Bob Vaughn and ZODIAC

[Christopher Snowden]

I just got around to watching the recent film ZODIAC, which
dramatizes the hunt for the Zodiac Killer, and the large cast of
characters encountered along the way by Robert Graysmith of the San
Francisco Chronicle. One of them is the silent film organist Bob
Vaughn, who knew one of the suspects in the case. Graysmith hears a
tip about the suspect, which leads him to meet up with Bob.

ZODIAC's depiction has me feeling a little indignant, so I'd like
to set the record straight. I *knew* Bob Vaughn.

In the film, Bob invites Graysmith to his home, out in the sticks
somewhere; but in reality it was a tract house in the residential
Sunset district. In the film, the house had a basement, but in reality
it didn't, it had a garage on the ground floor and the house was built
over it, just like thousands of other San Francisco houses. In ZODIAC,
the "basement" is full of Bob's 35mm film collection, but in reality
Bob's prints were all 16mm.

All right, maybe none of that's a big deal. The actor playing Bob
looks nothing like him, but fine. It's a movie. But ZODIAC doesn't
even depict the murder suspect in question (Rick Marshall), it only
depicts his friend Bob Vaughn, who's portrayed as a surrogate murder
suspect: a furtive, creepy guy, speaking in a chilling monotone like
"Hal" from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, with a sinister, knowing smile on
his lips. That was NOT the real Bob Vaughn. The real Bob was almost a
Walter Cronkite type, genial and grandfatherly, truly one of the
nicest people I've ever known.

The film makes a big deal about Graysmith down in that basement,
hearing mysterious footsteps upstairs, the sounds of the Zodiac
suspect (or possibly the boogyman); Bob calmly assures him there's no
one up there. Graysmith has said in an interview that this is what
really happened, but I find that very hard to believe. Bob was married
in those days, and if anyone was walking around upstairs, it would've
been his wife (she died in a traffic accident in the 1980s if I recall
correctly).

This sequence in the movie concludes with Graysmith so terrified by
his visit that he races back upstairs, lunges for the front door and
is horrified to find that it's locked. (Turn the knob, dumbass.) Well,
I've been to that house more than a dozen times, and I was never
horror-stricken upon arrival *or* departure.

The film doesn't exactly spell out the history of the Zodiac
murders and their investigation. It actually follows Graysmith's own
obsession with the case, and that's not the same thing. I applaud the
guy for his dedication, and for turning up some useful information,
but many of his claims about the case have been debunked (see
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/graysmith6.htm).

Overall, the movie is pretty good. But its depiction of Bob Vaughn
is complete garbage.

[madevaraven]

Chris,

Thanks for posting about this. I saw ZODIAC several months back and thought
it was pretty good too but never connected the "Bob Vaughn" character in the
movie with the "Bob Vaughn" who played so well for many Cinecon films that I
saw in 1990s and whom I enjoyed chatting with between films. They are
nothing alike.

Your characterization though is spot on from what I knew of Bob.

I certainly won't think of this film the same again. Got a little sour
taste in my mouth about it now.

Joe Moore

[m***@gmail.com]

I also thought it was kind of dirty pool to depict a real person that
way, short of libel but well within smearing, but I will say that I
took the scene as saying that Graysmith was so deep into his obsession
by that point that we, the audience, could no longer be sure if his
freaking out meant that there was real danger there-- or just that he
was reading danger into lots of innocent things, like mildly odd film
buffs.

In any case, I suspect Raymond Rohauer...

[sir michael cat]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I also thought it was kind of dirty pool to depict a real person that
way, short of libel but well within smearing, but I will say that I
took the scene as saying that Graysmith was so deep into his obsession
by that point that we, the audience, could no longer be sure if his
freaking out meant that there was real danger there-- or just that he
was reading danger into lots of innocent things, like mildly odd film
buffs.
In any case, I suspect Raymond Rohauer...

IMDB lists the film as 158 minutes which is a long time to endure a
film that contains so many lies.

[dr.giraud]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I also thought it was kind of dirty pool to depict a real person that
way, short of libel but well within smearing, but I will say that I
took the scene as saying that Graysmith was so deep into his obsession
by that point that we, the audience, could no longer be sure if his
freaking out meant that there was real danger there-- or just that he
was reading danger into lots of innocent things, like mildly odd film
buffs.
In any case, I suspect Raymond Rohauer...

I really like Zodiac, so I've watched it a couple of times. I think
the reason they portayed Vaughn instead of Marshall really was to dig
into the almost absurd depths of Graysmith's obsession. Watch how
Charles Fleisher plays the scene, turning sly as he messes with the
unhinged Graysmith, after it turns out Marshall didn't draw the
posters; unfortunately, Gyllenhaal is a limited actor IMO, and he
didn't hold up his half of the scene.

(I also think the third-to-last scene, with Graysmith and Toschi in
the diner, is two men needing a definitive answer finding one, not a
real solotion to the Zodiac's identity. Obsession again.)

Ah well, you can't libel the dead. The 1990s movie Hoodlum showed ex-
NY Gov. Thomas Dewey taking payoffs from the mob, an awful,
gratuitous, loathsome libel.

Dr.Giraud



.

[Darren]

Whoah!

Is this the same Bob Vaughn who is a silent movie organist??



Darren

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Christopher Snowden
I just got around to watching the recent film ZODIAC, which
dramatizes the hunt for the Zodiac Killer, and the large cast of
characters encountered along the way by Robert Graysmith of the San
Francisco Chronicle. One of them is the silent film organist Bob
Vaughn, who knew one of the suspects in the case. Graysmith hears a
tip about the suspect, which leads him to meet up with Bob.
ZODIAC's depiction has me feeling a little indignant, so I'd like
to set the record straight. I *knew* Bob Vaughn.
In the film, Bob invites Graysmith to his home, out in the sticks
somewhere; but in reality it was a tract house in the residential
Sunset district. In the film, the house had a basement, but in reality
it didn't, it had a garage on the ground floor and the house was built
over it, just like thousands of other San Francisco houses. In ZODIAC,
the "basement" is full of Bob's 35mm film collection, but in reality
Bob's prints were all 16mm.
All right, maybe none of that's a big deal. The actor playing Bob
looks nothing like him, but fine. It's a movie. But ZODIAC doesn't
even depict the murder suspect in question (Rick Marshall), it only
depicts his friend Bob Vaughn, who's portrayed as a surrogate murder
suspect: a furtive, creepy guy, speaking in a chilling monotone like
"Hal" from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, with a sinister, knowing smile on
his lips. That was NOT the real Bob Vaughn. The real Bob was almost a
Walter Cronkite type, genial and grandfatherly, truly one of the
nicest people I've ever known.
The film makes a big deal about Graysmith down in that basement,
hearing mysterious footsteps upstairs, the sounds of the Zodiac
suspect (or possibly the boogyman); Bob calmly assures him there's no
one up there. Graysmith has said in an interview that this is what
really happened, but I find that very hard to believe. Bob was married
in those days, and if anyone was walking around upstairs, it would've
been his wife (she died in a traffic accident in the 1980s if I recall
correctly).
This sequence in the movie concludes with Graysmith so terrified by
his visit that he races back upstairs, lunges for the front door and
is horrified to find that it's locked. (Turn the knob, dumbass.) Well,
I've been to that house more than a dozen times, and I was never
horror-stricken upon arrival *or* departure.
The film doesn't exactly spell out the history of the Zodiac
murders and their investigation. It actually follows Graysmith's own
obsession with the case, and that's not the same thing. I applaud the
guy for his dedication, and for turning up some useful information,
but many of his claims about the case have been debunked (seehttp://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/graysmith6.htm).
Overall, the movie is pretty good. But its depiction of Bob Vaughn
is complete garbage.

Hi Chris-

Don't feel too badly about the way in which Mr. Vaughn was portrayed.
Obviously, they had to add a little suspense to the story and besides,
Graysmith is one of the biggest BS artists in the world. He would not
know the truth if it bit him in the rear end, and I should know
because I've done a lot of research in the areas where he dared not to
go because what he found would have undermined his whole Allen story.
See no evil, hear no evil... ;)

The scene in which the cabbie is shot is a complete distortion.
First, they play a nursery rhyme at the end of the scene, which is
supposed to suggest thelevel of credibility of the eyewitnesses. The
main ones were 14 and 16 years old in 1969, so they hardly listened to
nursery rhymes! Then when Toschi goes to interview them, they don't
show them but the kids sound about 9 or 10 years old. This further
undermines thier credibility in a subtle way. The reason they had to
do this is that the sketch they produced (which, by "coincidence," is
not shown in the movie) looks nothing like Allen, and one of the kids
has stated categorically that it was not one Arthur Leigh Allen that
he saw that night (even though SFPD, in its infinite wisdom, failed to
show these key witnesses a photo of thehir prime suspect at the time;
the kids didn't see it until Bawart from Vallejo showed it to them in
the 1980's!).

I am a long time researcher of the Z case and my name is in the
credits of the movie (at the very end in the section on advisors--
unpaid at that!).

Mike Rodelli