared Leto’s cornrows, and several leering shots down Jodie Foster’s tank top. By the same token, part of what makes Benjamin Button feel so distinct from Fincher’s other work, even the already-distinct Zodiac, is its treatment of characters and situations as almost entirely symbolic rather than realistic. It’s an emotional film in many ways, but its emotion functions in the abstract: it makes us feel for ourselves and our own connections to mortality and loss, rather than for Benjamin’s experience of these things. He is a stand-in for the audience, a blank slate, to an extent that few other Fincher heroes are. Now I think this actually works pretty well despite the film’s significant problems, while you don’t, but either way it’s not characteristic of Fincher in general. All of his films and characters do, as we’ve been discussing, have deeper thematic and symbolic implications, but this rarely obscures the person at the film’s center. Nicholas is a metaphorical construct, a composite of uncaring, self-absorbed corporate executives everywhere, but he’s also a sympathetic, fully developed character in his own right. The same is true even of Fincher’s most symbolic pre-Button character, Jack/Tyler in Fight Club, who manages to project an impressive emotional range even through the intervention of a narrative gimmick that might have been emotionally crippling if employed by another director.
This brings me back to Zodiac, in which you’re right that even possible killer Arthur Leigh Allen is humanized in interesting ways. I agree with your reservations about the film’s implicit endorsement of Allen as the killer; it’s a bit too tidy, and I know that many Zodiac historians disagree vehemently with the real Graysmith’s conclusions about Allen. It feels like Fincher is reaching for that resolution, that he wants that moment so badly that he’s willing to limit himself to one man’s interpretation of the historical events. In a way, though, I’d say it’s all worth it for that scene where Graysmith faces down Allen at the hardware store, and there’s this intense silent communication passing between them. What does this scene mean? The film’s ending suggests that it’s the showdown between the killer and his most dogged pursuer, but it may not even be that if Allen was not actually the Zodiac. It may be simply the ultimate consequence of Graysmith’s misplaced obsession. As much as I love the film, I do wish Fincher had preserved that ambiguity, had resisted the temptation to deliver even this partial, unsatisfying resolution. The most interesting aspect of the film, and of the real Zodiac case, is its indefinite status, the idea that decades of hard work and investigation have added up to, well, not very much.
JB: And having said that, I suppose now it’s time to ask ourselves what this conversation has added up to. It’s done a few things for me, the most significant of which is to confirm what I already believed: that Fincher is a director of substance. Yes, many of his films have a dazzling style that sometimes draws our attention like the Fourth of July fireworks at the beginning of Zodiac, so that in the moment we see nothing else. But the longer you look at a Fincher film, the more there is to consider. His remarkable ability to subtly pack the margins of his films with narrative subtext and sociological commentary, without even slightly reducing the propulsion of his film’s hook or gimmick, is arguably what leads to his inability to shed the derisive moniker of “MTV video-maker.” But the depth is there for those of us willing to get dirty to explore it.
Over the course of this discussion, my adoration of Se7en has held firm; my respect for The Game has increased; my frustration with Fight Club has subsided just a bit; my hardly unaware delight with Panic Room has remained; and I continue to think Zodiac is Fincher’s most complex and most complete picture. As for Benjamin Button, the sad truth is that I’ve almost forgotten it over the course of this conversation. With my disappointments expressed, it’s as if its already-shallow impression faded away. Perhaps, as with other Fincher films, a second viewing will reveal something more. But I’m afraid the opposite will be true. Benjamin Button, for all its attempts to showcase 20th Century history, is the first of Fincher’s films to leave me adrift: geographically, thematically and certainly emotionally. If I’m being too hard on it—and maybe I am—it’s because of something you suggested. The film might be by Fincher, and his fingerprints might be all over it, but Benjamin Button doesn’t feel Fincherian. Maybe next time.
EH: Jason, like you I’ve come away from this discussion with a renewed and newly focused appreciation for Fincher’s films—and for the question of what the adjective Fincherian might mean. I think you’re right to emphasize the director’s penchant for subterranean thematic tunneling as one of his most salient characteristics: I can only guess that the late Manny Farber might have recognized in Fincher the quality that he so appropriately (and appreciatively) called “termite art.” In revisiting these films within a short period of time, it has become clear just how deep Fincher often tunnels within his own art, just how much he packs into the multiple layers hidden beneath his slick surfaces. My admiration for his work has only grown in the process: for films I thought I knew well, and now know and love even better (Fight Club and Se7en), for a fine film I had previously only hazily remembered from a long-ago viewing (The Game), and even for a film I hated whose virtues have proven to be tightly interwoven with its failings (Panic Room). And of course, for Zodiac, the film we both regard as the director’s masterwork thus far, crystallizing his aesthetic and thematic tendencies even as it definitively sets off in a new direction.
As for Benjamin Button, the film that initiated this discussion in the first place, I retain my mixed, complicated feelings for it. I admire its ambition and its willingness to embrace abstract concepts, even as I’m disappointed by its clichéd framing narrative and the fatally limited scope of its political engagement. It may be that I’m still struggling to come to terms with Fincher’s latest film because, whatever its other merits and missteps (and there are plenty of each) I can’t entirely disagree when you declare it to be Fincher’s least characteristic work. And yet, if we were to define the Fincherian film as a morally complex parable in which a sheltered individual is forced to come to terms with the frightening larger world—a thumbnail description that nevertheless summarizes a typical Fincher narrative—then Benjamin Button might be much closer to its predecessors than expected. Aesthetically, the film dips into a wholly different (but, in terms of mainstream filmmaking, much more familiar) palette than Fincher’s previous work, and as a result its surface seldom actually feels like a Fincher film. It is perhaps fitting then, for a director who we have described as frequently working far below the surface, that it is only underneath, beneath the striking visual effects and Gumpian narrative, that Fincher himself is revealed, working hard as always, getting his hands dirty within the very workings of the film.
Jason Bellamy ruminates on cinema at The Cooler.
Ed Howard chronicles his film viewing at Only the Cinema.