Jack Gayer delves into the cult 1974 Sean Connery sci-fi Zardoz…
I’d like to see more movies with a slightly out-of-shape, middle-aged man as the star. They should be hirsute, wearing nothing but a bandolier and what may or may not be a bright red diaper. They also need a Fu Manchu, Wolverine-thick sideburns, and a long ponytail. Because representation matters. I’d also like it established pretty quickly that this character is a brute and a rapist. They shouldn’t be particularly charming or remotely likeable.
If this thought has ever crossed your mind, you’re in luck, because Zardoz (1974) checks all of these boxes. A movie with its head so far up its ass there are three brown eyes gazing at its navel. Why would anyone star in such a laughably pretentious film? Who could conceive of it? And why would anyone give someone money to make it? Like most things in life, the answer is money. Decisions are made because someone made someone else a lot of money. Or someone needed money.
It’s a fool’s errand to think because someone made a successful film, they should be allowed to go hog wild on the next one (Heaven’s Gate (1980) comes to mind). When circumstances like these conspire—a director who fancies themself a deep artist, a star who needs a buck, a studio that thinks unchecked artistic freedom will translate to cash… Well, that’s when you get a Zardoz. A psychedelic sci-fi film that’s incredibly fun to watch and about as deep as a Bazooka Joe joke is funny.
Not enough has been written about this film, but the time has come to rectify this great injustice. For a critical reappraisal? God no, the movie is terrible. What’s needed is an exploration of a film that has much to say, but much like Billy Madison pontificating about puppies who have lost their way, the only insights to be gained from this movie are understanding what the hell was going on that made it.
While some movies are fun and have a sense of humor (albeit the funniest parts are not where they intended), other movies are painfully self-serious. And when these movies completely fall on their faces, it’s even funnier. And my god is Zardoz impressed with itself, for which we have writer and director John Boorman to thank. But first, let’s delve into the star, the man who plays Zed, Sean Connery.
Connery, hurting for work (and money), saw the script for Zardoz, one in which a floating head shouts, “The gun is good, the penis is evil!” and would have Connery wearing a wedding dress in the climax (amazing) and playing an all-around terrible human being, and thought, “What a fresh take on the sci-fi genre. I need to do this. The Matrix (1999)? Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)? Go fuck yourselves,” Connery later said. But this gem? Yes, please.
Connery would say that Zardoz was “one of the best ideas [he’d] come across for ages,” as related in “Sean Connery Starred In A Terrible Sci-Fi Movie To Escape His James Bond Legacy,” from an interview he did in the magazine Films and Filming in 1974. It wasn’t just the fantastic script that impressed Connery; it was also the chance to act again. Regardless of how little he’d be paid.
As Sean Connery: A Biography, by Christopher Bray, points out, Connery would be paid $200,000 for Zardoz—a fraction of what he was paid for Diamonds Are Forever (1971). However, after his latest time playing Bond, he wasn’t drowning in work, so a beggar couldn’t be a chooser. According to the biography, Connery asked if he could bunk with the director and his wife while they filmed Zardoz. Even paying the director for room and board, albeit only 7 pounds a week, an amount that the ever-pleasant Boorman would say was more in keeping with payments from the 50s.
The author does point out that despite not kicking in to the kitty for the mandated single malt whisky at Boorman’s house—which Connery insisted the director guzzle with him—the actor did help out by paying strict attention to having all the lights turned off every night. Connery, the original green celebrity. The director also fired Connery’s driver at the actor’s behest. Connery would split the cost (150 pounds) with Boorman, and the actor would drive himself. Leaving one to wonder, just how hard up was Connery for money? Well, he did star in Zardoz.
The author of the biography, Christopher Bray, would gush over the Scottish star in the book, praising Connery’s “sheer physical beauty” and his “magnificent musculature.” Sure, by 1974’s standards. The world was still three years away from the documentary Pumping Iron (1977). And god only knows what Bray would have thought of Connery’s physique in his Mr. Universe days. If words could drool.
The biography also talks some about Connery’s co-star Charlotte Rampling (Consuella). Did she have an interesting assessment of her rape scene by Connery? Boy, did she ever. According to the biography, Rampling joked with the director that the rape “was all over much too quickly.” Why did Rampling star in Zardoz? She said the script was like “poetry.” Fair, because just like any other medium, poetry can also be garbage.
Talking to Interview magazine, Rampling discusses how “seductive” her co-star was, “as long as his wife wasn’t there.” She adds that Connery mostly talked seduction. When the interviewer presses her, she lets slip, “I don’t quite know whether he was incredibly cultured. It was all about seduction,” before implicitly agreeing that Connery was probably obsessed with her and tracking her down. While filming Zardoz, Rampling was married and had a young child at the time.
Connery brought the star power, but the creative engine was writer and director John Boorman. Prior to Zardoz, Boorman made one of the best camping movies of all time; it had catchy music; thrilling adventure. Oh, and a guy gets blasted from behind while Georgia’s finest squeal like a pig at him. That film was The Muppets Visit the South. Just kidding, it was Deliverance (1972). A film that had James Dickey, the writer of the novel, on set—until he became such a drunken pain in the ass he was kicked off (although breaking Boorman’s nose and cracking four of his teeth was somehow not the final straw).
