{"id":653149,"date":"2026-06-23T01:08:18","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T01:08:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/653149\/"},"modified":"2026-06-23T01:08:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T01:08:18","slug":"zardoz-when-an-actor-needs-a-check-and-a-director-needs-to-be-checked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/653149\/","title":{"rendered":"Zardoz: When an Actor Needs a Check, and a Director Needs to be Checked"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jack Gayer delves into the cult 1974 Sean Connery sci-fi Zardoz\u2026<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019d 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\u2019d also like it established pretty quickly that this character is a brute and a rapist. They shouldn\u2019t be particularly charming or remotely likeable.<\/p>\n

If this thought has ever crossed your mind, you\u2019re 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\u2019s a fool\u2019s errand to think because someone made a successful film, they should be allowed to go hog wild on the next one (Heaven\u2019s Gate (1980) comes to mind). When circumstances like these conspire\u2014a director who fancies themself a deep artist, a star who needs a buck, a studio that thinks unchecked artistic freedom will translate to cash\u2026 Well, that\u2019s when you get a Zardoz. A psychedelic sci-fi film that\u2019s incredibly fun to watch and about as deep as a Bazooka Joe joke is funny.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s even funnier. And my god is Zardoz impressed with itself, for which we have writer and director John Boorman to thank. But first, let\u2019s delve into the star, the man who plays Zed, Sean Connery.<\/p>\n

Connery, hurting <\/a>for work (and money), saw the script for Zardoz, one in which a floating head shouts, \u201cThe gun is good, the penis is evil!\u201d and would have Connery wearing a wedding dress in the climax (amazing) and playing an all-around terrible human being, and thought, \u201cWhat a fresh take on the sci-fi genre. I need to do this. The Matrix (1999)?\u00a0Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)? Go fuck yourselves,\u201d Connery later said<\/a>. But this gem? Yes, please.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Connery would say that Zardoz <\/a>was \u201cone of the best ideas [he\u2019d] come across for ages,\u201d as related in \u201cSean Connery Starred In A Terrible Sci-Fi Movie To Escape His James Bond Legacy,\u201d from an interview he did in the magazine Films and Filming in 1974. It wasn\u2019t just the fantastic script that impressed Connery; it was also the chance to act again. Regardless of how little he\u2019d be paid.<\/p>\n

As Sean Connery: A Biography, by Christopher Bray, points out, Connery would be paid $200,000 for Zardoz\u2014a fraction of what he was paid for Diamonds Are Forever (1971). However, after his latest time playing Bond, he wasn\u2019t drowning in work, so a beggar couldn\u2019t 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\u2019s house\u2014which Connery insisted the director guzzle with him\u2014the actor did help out by paying strict attention to having all the lights turned off every night. Connery, the original green celebrity.\u00a0 The director also fired Connery\u2019s driver at the actor\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The author of the biography, Christopher Bray, would gush over the Scottish star in the book, praising Connery\u2019s \u201csheer physical beauty\u201d and his \u201cmagnificent musculature.\u201d Sure, by 1974\u2019s 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\u2019s physique in his Mr. Universe days. If words could drool.<\/p>\n

The biography also talks some about Connery\u2019s 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 \u201cwas all over much too quickly.\u201d Why did Rampling star in Zardoz? She said the script was like \u201cpoetry.\u201d Fair, because just like any other medium, poetry can also be garbage.<\/p>\n

