Readers Digest
Magazine subscription Podcast
HomeCultureFilm & TV

Retro review: Zardoz—the wildest film of the 70s

BY James Oliver

1st Jan 2015 Film & TV

Retro review: Zardoz—the wildest film of the 70s

We remember a sci-fi classic, ‘the one where Sean Connery runs around in a red nappy’, which bombed at the box office but has now achieved the ultimate film dream: cult hood. James Oliver explains why Zardox is so beloved. 

What is Zardoz?

Filmmaking is a conservative business. Given the amounts of money involved it has to be, with established and recognisable styles offering the money men a better return on their investment than things that rock the boat. Every now and then, though, something slips through this net.

One such film was Zardoz. It was made by director John Boorman. Flush with the success of his previous film, Deliverance, he cashed in all his credit and made one of the wildest, most ambitious films of the 1970s, a decade when ‘wildness’ and ‘ambition’ were not in short supply.

 

 

"It’s better to aim for the stars and miss than hit an easy, boring target"

 

 

The results met with bewilderment and mockery. It is a film often described as ‘the one where Sean Connery runs around in a red nappy’ (it’s actually a loin cloth if we’re splitting hairs). Even those who like the film must admit it is flawed, perhaps even profoundly so—but as every cult film fan knows, it’s better to aim for the stars and miss than hit an easy, boring target.

And few directors were aiming higher than Boorman. Set in the future, we begin in a wilderness (‘the outlands’), one patrolled by exterminators like Connery’s Zed: they cull the surplus population at the behest of their god, Zardoz, who manifests as a huge floating stone head.

One day, for reasons we learn only later, Zed secrets himself inside Zardoz and kills the funny little man who seems to be its pilot. Without this controller, ‘Zardoz’ returns to base, a sealed community called The Vortex, a place peopled by an effete overclass who probe Zed like an animal at the zoo. They do not realise he has an agenda of his own.

 

 

Why is it a cult classic?

zardoz head
The floating head of Zardoz. Image via John Guy Collick

This basic set up is not new, of course. It’s the old division of Morlocks and Eloi that H.G. Wells used in The Time Machine, a society stratified between a thuggish underclass and a refined and placid caste. But Boorman flavours it with some distinctively 70s sexual politics. The Vortex is a matriarchy and it’s not long before Zed’s brutish charms get the women all a-quiver (and no wonder: Connery is at his hairy best here).

What happens next earned the film its reputation as a head-scratcher. A summary is difficult, in large part because I’m not entirely sure what’s going on and I’m not sure Boorman does either. There are trippy psychedelia, nods to then-popular alternative philosophies and The Wizard of Oz too. But not much actual plot.

The film climaxes with a moment of pure nihilism in which the residents of the Vortex welcome death at the hands of the exterminators, a more murderous replay of the tension Boorman depicted in Deliverance between civilisation and elemental nature.

Zardoz
Image via Loxosceles

Zardoz bombed, of course. Not even the presence of Connery in a red loincloth could tempt a mass audience to part with their money. But almost as predictable as its financial failure was its rebirth as a cult film. Indeed, it might almost be the quintessential cult film, one embraced by its admirers despite (and yes, maybe even because of) the very flaws that stopped it achieving mainstream acceptance.

There are many other ways to enjoy films beyond plot and that’s where Zardoz scores big.

 

 

"The sheer boldness of Boorman’s vision is exhilarating"

 

 

There are some remarkable visual ideas here, from the giant stone head floating through the outlands to the computer at the heart of the Vortex (suggestively named ‘the tabernacle’). Zed plugs into this computer to find out what’s really going on and while it’s debatable whether or not he actually succeeds, it certainly provides the film’s most abstract moments.

The sheer boldness of Boorman’s vision and his willingness to take risks is exhilarating. His failing—if failing it be—is that he’s too ambitious, stuffing the film with ideas which he doesn’t always develop. But when so many films are bereft of even a single thought, that’s not necessarily a reason to condemn it.

While Zardoz is far from fully coherent, there is much here to respect, admire and even love. It may, ultimately, be a failure, but it’s a really, really interesting one.

 

Enjoyed this story? Share it!

Feature image via Film Forum

 

This post contains affiliate links, so we may earn a small commission when you make a purchase through links on our site at no additional cost to you. Read our disclaimer

Loading up next...
Stories by email|Subscription
Readers Digest

Launched in 1922, Reader's Digest has built 100 years of trust with a loyal audience and has become the largest circulating magazine in the world

Readers Digest
Reader’s Digest is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (which regulates the UK’s magazine and newspaper industry). We abide by the Editors’ Code of Practice and are committed to upholding the highest standards of journalism. If you think that we have not met those standards, please contact 0203 289 0940. If we are unable to resolve your complaint, or if you would like more information about IPSO or the Editors’ Code, contact IPSO on 0300 123 2220 or visit ipso.co.uk