From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:07:55 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Dec22.083108.7004@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, by k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai):
> Zardoz may be "art" but it certainly is not a well-told story.  Boorman
> doesn't tell us who Zed is until the middle of the film. [...]
> Yeah, he eventually explains everything but
> by the time he did I didn't care anymore. A more linear storyline 
> would have done wonders for this film.

And I bet you only read mystery novels if the villain is given on the
back cover, or else you might have to worry about his identity for the
whole length of the book.

Personally, I think the split storyline is essential to get the viewer
to enter Vortex "from the outside".  Starting the film by showing an
immortal who devises a plan to destroy the central computer that
controls his life by means of a genetically engineered being is about
the blandest way possible.  The cinematography that you comment on
works so well because it is presented in the correct context.  Boorman
keeps you wondering what this is supposed to be all about.  As a
philosophic vehicle, the film is fairly crude.  As storytelling with a
moral, with lots of ideas touched upon on the sidelines, it's great.

> Maybe
> Boorman was trying to create an air of mystery but all he suceeded in
> doing was confusing most people I know who saw this film.

As should be clear from the above, he succeeded admirably for me.  

>He was
>obviously trying to make a "head" film for druggies to cash in on the
>2001:Space Odyssey crowd.

Considering that the film effectively argues the opposite, I don't
think so.  Also, there's six years between the two.  (Of course,
there's six years between 2001 and Dark Star, as well :-) .

> As for lapses in logic, the whole film is a lapse in logic as far as
> i'm concerned. How does a super-computer extend people's lifespans?

That's the wrong question.  The question would be "how can you make
people immortal?"  If you assume that that is possible, then the idea
of some automatically controlled process rejuvenating people is not
harder to believe than any other I might think of.  Obviously, "a
super-computer" is not enough.  It needs some kind of effectors. But
actually, I don't care being told about that, this is not MacGyver or
a Robert Forward novel.

> Why do the Eternals feel it necessary to control the Exterminators and
> Brutals when the Vortex is self-sufficient?

I do get the impression you indeed didn't really watch the film.  The
Vortex ceased to be self-sufficient, since the catatonics (whose
numbers are increasing all the time) are not working.  The
Exterminators were not only controlled by the Eternals, they were
created by them, first to reduce the Brutals which the Eternals
considered a threat and an annoyance, later to get them to work.

I think there was one comment, which I accidentally deleted, to the
effect of how could people fall to the level of the Brutals.  Take a
look at Somalia, for instance, or Albania, which is a bit closer
geographically.  Wrecking a complex society is not that difficult.
Actually, this is one of the most believable parts of the film.

> Why do the Eternals smash
> great objects of art while chasing Zed?

Releasing pent-up emotions after decades of restraint?

> Why the great massacre scene
> at the end? Wouldn't a great many of the Eternals simply wish to 
> live out the remainder of their lives rather than be brutally snuffed?

Actually, this *is* a simplification, and it fits with what I think
about the "message" of the film (see below).  But wait three hundred
years, and then tell me how you think about it.

> If the Tabernacle is contained in a little crystal how does Zed manage to
> get inside of it, by shrinking down real teensy?

And where does the second Zed come from, the one he shoots?  Wow.  A
twin brother, and we're never told about him.  Now, there must be
something wrong with this film.
 
> His films all seem to have the sound quality of a
> dubbed Japanese monster movie. Check out Arthur (Speed Racer) King of
> the Britons in Excalibur if you don't believe me.

Why should I?  I don't really care, and I don't see what this has to
do with plot line or logic of Zardoz.

I confess I have no problems with any details in Zardoz.  I'm not sure
I agree with the message Boorman tries to hit the viewer over the head
with, but that's something else.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst