-
-
-
-
-
-
“Basically, we have the possibility to kill Mangatronics. I say, let’s do it.”
-
To me [‘Zodiac’] does to genre filmmaking what ‘L’Avventura’ did to narrative cinema in the 1960s, in the sense that in ‘L’Avventura,’ all of a sudden, the central character disappears, and you’re just left with abstract issues of what was really going on in life around that character.
Here you have the notion that everything is in place for a classic narrative — a serial killer, the cops, a smart guy from everyday life, the ciphers. Everything should fall in place and there should be a resolution, and here you’re only left with question mark after question mark, which ultimately is what real life is about, and it’s very rarely acknowledged by cinema….
What amazed me at the time and still does is the connection with ‘Se7en,’ because it’s like the anti-‘Se7en.’ It’s this incredible exercise in dialectics. In American cinema, I don’t see an equivalent.
-
In the film I made there’s very little psychology, because I believe that accumulating facts ends up drawing a portrait. It doesn’t give simple answers, but it gives complexity. Fact is fascinating. It’s extraordinary, it’s stuff you wouldn’t dream inventing. It has so many intricacies, it moves in such crazy ways. I was just fascinated by the facts, and I would use as little psychology and invention as I could.
-
This one’s certainly secured its spot on my Best of 2010 list.
All the movies I'm watching, books I'm reading, and records I have on repeat, and anything that generally catches that my eye.
