MovieChat Forums > Zardoz (1974) Discussion > A great film suffering from misrepresent...

A great film suffering from misrepresentation and misinterpretation.

posted 10 years ago by AssaultOnLogic
3 replies | jump to latest

Someone here has said director John Boorman's best work forms a trilogy: Deliverance, Zardoz, and Excalibur. I would go further and say Boorman's finest work consists of a tetralogy and include Point Blank, but this is a rather trivial point. What I would like to stress instead is how unfortunate it is to see that Zardoz is being written off by nearly everybody as insubstantial kitsch for the past 40 years.

Even the bulk of its fan club are doing it disservice by recommending it to others under heading: So-Bad-It's-Good. The unfortunate result is that newcomers who seek out this film will most likely not give the film due credit, wishing only to get their kicks on yet another famous example of 'all-time worst movies'. If those who haven't yet seen this film are going to approach it with such preconceptions, their minds are already being made up for them by its unfair reputation. This demographic, most likely the only demographic who will ever plan on seeing Zardoz, are approaching the film from a very flawed perspective.

Thus, I say Zardoz is due for a critical reevaluation because it is a feast for the eyes as well as for the mind, a film to be taken seriously. If you can overlook some of its poor acting and overt pompousness and instead look at its visual creativity, crafty editing and stimulating narrative then you will see a film of pure beauty replete with memorable scene after memorable scene. This is a film that stays with you forever. Ahead of its time, Zardoz is a work of great artistic merit created by one of the greatest living directors, a should-have-been-classic instead of the object of mock and ridicule we are left with today.

CliffsNotes: This film should NOT be uttered in the same breath as Troll 2, Battlefield Earth, or The Room. Much better reference points would be the films The Devils (1971), The Holy Mountain (1973), and On The Silver Globe (1988).

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Times_Up 8 years ago

I do somewhat agree, though I don't think it's a great film. It does stay with you. I agree with 2nd poster in that the bizarre almost always gives way too camp, esp. over time (here we are 40+ years later). It will definitely take a responsible audience to revive any genuine interest in it. I recently watched it with that frame of mind. While I found it wonderfully creative, it was also quite haphazard and whimsical at the end, moving by very fast in the 3rd act.

As nearly as I can tell it starts with an intriguing premise: what happens to the man who kills God? And what happens to God's followers? It answers those questions by saying they all receive the mortal deaths they longed for and he receives the mortal life he was denied. It is not told very coherently and is hard to follow or make a lot of sense out of. Elements of a cult satire and perhaps even drug counterculture satire are very prominent. I don't want to be too dismissive and would like to watch it again, but I think Boorman's commentary would be helpful, b/c the symbolism is just all over the place in the 3rd act. Pretty much when Zed finds the crystal and "goes inside it" somehow. It's no 1984 or 2001 like the tagline claims, but it's deserving of a better understanding. Whether the flaws are in the audience or the direction, remains to be understood.

All good things must come to an end - Chaucer

[–] mrpinbert 8 years ago

I completely agree with you.
It's my 11th favorite movie and a 9/10 for me.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/