Zodiac (2007) - Shipwreck 4

I didn't know the movie was two hours and forty minutes long until Kenneth posted about it.  I mean, for a thriller? Unnecessary, right?  I think the movie could have been shorter, certainly, but still, it was excellent. I loved it and I think you will too.

In Zodiac, we follow San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist Jake Gyllenhaal in his effort to help homicide inspector Mark Ruffalo uncover the mysteries surrounding the crimes a serial killer that calls himself the Zodiac commits in the San Francisco area in the 1960s.  SF Chronicle crime reporter Robert Downey Jr. is in it too.  It is all very well put together.

We have content for our gay movie review.  The gay content is not that negative, but I didn't like it.  First, we see Robert Downey Jr.'s character typing an article about the Zodiac killer for his newspaper and in the article he says the killer is a "latent homosexual".  Not nice.  There is no evidence or discussion to that effect (that the killer would have been a homo), except that, apparently, the fact that the criminal targeted couples but it was the girls who seemed to get the worst of the violence is, thinly, offered as an evidence.  Later in the movie, Downey Jr.'s character gets a death threat from the killer and an SF Chronicle colleague says something like "that's what you get for calling him a 'latent homosexual'." Not nice either.

On the other hand, we see that a tranny goes to the police to provide tips about the killer, false tips; but they show all sorts of people, all giving false tips too, so that was kinda neutral.  At least it looks like the tranny is trying to help out.

Then, in another neutral gay reference, they briefly mention notoriously gay writer Armistead Maupin and his attack on the integrity of Mark Ruffalo's character (I will not provide details 'cause I don't want to give away too much). 

Nobody mentions Armistead is gay, but the people who are familiar with the name will surely know he is gay.

In the end, the gay content in Zodiac is on the negative side, but not so much, I think you can sit through this one and not be really offended.

In addition to the more explicitly gay content, Zodiac had lots of gay overtones (Shana thought so too).  I seriously think Jakey's character and Robert Downey Jr.'s character were gay (I bet the characters did each other in real life, but that's just me).  Anyway, there was a higher than usual number of gays in my theater -- go Jakey!

Watch the trailer for Zodiac or watch Jakey in his boxers after the jump.

   

Comments

[Johnny Bristau]

wow interesting movie will watch it thanks for the post

[dizzyspins]

um, ok, first of all, in the 1960s it was common--even for shrinks and cops--to think of psychopaths as latent homosexuals. Doesnt mean it was true, just that it was a frequent dimestore-psychology diagnosis. And it shows how the cops and the media were stuck in a mindset that didnt let them listen to outside ideas like the one Gyllenhal had.

Besides, should historical pics change reality to protect people's sensibilities? Would you say there shouldnt be Jews in concentration camps in Schindler's List because its a negative representation of Jews?

You're looking at a movie that basically has no gay content whatsoever, and calling it homophobic. Do that enough and no one will pay attention when real homophobic stuff-like 300--comes out.

[Myspace Generators]

Jake makes my bones quiver.

[Queer Beacon]

Hey Thor, thanks for your comment!

I've seen movies do that kind of thing often (hide homophobia behind a pretense of historical or cultural context). That sometimes is justified for one reason or another, but that doesn't make the depiction of gays any less homophobic, historically accurate? Maybe. Homophobic? Usually, yes.

Sometimes, I do concede that homophobia is shown in a movie more as criticism (that was the case in Hollywoodland), but that was not the case in Zodiac (that's my opinion, of course).

[Thor]

I don't know if it's fair to slam the movie for the "latent homosexual" deal. It was the '60s, after all.