Was the movie good? Hell yeah it was. But did it get a lot wrong versus what happened in the real case? Also yes. No matter how many times you read, “Based on a True Story” or “Inspired by True Events,” the fictionalized portions of the film are the parts that stick with you. So, let’s delve deep into the mounds and mounds of books, paperwork, witness accounts, and all of that stuff to see how much the movie actually got right…
1. The Taxi Driver Murder
In The Film: Paul Stine, a San Francisco taxi driver, is doing his job when he pulls up to an intersection where a man dressed in all blue and those recognizable black rimmed glasses. The man gets in and puts his gun to Stine’s head, pulls the trigger, and blood sprays all over the cab. We listen to the female voiceover of a call to the police as the suspect adjusts the body of the man, exits the cab, walks around to the driver’s side, reaches in, shuts off the headlights, and then scurries off.
Fincher devised a theory that the killer actually took Stine’s glasses after he killed him, and that sketch of the killer wearing glasses was just the killer in his victim’s eyewear. When Stine stops at the intersection in the film you can see him wearing the glasses.
In Real Life: The glasses part is a good theory, but evidence suggests that Stine was found with his glasses still on. The top of this forum has an image of the scene that has a NSFW picture of the body, so you can check it out yourself.
According to official reports, the cab stopped a block before its original destination. Stine was then shot with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol at point blank range. His wallet and keys were taken, and a large part of his bloody shirt was ripped off. Also found were bloody finger prints, and a pair of size 7 black gloves. The three witnesses also said they watched the suspect wipe down the cab. The witnesses gave the description of the suspect (first sketch and adjusted sketch) to the police before the description was botched by the dispatcher. For the most part, the movie got it right. This leads us to that whole dispatcher issue…
2. What Killer Would Leave Gloves At The Scene Of A Taxi Murder?
In the Film: A big thing in the film is the gloves found in the cab of the murdered driver Paul Stine. The gloves are always called the Zodiac’s gloves so as you watch you get it in your head they were his gloves and no one elses. But then there’s the fact that there were bloody prints in the cab that weren’t Stines. We’re led to believe they might belong to the Zodiac, but he was wearing gloves, right?
In Real Life: What Graysmith learned — and what he put in his book — was that Inspector Toschi found out that the gloves belonged to a female who had left the gloves in the cab earlier that day with a different driver on call. Some allege that he invented that information so the Zodiac would come out and confirm the gloves. A report by the Dept. of Justice stated that the gloves, a men’s size 7, were the smallest size available and the witness statements say the gloves were too small for the suspect to be wearing them.
3. Did Robert Graysmith’s Marriage Get Ruined By His Obsession With The Case?
In The Film: During the film, Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) meets a nice young woman (Chloë Sevigny), and even on the first date he let’s the case get in the way by having to call Paul Avery. This case kept intruding on his personal life until his wife was fed up and left, even though she still cared about him.
In Real Life: According to Graysmith himself, when asked if his involvement with whether the case did ruin his marriage. It did.
“It affected my life in one bad way because I got divorced but on the other hand I have the greatest kids … As far as the personal relationship [with my children] that was not good. Zodiac was number one, that just took over.” “In the end, it wasn’t all bad. I think, had I to do it over again, I probably would do it. Probably would. But it does grip you. It takes over your life.” (Via)
Never let a serial killer come between you and your wife.