There's something very addictive about David Fincher's Zodiac. Because of the subject matter (a serial killer) and given the director's previous foray into that same topic (Seven) the first instinct is to compare the two films. Such a comparison, though, would be a waste of time. That's not to say that the two films don't share some similarities but really you'd be setting yourself up for a lot of frustration if you tried. Seven was a lot more claustrophobic, it operated in much more confined spaces and visually relied on a largely darker palette. Zodiac is sprawling, almost epic in scope and has a much more vibrant (overall) look.
Both movies do share the same gene of being able to get under your skin but with completely different ways of doing so and with completely different effects. When Seven gets under your skin it makes your skin crawl. You want to take a bath when the movie is over, the bleakness is overbearing and there is no ambiguity about how you feel. You feel like crap. Zodiac is a much more curious affair. It's dark but there is humor throughout. There's a playfulness about it. I don't mean playful as in it makes light of the killings. I mean, it's common knowledge that the Zodiac killings were never officially solved and the killer never actually caught. So why make a movie about it? Why make a movie in which the audience knows going in that the "villain" is never defeated?
Because Zodiac isn't about whether or not the killer is captured. More than anything Zodiac is a tribute to the notion of justice as a human principle. Many critics have classified Zodiac as one-third of a "Trilogy of Evil" that includes No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. I agree that all three films are exceptional and are the best I saw all year. I think the key difference is in Zodiac good is examined just as closely as evil. Other serial killer films focus on the motivation of the killer and good is never questioned (why should it be?) Zodiac presents evil and then spends the rest of the movie questioning the motivation of those doing good.
Well, maybe not necessarily "questioning" it but really more like dissecting it. It is a sense of none other than justice that drives Insp. Dave Toschi of the San Francisco PD. It's justice that drives reporter Paul Avery (to a lesser degree) and it is justice that drives cartoonist Robert Graysmith to pick up the case after it has been abandoned. This is the heart of the movie. Toschi and Avery are undermined and worn down by procedure, bureacracy and a vision clouded by cynicism. Both men are initially driven by duty to crack this case but neither of them have the secret ingredient to see it to its end...whatever that end may be.
The secret ingredient is "innocence" and it is what motivates Graysmith to keep the wheels churning on the case. This is where Zodiac becomes more than just another serial killer film or just another police procedural. This is where the film makes the case that "justice" -- however one may define it -- is not something to be left strictly in the hands of those with a badge and a gun or a press pass and a typewriter. Doing the right thing is something we all should feel obligated to do. In most crimes the innocent are the victims so here's a story where the innocent seizes control.
Even if it's never fully determined if the man fingered by Graysmith in his book is the man behind the murders is irrelevant. What matters is one man took it upon himself to do SOMEthing about it. Is he wrong? Who knows. Is he right? Only the Zodiac killer himself knows for sure. Nevertheless, the fact that it was some lowly cartoonist who had the tenacity to come to some kind of conclusion on such an inconclusive case is what's important. Graysmith (and Toschi and Avery) had no fear about putting himself out there as the man who was pursuing the Zodiac, meanwhile Z himself was never man enough to step forward and remove the mask.
The movie should have ended in the next to last scene. In the scene, Graysmith confronts the man he fingers in his book as the killer. The two face each other, Graysmith never says anything neither does his accusee. Nothing needs to be said. That Graysmith has the cajones to look his target in the eyes is all that is necessary. Even if the man isn't Zodiac himself, the fact of the matter is Graysmith has taken a stand against evil in the name of the innocent. While the filmmakers are never able to put a definitive face on evil they do succeed in putting a face on good and in that instance, good triumphs over evil.
As to why I keep coming back to the movie again and again, well, what else am I going to do wth the best film of the year?
[ posted by reggie at 02/19/2008 08:43:37 PM ] [ link ] [ 27 responses ]
1
Oscars Part 2: How the Nominees are Picked
How are the Oscar Nominations Determined?
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences takes a hierarchical approach to determining its Oscar nominees, instead of a straight-forward counting of ballots. It's a difficult-to-describe process called a Preferential Voting System, and its goal is to reflect the breadth and depth of Academy support.
Each year, the Academy publishes a list of qualifying movies, from which the nearly 6,000 members select their top five choices in each category on ballots, ranked first to fifth. All members of the Academy vote for Best Picture, while the other categories are mostly voted on by their respective branches (e.g., only actors vote in the acting categories).
Ballots are mailed to PricewaterhouseCoopers, an accounting firm that has tabulated ballots for 73 of the past 79 years of the awards. The ballots are counted by hand in an intentionally low-tech manner.
Using Best Picture as the example, ballots are first sorted by voters' No. 1 movie choices, and only these initial movies are in the running for a nomination.
PricewaterhouseCoopers then mathematically determines the number of ballots (i.e., votes) a movie needs to qualify for a nomination. In any given category, two or three nominees are often determined at this point.
Next, a complicated process of elimination begins. First, the movie with the least number of ballots is eliminated and its ballots are redistributed among the remaining movies, according to each ballot's next available choice. If the No. 2 choice is not for a remaining movie, then the No. 3 choice is used and so on. If no choice matches a remaining movie, the ballot is not counted toward any movie.
The eliminations and redistributions continue, and when one of the remaining movies reaches the qualifying number of ballots, it is nominated. Further redistributed ballots go only to those choices still in the running for a nomination, not those already nominated.
PricewaterhouseCoopers repeats the eliminations and redistributions until five nominees have been determined. After the nominations have been announced, the voting process becomes simple to decide the winner: the nominee with the most votes wins.
The Preferential Voting System may explain how a movie can be popular with the Academy but never receive a Best Picture nomination. For example, Dreamgirls and Cold Mountain were acclaimed movies that garnered multiple major nominations in their respective years but failed to make the cut for Best Picture.
Hypothetically, if all voters ranked Dreamgirls or Cold Mountain as their No. 2 choice, neither would be nominated for Best Picture since they didn't receive the required No. 1 choice from anyone. The Academy calls it "Best Picture," and a movie rating a strong No. 2 presumably doesn't qualify even though there are five slots to fill for the category.
This year's winners will be announced at 79th Annual Academy Awards on Sunday, Feb. 25.
Source: Brad Oltmanns, Managing Partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers' Los Angeles office.
I always wondered about this, I supposed I could have just Wikipedia'd it but this is actually from BoxOfficeMojo.com.
[ posted by reggie at 01/25/2008 09:52:17 AM ] [ link ] [ 4 responses ]
1
Offishul Oskar Pix Part Won
Okay so the Academy Award nominations are announced this upcoming Tuesday. There a handful of movies I haven't seen that I hope to see but I have seen many of the films in contention. This has been one of the toughest fields in quite some time. In fact, it's the toughest year to try to pick the nominees that I can remember. I'd be surprised if any of the so-called experts are able to accurately predict the nominees, the pool is just really deep. For the record, I expect to be completely wrong on most of these.
BEST PICTURE There Will be Blood Juno Michael Clayton No Country for Old Men Zodiac
I think the real sleeper is Zodiac. It's at the top of most critics' lists, the Director's Cut screened in NYC in December and hit DVD shelves earlier this month. Now it got largely ignored by the Golden Globes but I think we tend to give way too much weight to the Globes. The other sleeper is Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It's a little off the radar but it's also Sidney Lumet. The old guard of the Academy loves to pay tribute to the masters and Lumet proves he's still at the top of his game. I also still feel like the Academy may still hold out for a more "traditional" pick like American Gangster.
Lemme add that I'm just not buying what Atonement is selling. I just feel like it's trying too hard to be one of those big sweeping romantic epics that I don't think audiences care about anymore. I see it and I just think Cold Mountain...
BEST DIRECTOR
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will be Blood
Joel & Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Joe Wright - Atonement
Sidney Lumet - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell & the Butterfly
The glaring omission is, of course, Jason Reitman for Juno. This is significant because if that movie has as legitimate a chance as I think it does of winning Best Picture it will be very hard to do so without its director also being nominated. Well, there's a first time for everything right ? We'll see. I also feel like a lot of times the Best Director category is used as a make-up nomination for the movies that aren't nominated for Best Picture.
BEST ACTRESS
Julie Christie - Away From Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Angelina Jolie - A Mighty Heart
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
I've only seen one of these movies and year after year this is always the toughest category to pick the nominees for. Really I could think of a handful of other actress who are probably just as deserving of a nod. Laura Linney, Keri Russell, Jodie Foster, Cate Blanchett. I think the eventual winner will be either Page of Christie so who the other three nominees are may be academic.
BEST ACTOR
(a.k.a. "the if anyone besides Daniel Day-Lewis wins I'll stop watching movies award")
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Ryan Gosling - Lars and the Real Girl
Daniel Day-Lewis -There Will be Blood
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
Denzel Washington - American Gangster
This was an amazingly strong year for male actors. I guess that's not a surprise as most great parts (unfortunately) still usually are written for men. In fact, I could compile an entire secondary list of potential nominees:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman -- Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Emile Hirsch - Into the Wild
Sam Riley - Control
James McAvoy - Atonement
Russell Crowe - 3:10 to Yuma
I literally couuld see any combination of the above ten names getting nominated. It's irrelevant, the award belongs to DDL. Sleeper: Gerard Butler gets a nod for 300.
BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Jennifer Garner - Juno
Kelly Macdonald - No Country for Old Men
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
I was kinda thinking that another member of that strong Juno cast would sneak in and the more I think back to that movie, the performance that was most endearing was Garner's. I actually saw two-thirds of these movies so I feel a bit more comfortable picking a list of noms. Macdonald's name hasn't popped up in many of the other awards but her performance seems to get singled out in just about every review, she just may ride some of that No Country... momentum to a nomination.
BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James...
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tommy Lee Jones - No Country for Old Men
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
I'm hoping the fact that it's in DVD stores right now helps Ben Foster get a very deserving nomination for his outstanding performance in 3:10 to Yuma as he's been largely ignored in some of the early awards. Also, big ups to Before the Devil Knows You're Dead's Albert Finney.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Before the Devil Knows You're Dead written by Kelly Masterson Eastern Promises written by Steven Knight Juno written by Diablo Cody Michael Clayton written by Tony Gilroy Ratatouille written by Brad Bird
I actually had to think about these. Most of the better movies this year were based on previously published materials. Which means the NEXT list is going to be the hardest to determine. I know that Cody's Juno screenplay is the favorite but I wouldn't call it a lock. Michael Clayton or even Ratatouille could pull off the upset.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY Atonement written by Christopher Hampton Charlie Wilson's War written by Aaron Sorkin No Country for Old Men written by Joel & Ethan Coen There Will be Blood written by Paul Thomas Anderson Zodiac written by James Vanderbilt
There are actually quite a few other possibilities.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Roger Deakins - No Country for Old Men (and/or ...Jesse James)
Robert Elswit - There Will be Blood
Edward Lachman - I'm Not There
Seamus McGarvey - Atonement
Martin Ruhe - Control
EDITING
Joel & Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Ronald Sanders - Eastern Promises
Pietro Scalia - American Gangster
Tom Swartwout - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Angus Wall - Zodiac
These latter categories are basically crapshoots. I actually originally had Roger Deakins as a double nominee for his work in No Country... and for ...Jesse James. If Control stands out for any other reason than Sam Riley's performance then it will be for the camerawork. I hope.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE Bee Movie Persepolis Ratatouille
[ posted by reggie at 01/18/2008 01:52:06 AM ] [ link ] [ 26 responses ]
1
I just bought a Zune
So I just placed my order for one of the new 80 GB Zunes. I got one of the ones with the customized artwork. I've read a ton of reviews, read a bunch of comparisons between it and the 80 GB iPod "Classic." A majority of the reviews rank the Zune80 as either better than the Classic or just as good. All I really wanted was a something that was at least as good as the iPod.
I don't anticipate having much need for the video aspect but if I did, I like the Zune's screen better. I also like what I've read about the UI, there seems to have been a largely favorable upgrade on the previous model. There's a touch pad controller and the lettering on the screen is larger. I've heard questions about the player's battery life but I'm not too worried about that. I don't plan on using it for hours and hours on end.
I'm also not particularly concerned about "socializing" with other nearby Zunes because, well, I don't expect to actually FIND any nearby Zunes.
Anyway, I'll receive it in 5 to 7 days. I can't anticipate being disappointed by it because I've been without access to ANY kind of mp3 player (on a regular basis) for over a year. Anything will be an improvement.
[ posted by reggie at 12/29/2007 04:44:42 AM ] [ link ] [ 8 responses ]
1
What are the chances?
So there's this extremely cute, extremely cool girl that's been coming into the shop recently and I was just about to the point where I was ready to ask her out and I discovered one little hitch.
She's the ex-girlfriend of an old friend of mine.
Now I didn't discover this little factoid until a few days ago. On top of that, I've gotten the impression that it ended amicably but not necessarily peacefully. When I asked her if she did in fact know him, she revealed they used to be an on-again off-again item and even encouraged me to get in contact with him again BUT, she said not to mention her as their relationship may still be a touchy subject (which at the very least indicates that perhaps she is into me because otherwise what difference does it make if I mention her to him?)
My problem is that I totally would have asked her out without that information but I wonder if it makes me a jerk for STILL wanting to ask her out even though I know it may upset him if we were to hit it off?
This @#$% is never easy.
[ posted by reggie at 11/07/2007 12:41:21 PM ] [ link ] [ 41 responses ]
1
Annoying MySpace Bulletins
Per my comments in the Rec Room. Here is a sampling of the completely mindless bulletins this dude from R&TT posts regularly:
From 9/12/07 10:43 am
Subject: Gooood morning...
Body: How is everyone doing this morning? Damn it's nice out. Perfect cup of coffee. Today will be my lazy day. Oh how I love daytime TV...
From 9/12/07 3:17 pm
Subject: Damn do I cook good...
Body: Burger cooked in BBQ sauce, cut up and slapped on a sub roll with cheese. And a beer to wash it down. Blaring Pride & Glory, and BLS. I make the best of my days off.
From 9/12/07 9:24 pm
Subject: Tonights Beer of Choice...
Body: Yuengling. I can only remember having this once before but its good. Cheaper then Miller Chill too. Oh beer.
From 9/13/07 12:55 am
Subject: I now have...
Body: A beer chest. F*ck a fridge. F*ck a cooler. And f*ck just keeping it in the box. I have a f*cking beer chest. It's cooler then anything you own. Unless you happen to own a Les Paul with a Silverburst finish and a Floyd Rose tremolo.
Which is about the only thing cooler then a beer chest. That is all. kthxbye.
From 9/14/07 1:01 am
Subject: Why is it...
Body: The only friend requests I get are porn shits?? F*ck you guys. I'm out!
From 9/14/07 1:04 am
Subject: And seriously...
Body: I give up. I know I've given up in the past. But I mean it this time. Is it wrong to be disappointed in the fact that I wake up every morning?? Well... f*ck off.
From 9/12/07 1:02 am
Subject: I hate it...
Body: When someone says there gonna call and doesn't. Wtf man, just call me.
Text is fine as well. Son of Satan I'm hungry...
And so on and so on. What's the etiquette here? Do I just delete him? I mean I've worked with the dude and he was a pretty fun dude to work with. Lots of laughs, well several laughs. Would it be too passive aggressive to make a bulletin about how annoying people who constantly post senseless bulletins are? Would it be even more passive aggressive to make a post on a completely different website about how annoying people who constantly post senseless bulletins are where that person will probably never see it?
[ posted by reggie at 09/14/2007 12:33:01 PM ] [ link ] [ 7 responses ]
1
The Tao of mp3 Players
I know Apple has some big announcement planned for Wednesday, probably regarding either the next Nano or the next regular iPod.
Yet, I think my next mp3 players just might be one of these.
What can I say? I like Creative. This is one of those flash-based players like the iPod, it's the size of a credit card and the thing that I think is coolest is that even though the largest storage capacity listed is 16GB, with the capacity to expand your library with the SD* card dealies...you could basically have unlimited amounts of music and whatnot. Although it is entirely possible (and probably likely) that I'm misunderstanding COMPLETELY how the card thing works but if it's anything like a digital camera then I think I've got the picture.
Yeah, I know I'm still Apple resistent but Creative just appeals to the underdog lover in me. Them little suckers just won't give up! Each player they put out improves significantly over their last one. And they don't appear to being to knock Apple out of the top spot, rather they seem to be just trying to take the biggest piece of the pie that's leftover. Not a bad idea if you ask me.
We'll see what the new iPod has in store but basically, I'm sold on the Zen.
(*I wonder how they're allowed to do the memory card thing because that seems like the easiest way for people to share music illegally. Like I said above, I'm probably misinterpreting how the thing works anyway.)
[ posted by reggie at 09/05/2007 02:12:13 AM ] [ link ] [ 32 responses ]
1
Trading Spaces (and other randomness)
So Brad and I are ironing out the details of a prospective trade of rooms in DC and Baltimore. We have agreed in principle to swap rooms but some things still need to be worked out (I have to stop by the rental office of his place in DC and fill out some paperwork and stuff.)
On Tuesday I had a very positive interview at Murky Coffee in Arlington. I really wasn't looking to barista again but I felt obligated to apply after reading their killer Craigslist ad (which I can't seem to find anymore.) It was just very honest, candid and seemed to give off the exact vibe I've been looking for. Also, I'm thinking that the tips I'd be making would make up for any loss in hourly pay. Additionally, I have a second job that I want to take a shot at for a little extra income.
If you're wondering why in the world I'd choose to leave the "cheaper" Baltimore for DC it really doesn't have much to do with money. Money DOES play a part but it's not the primary factor. I've got two big debts that need to be taken care of. I don't want to get into it too much detail here but I just don't feel like it's fair to the parties I owe to continually not be able to pay them back. Part of that was confounded by an unforseen raise in rent, it's the landlord's prerogative so I'm not mad or anything, it just pretty much defeated the point of me moving in the first place. The rent's still freaking cheap but not when you're working just over 30 hours a week. I moved originally because I would've had to pay $499 a month to stay in the same dinky little apartment in Charles Village versus what I thought was $500 a month to move into a big house in Mt. Vernon with two friends and an awesome dog. Seems like a no-brainer right?
(It hasn't helped matters that I'm an idiot who at thirty still doesn't know how to be frugal when he needs to.)
My reason for wanting to move is not quite so easily defined. For the last year and a half I've been working on this one particular screenplay. This the script that every aspiring writer slaves over, often for years on end. It's that one defining screenplay that they feel sums up their lives in a mere 120 pages. I moved to Baltimore so that I could have my own apartment and be free to write whenever I wanted without having to worry about roommates or anything. For the most part that plan worked. I bought some screenwriting software and have been chipping away at it for the entire year. I even toyed with the idea of relocating the story from DC to Baltimore because I was in such a groove and theoretically, it was doable.
While I haven't physically written a single word since moving to Mt. Vernon I still feel just as dedicated to seeing this thing through and I've so internalized this story and these characters that it hasn't mattered. It's this internalization that helped sparked the desire to move. One night a few weeks ago I was in DC for some reason, I can't even remember what. It was a weekend night and I had a craving for some Julia's empanadas. I toyed with going to the one in Dupont but parking was ridiculous. So I ended going to Adams Morgan where parking was just as ridiculous but there are more sidestreets in that area. Anyway, I got my empanada and just sat down on those concrete benches(?) near the Suntrust on 18th St. I just sat there watching all the usual weekend night insanity that takes place. There is a pivotal scene that a portion of which takes place in this very setting so part of this was me just visualizing the logistics of the scene.
I stayed in that one spot for just over an hour, observing. I questioned what in the world would make me want to come back and live amongst THESE people. I would never choose to associate with any of these morons and neither would either one of my characters. Yet in my story they each find themselves in Adams Morgan against their better judgment. Why? Because at the point in the script where they meet each of them needs to go to an area where they can be anonymous. Some place where the chances of them running into someone they know are minimal. This made me realize that I have to be in DC and this story has to be set in DC because I know where two people from completely opposite ends of the social spectrum could logically find themselves and it not be a dramatic stretch. I don't know those areas of Baltimore and I don't care about the city enough to invest the time to figure out.
My story is a DC story. And it's not one of the typically amateurish local efforts I've seen over the years that relies on DC in-jokes to sustain it's thin attempt at a narrative. My story is about turning 30 in an age of e-mail, text messaging and MySpace. It's about what about the diminishing affect these multiple avenues of mass communication have had on the capacity to achieve true emotional intimacy with another person. And it's about how the old standards of how men and women get together and start a life are outdated in the era of LOL, TTYL, BFF and WTF.
Anywho, all I'm saying is that I'm moving back to DC because it's where I have to be right now. I don't care about Baltimore and that's why I'm not staying. I'm also eager to live in the city during the Adrian Fenty administration. By that I mean I have a character in my script that is an amalgam of Fenty, Barack Obama and John Edwards. I'm eager to go down to the new Nationals' stadium next season and take in a few games. On top of that, maybe even more than that the direction DC has taken has definitely not been geared towards people with my artistic inclinations which is EXACTLY why I should stick around. No matter how things are going politically, socially or in this case economically there will always be a counter-culture to hopefully hold those in charge accountable and help provide those not in charge with a voice.
I wouldn't dream of making my move back to DC seem THAT important but the truth is, that's one of the primary motivating factors. Honestly, I can't wait to get back.
(Also, I couldn't dream of spending another minute inside a city that only has like two movie theaters inside the city. How can you stand it?)
[ posted by reggie at 08/23/2007 01:14:02 PM ] [ link ] [ 2 responses ]
2
private or members only entry
1
2 for the price of 1
So I found out from a customer (actually from one of those previously discussed cute girls in the store the other night) that my ticket to see the Liars at the Black Cat was now useless since they canceled that date (and I'm guessing a bunch of others.) This bummed me out because I had planned on back to back nights to see Liars in DC and then the Animal Collective in Philly (oddly enough, the Liars cancellation may mean that I'll be able to see the Collective at the 9:30 Club and maybe sell my Philly ticket.)
Oddly enough on the day that my Interpol ticket arrived in the mail, I called Ticketmaster to get my refund for the Liars show...serendipity or pure coincidence?
Reggie is teh happy.
[ posted by reggie at 07/20/2007 12:13:25 PM ] [ link ] [ 4 responses ]
