The Dirty Harry scene

The version of the Dirty Harry scene that did end up in the movie was one of my favorites, and also set up another of my favorite scenes (SPOILER ALERT, just to be safe): near the end of the film, when Graysmith and Toschi are in the diner, putting together (for about the 30th time) all the facts and names and dates and places they've obsessed over for years in order to fit them with Allen. "All circumstantial," Toschi says, and Graysmith -- the amateur detective -- comes just a hair too close to suggesting the lack of hard evidence shouldn't matter.

"Easy there, Dirty Harry," Toschi quickly tells him, in an almost chastising tone that clearly defines a line he's not willing to cross, even for the answer to a burning question. It reminded me of those who insanely point to Jack Bauer these days as evidence of the effectiveness of torture.

It might have worked if they tried to not laugh, if they tried to contain the hysterics. And then failed. And the scene cut away the second after the first one, say Graysmith, bursted out, without showing anyone's reaction, either Toschi's (who, presumably, would be able to hold it in any longer either) or the rest of the audience's.

That way, it leaves the scene earlier than conventionally necessary. The pay-off remains elusive.

By the way, I am not sure it's Helvetica. I've just replicated the text on my computer, and the fonts on the poster look squatter.

Damn right, Kris. Damn right.

Actually, viewership of 24 is evidence that people willingly allow themselves to be tortured on a weekly basis - and enjoy it.

Two points: The "Dirty Harry" scene that they did use with the reading of the Scorpio letter does provide an interesting contrast with the readings of the actual Zodiac letters from earlier in the film. Also, it occurred to me that Clint Eastwood's face is never actually seen. The film clips don't feature Dirty Harry and the cardboard stand-up in the lobby is convieniently cut off in the frame so we don't see his face. Maybe they just never got a clearance from Eastwood.

Good heavens, I'm about halfway through that draft screenplay, and while the seeds of Fincher's movie are clearly there, I'm glad it wasn't the shooting script. It's just abysmal. The opening scene, the murder of Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau, is preceded by a high-speed chase, for pete's sake. Not only is such a thing completely unsupported by Mageau's own statements, it's a completely hacky way to start the movie, and a zillion times less suspenseful than a guy who simply walks up to your car window, blinds you with a flashlight and shoots you in the face.

Thank heaven for rewrites.

"This poster design wasn't actually used for the original release..."

Oh, yes, it was. One of several examples of HARRY key-art, this was prominently placed in the cases of the Detroit theatre where I saw the picture in early '72. I even owned this one-sheet for a while.

JE: Thanks, Griff. Giddins reported that it wasn't used. I'd seen it before, but couldn't find any reference to it being used in theaters in '71.

"Clint blows his head off."

Having just watched this scene -- on The History Channel, of all places -- I'm compelled to point out that, despite his threat, Harry doesn't shoot Scorpio in the head. Rather, he hits him square in the chest.

JE: Grumpy, you're right -- and that's the way Graysmith comically mimes the ending (pointing a finger at his chest) when describing it to Toschi in "Zodiac" itself.

TheMovieMan at DVDTalk posted the following about the Zodiac:DC:

While listening to the commentaries, I decided to pop in the theatrical version (while watching the DC) and clocked each new scene. I've included when they occur and the approximate length:

0:45:13 - 0:45:28 (0:15) -- Insert shot
0:45:34 - 0:46:51 (0:17) -- Insert shot
0:54:56 - 0:55:12 (0:16) -- Melvin Belli talks about his safari trip (when the Zodiac letter came to his house)
1:12:57 - 1:13:13 (0:16) -- Toschi introduces himself to Riverside Chief
1:13:30 - 1:13:46 (0:16) -- Extra dialogue
1:28:54 - 1:29:35 (0:41) -- New scene between Gyllenhaal and Downey
1:34:43 - 1:36:51 (2:08) -- 3-Way conversation laying out Leigh as suspect to get search warrant*
1:42:36 - 1:43:26 (0:50) -- Extended audio montage (black screen)
2:24:30 - 2:24:34 (0:04) -- Extra beat

* a 2-second insert shot was removed

Phil: I would never read a script before I saw the movie -- but it's sometimes fascinating to go back and see how things changed, even from the shooting script to the release print. One of the July 4, 1969, Vallejo victims, Mike Mageau, has said he and Darlene were chased that night, as the script describes. In the movie, you get an uncomfortable feeling that she knows who's tailing them (Mike claims to remember the car from the drive-in), but it's ambiguous. Not until much later does Graysmith become convinced that Darlene knew her killer. Meanwhile, Fincher says he only showed killings in the movie where there were eyewitnesses who survived -- even if they weren't necessarily tied to the Zodiac (like the woman and her baby), or no matter how contradictory and unreliable the eyewitness accounts may be.

