Click here to follow Screen Digital on YouTube and stay updated with the latest from the world of cinema.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Often described as ‘the most famous unsolved murder case in American history’, the Zodiac Killer’s brutal spree in the 1960s and ‘70s attracted a flock of amateur investigators before true crime was even a thing. But now it is, and as per the law, Netflix is mandated to make a three-part documentary series about it. Titled This is the Zodiac Speaking, the show confusingly omits the real-life chapter that inspired this title, and presents, instead, a new angle to the case, one that has been flogged to death by documentarians, filmmakers, and podcasters alike.
This is the Zodiac Speaking has the same fast-paced narrative that has come to define most of these Netflix true crime content; the tone is perpetually ominous, the violence and mayhem is circled and highlighted, cheap recreations are used to heighten the drama. The ending, invariably, is anti-climactic. But the show attempts to sidestep this inevitability by picking its lane and sticking to it. In minute one, This is the Zodiac Speaking identifies a possible suspect — in fact, the only person who was ever publicly named by the police as a person of interest — and proceeds to move heaven and earth in an effort to corroborate its claims.
The convicted sex offender Arthur Leigh Allen has long been considered the single most likely person to have committed the crimes — between five and 37 murders — although he maintained his innocence till his dying day. David Fincher’s modern classic, Zodiac, also pointed fingers at him, albeit in a less gratuitous manner. But what was merely a firm suggestion in that movie comes across as an act of coercion in the show. And because This is the Zodiac Speaking doesn’t even entertain the possibility of a different person being responsible for the murders, it ends up being both singularly focused — which is a good thing — and narrow in its scope (bad!).
However, in a happy coincidence, the show’s dedication to nailing Allen pushes it into a corner where it has no choice but to take the human interest angle. It goes something like this: In the 1960s, Allen became acquainted with a single mother and her seven children. Over time, he ingratiated himself into the family by earning their trust and affection. It would later be discovered that he was grooming the older children. But at the time, their mother didn’t think much about his requests to take them on trips all by himself. It was during these trips across the California coastline that Allen supposedly committed the murders.
The children, now in the 60s and 70s, gather on camera to recount memories of him from their youth. He was a hulking man, they say; a little clumsy and intimidating, but always very warm. He would bring the kids presents, and plan fun activities with them. One time, he took them to a beach, and made them wait in the car for about an hour. Allen returned out of breath, with his arms covered in what each of the children remembers was blood. Two bodies were discovered on the same beach the next day. On another occasion, Allen took them to a neighbouring town to watch a car race. Again, more murders took place in their vicinity at around the same time.
These coincidences are too pronounced to simply ignore, and by most accounts, the lead investigators in the case were also certain that Allen was their guy. They even had warrants taken out to search his home, and organised interviews with him a few times; Allen himself was fully aware that he was being investigated, but he was never arrested. A prominent voice in the show is the cartoonist Robert Graysmith, who has emerged, over the years, as an authority on the case. He literally wrote the book on it. Graysmith, if you recall, was the protagonist of Fincher’s film, in which he was played by Jake Gyllenhaal.
In This is the Zodiac Speaking, he offers commentary not only on the latest developments in the case, but also on what motivated him to become obsessed with it all those decades ago. Graysmith found himself in the privileged position of witnessing the investigation from close quarters; later, he took the bold step of making his suspicions of Allen quite obvious. On one occasion, he found himself in a stare-down with the large man after he’d spent an evening staking out his place of work. These anecdotes add necessary colour to this grim tale, which has become such a fixture of pop-culture that anybody attempting to retell it runs the risk of treading old ground.
But in This is the Zodiac Speaking, the personal accounts of a wronged family are just about enough to spark renewed interest in the over-documented case. If you’re looking for a humanist examination of a grand tragedy, however, this isn’t it. The filmmaking is unremarkable; very basic interviews are stitched together with archive photos and home videos. But the show offsets the gory details with a ground-level perspective that is often lacking in programming of this kind.
This is the Zodiac Speaking
Directors – Phil Lott, Ari Mark
Rating – 2.5/5
Click here to follow Screen Digital on YouTube and stay updated with the latest from the world of cinema.