Deliverance’s success had Boorman thinking pretty highly of himself. And with near carte blanche for his next feature, Boorman decided to follow Deliverance up with something completely different. Much like Halle Berry winning an Oscar and deciding to star in a piece-of-shit superhero movie a couple of years later, “winning” her a Razzie (which she would accept in person and give a tremendous speech for).
Boorman is not without a sense of humor (although his memoir makes for some dry, painfully slow reading). In an interview with Little White Lies, Boorman discusses the importance of not being too precious with your work by talking about how important it is to be “hard on yourself,” supplying this tongue-in-cheek yet self-serving anecdote as evidence. “I remember when the Los Angeles film critics gave me awards for best script, best director and best picture for Hope and Glory, which I’d written, directed and produced.” Collecting the award, he said he’d written a great script, ruined by the direction. Accepting the best director award, he said, “I’d have directed a much better film if I didn’t have this awful producer on my back.”
In the same interview, Boorman would say Dickey had confided that everything in the book had actually happened to him. However, in the course of working with frequently soused Dickey, Boorman would realize the author was full of shit. Moreover, when Dickey divulged his truth bomb about Deliverance being based on his life, he’d told Boorman this was something he’d never told anyone else before. Yet Boorman would realize Dickey was telling anyone who would listen this same thing.
Boorman eventually gets around to talking about the pinnacle of his career in the interview, the triumphant feminist masterpiece that is Zardoz. He says that at first, “nobody wanted to do it.” Despite Boorman having made the studio (Warner Bros.) a “shitload of money.” Perplexing. Didn’t they read the marvelous script? Yes, the one where the main character sexually assaults a near-comatose woman and only stopping the rape because she was too inert. They didn’t think this would be a crowd pleaser? Those fools.
Boorman talks somewhat about Zardoz in his memoir (which hasn’t aged terribly well, e.g., calling a woman a “rich Jewess”? Woof.) Although most of what he has to say is about the lighting. It’s fair to say lighting is an aspect of the film few have been focusing on besides Boorman and the gaffer.
Boorman would also make some revealing remarks to Playboy about his inspiration for the film. Playboy, of course, was one of the outlets where Connery said giving a woman a good smack was totally cool because women can get mouthy, or in his words, “a bitch” or “hysterical.” However, after years of doubling down on this position, he’d say in 2006 that it was never okay to hit women (progress). In the Playboy interview, Boorman says that he drew inspiration from American communes. In a curious bit of “I should have just kept my fucking mouth shut,” Boorman would tell the publication that he thought he believed in women’s equality until he experienced one of these communes. Boorman would say, “I can’t accept that they’re the equals of men.” Before adding, confusingly, how he was “guilty about it” but couldn’t “add any more” to his “burden of guilt,” because after 40, you can’t shoulder any more. Whether Boorman ever thought of writing a self-help book entitled “Self-Growth Stops at 40” is unknown, but it’s not impossible he didn’t consider it.
One of the more intriguing (and possibly invented) things he has to say about the reception to Zardoz is that some fans say the film was a “spiritual experience.” Boorman also claims that over the years, Zardoz transitioned from “failure to classic.” He neglects to say “cult classic,” as calling Zardoz a “classic” with a straight face is something only a pathological liar could accomplish. Another chestnut of brilliance from Boorman’s memoir, one that goes a long way toward explaining the mind that created Zardoz, is Boorman’s take on integrity. Boorman says that he regrets how his lies “concealed the truth rather than revealing it,” i.e., the definition of a lie.
If you’re going to make a sci-fi tale with epic ambitions, you can’t skimp on special effects. And in Zardoz, the special effects are not good. Like, really, really not good. The special effects are so bad that the first time we see the floating head, AKA Zardoz (which spews out guns, naturally), it’s impossible not to laugh. It’s so ridiculous-looking that any chance this movie had of being taken remotely seriously as a thought-provoking film is out the window.
On one occasion, a problem with the special effects sent Connery into a rage. The actor, who didn’t care for makeup and who was “explosive,” according to Boorman, lost his fucking shit when he found out he’d have to reshoot a scene that required extensive makeup. Connery had been informed they had to film a difficult sequence a third time because the camera operator exposed the underdeveloped film to light, ruining the reel. According to Boorman, it took three people to restrain Connery, a former bodybuilder, from beating the piss out of the camera loader. Boorman would also fall afoul of a special effect when wadding from a blank fired from Connery’s revolver launched itself into the director’s face.
It’s not easy to make a good film. It’s even harder to make a profound one. A film that tackles tricky issues and offers astute social commentary. But out of the ashes of a dumpster fire, something fantastic can still emerge. No, not a phoenix. Closer to one of those freakish animals from the deepest depths of the ocean. Are they pretty to look at? Fuck, no. But are they compelling in their ugliness? Yes.
Zardoz is one of these monsters. As a pet, it’s not something you’d want to cuddle up with, but definitely something you’d want to show off to your friends. It’s a cult classic for all the right reasons. Was the movie ahead of its time? Not so much. Was it actually brilliant and too smart for audiences? Sure, and A Serbian Film (2010) is a touching testament to a man’s love for his family. But a movie doesn’t have to be “good” to be enjoyable. What can make films like Zardoz even more enjoyable is learning about the inbred parents who created such mutant offspring.
Have you seen Zardoz? Let us know your thoughts on our social channels @FlickeringMyth…
Jack Gayer
