A Second-Level Meditation on Zardoz
"The gun is good. The penis is evil."
That statement is made by a giant floating stone head very early in Zardoz, a 1974 film by writer-director-producer John Boorman. That, and seeing the late Bond-era Sean Connery running around in essentially a red loin cloth should help set expectations for this film: that it's basically completely nuts. But lord help me, I do find this film enjoyable. Part of it is the sheer goofy spectacle, but the more I've watched it, the more I've come to understand it. Maybe I should be concerned for my mental health. But honestly, Zardoz is not a terrible movie. It's a victim of over-reach.There are some interesting science fiction concepts here, but they are buried under a sea of weird choices. It's a mess, but in the same way a plate of nachos is a mess - deliciously so.
Two hundred years from now, in a devastated future world, a small group of immortals, called Eternals, rules over normal humans, called Brutals. The Eternals keep the Brutals in line with a special cadre of Brutals called Exterminators. The Exterminators worship Zardoz, a gigantic stone head created by the Eternals. One day an Exterminator, Zed, hides inside Zardoz and is brought back to the Vortex, the Eternals' home. Although some of the Eternals want to kill Zed, they decide to keep him as a servant for a time. But Zed is not stupid as they think; he is actually highly intelligent, and ultimately absorbs all of the Eternals' knowledge. He uses this to destroy the Tabernacle, the source of their immortality. Now the Eternals can finally die, which they greet joyously. Zed's erstwhile Exterminator companions penetrate the Vortex and slaughter the Eternals, although a few escape, including Zed and Consuella, who have a son, grow old, and die.
A simple written description of the film, however, cannot do justice to its eccentricity. One has to see, no, experience, Zardoz to understand just why so many people find it bewildering. It's easy to get distracted by all of the odd visual choices - why is Connery in a red loin cloth? - that keeping up with the story becomes almost impossible. Boorman brought on his wife Christel to design the costumes, and the Eternals' outfits have a distinctly 60s flower child vibe, crossed with something out of a Sid and Marty Krofft production (sans all the bare breasts). They have a cultish appearance today. The film's budget was just $1.5M (with $200,000 going to Connery), and this obviously impacted a number of aspects, including set design, so we see a lot of curtains and mirrored rooms. When Zed is transformed in the latter part of the movie by absorbing the knowledge of the Tabernacle, it seems like Boorman might have been aiming for a cinematic experience similar to astronaut Dave Bowman's psychedelic space trip in 2001. But instead we see images, mathematical figures, and text projected onto Zed and the Eternals to depict his metamorphosis. On one hand it's clearly a work-around due to budgetary issues, but on the other, it's part of the unique charm of the film. There are no big-budget special effects here, but this was true of most science fiction films of the time. Most concentrated on telling a story, one that benefited from the conjectural nature of science fiction.
In the context of science fiction films from around this time, we had A Clockwork Orange and The Omega Man in 1971, Silent Running in 1972, and Soylent Green and Westworld in 1973. Of course, looming over all was 2001: A Space Odyssey, still considered one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Before Star Wars ushered in years and years of space opera, we had films like these, which had some issue at their core - overpopulation, social unrest, technology out of control, environmentalism - that drove the story. Zardoz does too - technology has grown so powerful that a portion of humanity lives forever in luxury over those who are not allowed to share in its gifts. It's a classic cautionary tale about the dangers of technology growing faster than our emotional or ethical capabilities to keep up.
Zed's sweaty machismo is nauseating at times, but he's the opposite side of the coin to the Eternals. He and his fellow Exterminators are still on the losing side of this class struggle, but they get the carrot and not the stick like their fellow Brutals. He takes the path towards saviorhood where he becomes enlightened (at first in the ruined library, then later, in the Tabernacle) and then is physically and spiritually transformed (the Eternals alter him so he has their powers). Destroying the Tabernacle, he frees them from this endless cycle of rebirth, from a stagnant existence into a dynamic one.
But Zardoz's story is infinitely weirder than Logan's Run. And a lot more uncomfortable. Zed is not a hero. He kills and rapes his fellow Brutals. When he runs into the Apathetics, his instinct is to take advantage of one, but her lifelessness aggravates him. Connery is able to play this role convincingly and it's a bit much. When he becomes enlightened, he's lost the stomach for killing and says stuff like, "Hide in my aura," and causes time to go backwards (or the film is run backwards, take your pick). But he retains his virility, impregnating Consuella, so I guess he's the best of both worlds by the end.
Zardoz really feels like a "70s film," whatever that might mean to you - to me, it has that sense of exploration and daring, even though it fails about half the time. It takes risks, something we see so little of now with films made by committee. You can watch it and laugh, you can watch it and shake your head, but it compels you to watch it - and that's saying something.
Let us not forget the other classic 70’s dystopian films, Death Race 2000 and... Sleeper 😜 In all seriousness another informative and fun blog pal, thanks for doing these posts 🖖🏼
ReplyDeleteLast year, I introduced my girlfriend to this movie with some trepidation. Afterward, I said, "Did you like it?" "Oh my god! Of course! I love it!" So, clearly, she's a perfect fit for me.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point: Much of what's appealing about the film is how it overreaches, how it throws out a lot of ideas that it can't quite handle. There's a marvelous messiness that invites an imaginative engagement. That's something we don't often see in our entertainment these days.
This is a top-notch write-up and explanation of Zardoz, Karen.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a quintessentially '70s movie in so many ways, and yes, it's very compelling - but for me, only the first time. I watched it only once, and doubt I ever will again, just because of that uncomfortable factor that you mentioned. It's a very hard film to watch, once you realize what's going on. That said, though, I agree that it's a movie that *should* be watched, at least by any self-respecting SF fan.