I see also a lot of visual worth in Zodiac. Didn't you notice the subtle change in cinematography as we moved through the decades. Compare the colour and lighting in some of the early scenes to the late scenes. If that isn't attention to period and detail and/or visual authenticity, I don't know what is.
I don't know how you call that attention to period. I am not saying that there wasn't any, but I couldn't find any and you haven't pointed out any. In my review I wrote about the yellow filter. I actually thought it was cool, but yellow filter alone won't make it different period. It is like using sepia/BW or some coarse grain film. I never thought about this point till now. How do films get away with that? Isn't it just a clever gimmick? Note that I do usually fall for that gimmick and appreciate it, but maybe I will start paying attention to this aspect from now on. I don't know if there was really any change in the way American towns looked in that particular span of twenty years, but I would speculate that they did. Ddi the movie bring out that difference? I can't recall. I noticed that he did stretch the film very long just to give us the feeling that a lot of time has passed by and nothing happened. But visual setting? I am not so convinced. Please educate me.
I think Capo was refering to the fact that its subtle touches of the visuals for different periods in the film's timeline....I mean, its the little devil details like that why Fincher is a master.
