Zodiac

[Line]

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was actually making a wider comment that lead on from your comment about how good cinema and art isn't constrained by the supposed market appeal. Wasn't meant to be about this film in particular. If you read again with this in mind you'll get where I was going and that we're roughly on the same page.

[off topic]
My post and thoughts about the issue of art and the mainstream media kinda stems from a recent argument that has arisen in the Australian govt and media about the publishing/book industry in Aust. Basically we have a semi-protectionist system of publishing here that has "allowed local artists and stories to flourish" by making it expensive to import books and local printers to have publishing rights. Thus you have local publishing companies with funds to prop up the local industry. So now that the protectionist agenda is being reviewed there are a lot of dooms-day predictions going on about how the "wonderful" local authors and artists will no longer have a voice.

The reality is that these prize winning authors don't have a large audience and don't sell well anyway. It isn't that their art isn't recognised, nor that it hasn't got an audience, but this market/audience is small and marginal with or without protectionist agendas. Art has to have an audience to have any real relevance or meaning. Discussion of not pandering to the mainstream is fair, but that depends what your target audience is.
[/Off topic]

So art is good, but you have to have an audience. Aiming at cinema buffs is usually not the best way to create important cinema, as how many real cinema buffs are there?

Interesting stuff -- I was completely unaware of that situation in Australia and it's always nice to get more insight into other cultures, as I'm a sucker for wanting to understand perspective/perception. As for your comment about targeting film experts is concerned, I think it's a bit short-sighted. Important films are generally those that in some way edify from standpoints of either craft (in relation to the current state of cinema) or theme (in relation to the current state of society). Whether or not the public recognizes this is moot, as they have little to do with how the medium progresses and those films that do make money usually don't have any implications for what the future of cinema is.

Mundane; as in you take one of the most compelling and fear inducing periods in SoCal history and turn it into a pedestrian film that had so little tension it should have been a documentary.

That's because the focus was instead on the forefront individuals -- those who act as a buffer/sieve between reality and what the public is privy too. Your complaint is fine and public anxiety was covered in very light strokes but the direction the film took in dealing with the responsibility of the media and police is hardly a fault.

I've got no issue with the themes discussed and the scope of the film, the issue is that at no point was it compelling viewing. I was interested and wanted to get a better understanding, but at the same time I was more than happy to press stop and go and mow the lawn half way through. My interest was not in the film itself, but the subject matter, which means the film has failed the basic test of cinema.

To you, but I also question the validity of this statement in larger areas of application. Plus, you're being a bit hyperbolic, as I bet the reenactments of the known slayings were in some ways interesting for you to watch. The problem here is that I find the film very compelling and have watched it several times. I know laypeople who, despite its length, still thought Zodiac was an oftentimes fascinating movie. Did you and I watch something different or are your comments more telling of yourself than of the film?

 

[Flex]

:io:

 

[tim290280]

Did you and I watch something different or are your comments more telling of yourself than of the film?

Probably says more about the mood I was in and what I was expecting of the film. From memory I was not expecting the length of film I got (I don't check these things) so probably a little impatient, and I was more expecting a thriller/drama than a docu-drama.

It's usually why I watch films twice: once on the big screen or DVD; second time on DVD or TV. My moods really do swing around. Haven't seen this for a second time yet.