Anyway, it's fascinating to compare the undated, early "Zodiac" draft I linked to with the finished film. Very little description of camerawork or how sequences are shaped. Then compare the Coens' "No Country For Old Men" draft from 2005 to the film they directed. The ending is significantly different, and so are several other passages, but there are descriptions of individual images that they put in the screenplay because they knew they wanted to shoot them.

No two screenplays are ever used in quite the same way, depending on the writer(s), the director(s), and the circumstances of casting, prep, production, and post-production (during any which phase an entirely unanticipated movie could emerge, even if nobody ever changed a word of the script.

One more comment on ZODIAC's use of HARRY. I must confess that I am not so familiar with the Fincher picture as some of the posters here, but when I saw the movie theatrically, I was puzzled by the timeline involving the screening of HARRY. I could have sworn an on-screen title indicated that the scene, clearly depicting a pre-release invitational screening, was taking place in the Fall of 1972. HARRY, of course, opened nationally in December of 1971.

I am not necessarily unsympathetic regarding a filmmaker's need to collapse, invert and telescope certain chronology and events when retelling "a true story," but ZODIAC seems otherwise so fastidious about its timeline and its re-creation of actual events, that this particular dramatic liberty bothered me.

Jim, Phil,

From everything I learned in my schoolin', putting camera directions in the script is something that's no longer done. I remember reading the "French Connection" script and directions are written all over it: the character walks in camera left and it pans right to follow him, etc. Up and down every page.

I can imagine that this sort of writing would drive Fincher mad, being that he's the, *ahem*, perfectionist that he is.

The thing about the Coen's scripts is that they describe what you see visually without the use of camera reference...the way it should be done. They also do headings differently I noticed. Whereas most writers will say specifically where the location is, the Coens will oft times just say NEARBY, making direct reference to the previous scene. It's a great tool to create a sense of space.

Like the Helvetica font, screenplay writing is just as much an art about space on the page and in the mind of the reader as it is about storytelling. Now that makes me nerves tingle with glee.

Phillip: You're right: At least as far back as the first publication of Syd Fields' "Screenplay" bible in 1979, writers of spec scripts were discouraged from putting camera directions into their screenplays. But, as you say, there are other ways of suggesting images than describing particular camera angles or movements or framings.

And, as I hope you can see even from this brief (unused) "Zodiac" excerpt, a screenplay can describe tone, psychology, even give acting notes -- but that doesn't mean the director or the actors are bound to follow them. When it comes down to actually planning and shooting a scene they may come up with an entirely different approach that they like better.

A Helvetica font, you say? Don't worry. I fixed it for you.

The Fixed Poster

Trajan! Raymond, I cannot thank you enough for the best laugh -- and the best scare -- of the day.

Jim, exactly. A blue print is essentially what a screenplay is. It suggests a way to build something. The best screenplays can get you into the characters' heads, show you if it's a point of view, without ever telling you directly what's going on or ever writing POV on the page.

It's funny but one of the books that really helped me in the beginning was "Poems - Poets - Poetry, an Introduction and Anthology" by Helen Vendler.

To be able to describe an action with the fewest but most appropriate words - words that tantalize the reader while leaving white across the page is closer to poetry than any other writing form I know. The best screenwriters are in essence poets.

a curious point about that closing scene in "Zodiac" . . .

I've argued that the fascist label against "Dirty Harry" is a little misplaced, as there is abundant evidence that Harry is both avenging angel, and a psychopath akin to the "Scorpio" Killer.

