THE STORY – Against the backdrop of sunbaked parking lots, deserted courthouses, and empty suburban homes — the familiar spaces of true crime, stripped of all action and spectacle — a filmmaker describes his abandoned Zodiac Killer documentary and probes the inner workings of a genre at saturation point.
THE CAST – N/A
THE TEAM – Charlie Shackleton (Director)
THE RUNNING TIME – 92 Minutes
Film essayist Charlie Shackleton intentionally misleads audiences about their expectations for his newest film, “Zodiac Killer Project.” In an era where true crime documentaries are everywhere, Shackleton chooses not to recount the Zodiac Killer story for the umpteenth time. Although he initially developed the tale, he later abandoned it, partly because he could not secure the rights to California Highway Patrol officer Lyndon E. Lafferty’s book, “The Zodiac Killer Cover-Up: The Silenced Badge.” Rather than scrapping the project entirely, he reimagines it as a “what if” scenario, transforming it into a wry critique of the true crime documentary genre.
Shackleton has previously explored teen movies and horror films in his earlier essay films, “Beyond Clueless” (2014) and “Fear Itself” (2015). While he analyzes the role of fiction in real life from a distance in these films, he takes a more personal approach in “Zodiac Killer Project,” where his conversational narration reflects his love-hate relationship with true crime.
In this project, Shackleton and his team filmed empty homes, parking lots, and restaurants in the Bay Area on 16mm film, creating a textured, ghostly image of the past enriched by his narration. As he discusses how he would adapt Lafferty’s biography for the screen, he criticizes the simplistic tropes commonly found in true crime documentaries. These include opaque title sequences featuring evidence and suspects, the loss of innocence experienced by residents in typical American suburbs, and the use of 3D layering in crime scene photos.
In his cinematic examination of the genre, Shackleton admires Evan Peters’ performance in “Dahmer” but calls out the unethical nature of shows like “Making a Murderer,” arguing that these programs cater to the lowest common denominator primarily for entertainment.
While it’s fascinating to watch Shackleton deconstruct these nonfiction thrillers, it would have been equally exciting for cinematographer Xenia Patricia to capture his physical presence in the locations of his dream film rather than just recording his reactions in a booth. While the team had a supply of film stock, it would have been more engaging to see Shackleton filming the Bay Area scenes as he seized the opportunity to create a Zodiac Killer film. However, the main focus isn’t on principal photography; instead, it’s during the post-production phase where the real magic happens. This is the stage where the editing process shapes and contextualizes the film. Here, Shackleton reflects on the ethics of true crime and constructs an ambiguous ending, avoiding a clear lean toward optimism or pessimism.
It’s common for filmmakers to encounter challenges that prevent their projects from coming to fruition due to various factors beyond their control. However, Shackleton remains undeterred by these obstacles in pursuing his vision. He is mindful of his film’s outreach and audience, infusing enthusiasm, skepticism, and humor into a genre that has often faced criticism over time. Shackleton finds a silver lining in making the undeveloped be seen.