Talking to Interview <\/a>magazine, Rampling discusses how \u201cseductive\u201d her co-star was, \u201cas long as his wife wasn\u2019t there.\u201d She adds that Connery mostly talked seduction. When the interviewer presses her, she lets slip, \u201cI don\u2019t quite know whether he was incredibly cultured. It was all about seduction,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2014until he became such a drunken pain in the ass he was kicked off (although breaking Boorman\u2019s nose and cracking four of his teeth was somehow not the final straw<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Deliverance\u2019s 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, \u201cwinning\u201d her a Razzie (which she would accept in person and give a tremendous speech for).<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, Boorman discusses the importance of not being too precious with your work by talking about how important it is to be \u201chard on yourself,\u201d supplying this tongue-in-cheek yet self-serving anecdote as evidence.\u00a0 \u201cI remember when the Los Angeles film critics gave me awards for best script, best director and best picture for Hope and Glory, which I\u2019d written, directed and produced.\u201d Collecting the award, he said he\u2019d written a great script, ruined by the direction. Accepting the best director award, he said, \u201cI\u2019d have directed a much better film if I didn\u2019t have this awful producer on my back.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2019d told Boorman this was something he\u2019d never told anyone else before. Yet Boorman would realize Dickey was telling anyone who would listen this same thing.<\/p>\n

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, \u201cnobody wanted to do it.\u201d Despite Boorman having made the studio (Warner Bros.) a \u201cshitload of money.\u201d Perplexing. Didn\u2019t 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\u2019t think this would be a crowd pleaser? Those fools.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Boorman talks somewhat about Zardoz in his memoir (which hasn\u2019t aged terribly well, e.g., calling a woman a \u201crich Jewess\u201d? Woof.) Although most of what he has to say is about the lighting. It\u2019s fair to say lighting is an aspect of the film few have been focusing on besides Boorman and the gaffer.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Boorman would also make some revealing remarks to Playboy<\/a> 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, \u201ca bitch\u201d or \u201chysterical.\u201d However, after years of doubling down on this position, he\u2019d 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 \u201cI should have just kept my fucking mouth shut,\u201d Boorman would tell the publication that he thought he believed in women\u2019s equality until he experienced one of these communes. Boorman would say, \u201cI can\u2019t accept that they\u2019re the equals of men.\u201d Before adding, confusingly, how he was \u201cguilty about it\u201d but couldn\u2019t \u201cadd any more\u201d to his \u201cburden of guilt,\u201d because after 40, you can\u2019t shoulder any more. Whether Boorman ever thought of writing a self-help book entitled \u201cSelf-Growth Stops at 40\u201d is unknown, but it\u2019s not impossible he didn\u2019t 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 \u201cspiritual experience.\u201d\u00a0Boorman also claims that over the years, Zardoz transitioned from \u201cfailure to classic.\u201d He neglects to say \u201ccult classic,\u201d as calling Zardoz a \u201cclassic\u201d with a straight face is something only a pathological liar could accomplish. Another chestnut of brilliance from Boorman\u2019s memoir, one that goes a long way toward explaining the mind that created Zardoz, is Boorman\u2019s take on integrity. Boorman says that he regrets how his lies \u201cconcealed the truth rather than revealing it,\u201d i.e., the definition of a lie.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re going to make a sci-fi tale with epic ambitions, you can\u2019t 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\u2019s impossible not to laugh. It\u2019s so ridiculous-looking that any chance this movie had of being taken remotely seriously as a thought-provoking film is out the window.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

On one occasion<\/a>, a problem with the special effects sent Connery into a rage. The actor, who didn\u2019t care for makeup and who was \u201cexplosive,\u201d according to Boorman, lost his fucking shit when he found out he\u2019d 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\u2019s revolver launched itself into the director\u2019s face.<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not easy to make a good film. It\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Zardoz is one of these monsters. As a pet, it\u2019s not something you\u2019d want to cuddle up with, but definitely something you\u2019d want to show off to your friends. It\u2019s 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\u2019s love for his family. But a movie doesn\u2019t have to be \u201cgood\u201d to be enjoyable. What can make films like Zardoz even more enjoyable is learning about the inbred parents who created such mutant offspring.<\/p>\n

Have you seen Zardoz? Let us know your thoughts on our social channels @FlickeringMyth\u2026<\/p>\n

Jack Gayer<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Jack Gayer delves into the cult 1974 Sean Connery sci-fi Zardoz\u2026 I\u2019d like to see more movies with…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":653150,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[96,2839,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-653149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-movies","tag-entertainment","tag-movies","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=653149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653149\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/653150"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=653149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=653149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=653149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}