The real driving force of the plot in "Dirty Harry" is that he must become what he holds in contempt in order to defeat the killer. Harry disregards the law, stalks his prey, and executes him in cold blood.

Then he caustically throws his badge in the river. Clearly, he knows what he has done, and doesn't really care.

Contrast that icon with the characters in "Zodiac" who pursue the killer with mind numbing tenacity for years, always gathering clues and evidence, but never crossing the line that Harry did to bring the killer to "justice."

A beautiful contrast by Fincher.

Jeffrey: Harry throwing away his badge is also an echo of Gary Cooper at the end of "High Noon." And it can be interpreted several ways, not all of which are mutually exclusive: 1) that he's expressing disgust with a system that won't allow him to mete out justice as he sees fit, or stop bad guys from committing further crimes (see Toschi's "Easy there, Dirty Harry," in "Zodiac"); 2) that he's acknowledging he's no longer acting as a cop but has gone irrevocably beyond the law; 3) that, having done what he's done, he no longer needs his stinking badge to do whatever he's going to do; 4) that he's given up all principles of due process and is, to some extent, expressing disgust with himself, at his failure to do his job by the rules that define his job; 5) that he's willing to sacrifice his identity as a cop for the certainty of stopping Scorpio from ever killing again; 6) that his whole career as a cop has been leading to this moment and, having crossed the line he can never uncross, the idea of thinking of himself as a cop no longer means anything to him;... and so on.

Jim,

great insights. on a side note, I always felt that the end of "Unforgiven" was more an emotional homage "High Noon" . . . if "High Noon" were made today, Gary Cooper's final scene would probably be some profanity laced tirade by Samuel L Jackson against the townsfolk. LOL!

Every point you made about the meaning of the end of "Dirty Harry" underscores the contrast Fincher is trying to make in "Zodiac".

Ultimately, Harry realizes the system is not adequate to deal with psychopaths, that he must place his own moral code above society's code (the law) to mete out what he feels is "justice", and to save future victims of the Scorpio killer.

In "Zodiac", Toschi and Graysmith are tenacious, inquisitive, argumentative, but ultimately unsuccessful in identifying or stopping the Zodiac killer.

The argument then arises if they were WILLING to compromise their ethics, like Harry, for the greater purpose of stopping a serial killer . . . would they have been successful? I think that conundrum is the moral cornerstone of many classic films ("The Untouchables" comes to mind with Connery's Oscar winning question: "what are you prepared to do now?")

Going a step further, don't we more often find the audience cheering "heroes" who are willing to step beyond the law to dispense with the criminal element, and we often cringe at the more realistic, methodical approach to law enforcement portrayed in cinema, mostly because it doesn't make for great drama.

Also, this moral conundrum is the center of controversy with our war on terror. We obviously know what THEY (whoever THEY are) are willing to do for their cause, but what are WE (whoever WE are) willing to do? I recently watched "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" and "Dirty Harry" within the same week and found the same moral arguments at the center of both. Even if you concede that torture saves lives, what does it cost us as a society in the long run?

(and I will emphatically state that ALL evidence suggests that the torture we have been condoning in the war on terror may, once in a great while, produce tangible intelligence to stop a terrorist cell or terrorist attack. unfortunately, it creates significantly more terrorists than is stops)

Ultimately, no social moral code is adequate to deal with those willing to violate it, on any side of the law, so the self-reflection we are forced to do as individuals (reflected in many films) is to continually ask:

"What are you prepared to do now?"

A comment about circumstantial evidence.... First -- I deplore Dirty Harry's methods though the movie is great as entertainment -- and social commentary on Warren Court era developments in the law (pro or con). Most evidence is circumstantial -- especially in murder cases. Unless you murder someone in broad daylight on camera with eyewitnesses (and even then multiple is better) or you confess -- ALL evidence is circumstantial. Don't denigrate the evidence unless you know what you're talking about. Circumstantial or direct (hard) evidence notwithstanding -- Dirty Harry violates Due Process. Zodiac is a great picture of a hardworking ethical detective who "knows" the truth, but can't -- and won't -- cut ethical and legal (and moral) corners. Great film -- I think the Dirty Harry scene that was cut out would be brilliant as most cops I know love the film, but laugh at the absurdity of it.