![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Case for Remaking Zardoz
Apr. 20th, 2015 04:59 pmZardoz is known, mostly, for being the origin of the line "The Gun Is Good". It's also known for being the movie that gave us this image.
http://www.danvelazquez.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/zardoz.jpg
I have not embedded the image, so that you can make the decision, for yourself, as to whether or not you want to see what I'm talking about.
So people don't have to go see this, themselves, the movie is set in a post apocalyptic future. Zardoz is the name for a deified flying head that gives its followers, the Brutals, guns for the use in exterminating people and taking their food stores.
One Brutal, played by Sean Connery in a leather thong and body hair, stows away in the flying head to find the source and... well, there's not much of a plan for why he would do so.
What he finds at the source aren't gods, not in the sense that he expects or that we would think of as gods. Oh, they have the powers that come from advanced technology. But, they're far more self-involved aristocracy than they are worship-wanting deities. And, of course, they have their own problems.
They're an immortal aristocracy, unaging thanks to their technological advances, as well as capable of sharing their thoughts. But, they still have crime, which are primarily the crimes of thinking cruel and otherwise disharmonious thoughts, which are punished with the invocation of aging upon the otherwise unaging. As a result, some who have gone renegade are punished to the point of living in eternal senility. Still, others, without crime or punishment, become so emotionally disconnected from everything that they don't move... ever... regardless of the stimuli.
In the backstory, the immortality is discovered, but not shared, so that the group of immortals could survive the hard times. But, as people were starving outside their barriers, they had to harden their hearts against the suffering of others.
Towards the end of the movie, the aristocrats long for death, even those fighting against the efforts to end their immortality are revealed to desire their own failure.
These are the building blocks of a good story with a clear message. Aristocracy, separation of classes and peoples, is not even good for the aristocrats. Why, then, did the movie have to throw in an anti-feminist message? Or a general anti-immortality message? Or the notion that the good way to live is to pair off, procreate, then age and die?
Sean Connery's body suit of hair... actually kind of helps draw the distinction between himself and the immortal aristocrats.
There are also some very hokey 70s hallucination-emulation attempts that more attempt to look artistic than enhance the visualization of the story.
That said, those are some fine building blocks of good story with clear message. We just need to clear away a few bad messages and one bad conclusion.
Like I said, at the end of the movie, the aristocrats so long for death that, while they're being attacked by yet more Brutals, they openly smile and call out to be murdered. The movie doesn't seem to be aware of how... nothing's been resolved. The longing for death by the no-longer-immortal aristocrats is no less selfish or fearful than their retreat into changeless immortality.
And, the ending sequence of still moments, indicating one pairing that raises a child, ages, and then dies... well that shows no indication, one way or another, of whether the problems of separation and selfishness have been resolved. In fact, it seems to act as though the immortality and the magic powers were, themselves, a problem, rather than tools used in service of a deeper problem.
I dare to say that the basic story-line doesn't need much change at all, down to and including the origin of the name, Zardoz, for the worshiped god that demands death.
There are a few changes to make throughout the story, wiping away the notion that any of the problems can be blamed on women. But, the major change to make is at the end. As they call out for death, don't kill the aristocrats.
If they truly do not resist, let the Brutals capture the aristocrats. Then, the question will come, "what do we do with them?". Killing them, as they desire death, is no revenge and no justice. Instead, let them be put to work, to share their knowledge, to find that they needn't be leaders or betters, but that they can find fulfillment as equals.
Another option would be to deny them the end of their immortality. They can never die, but they can be captured and put to work. Not to live out their lives as equals, but to spend their foreseeable futures engaged in a variety of community service punishments. The separation and selfishness were the grave crimes, the consequences of which made them long for death. Perhaps becoming immortal servants will help them long to continue... or at least help repair some of the damage that they've done.
http://www.danvelazquez.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/zardoz.jpg
I have not embedded the image, so that you can make the decision, for yourself, as to whether or not you want to see what I'm talking about.
So people don't have to go see this, themselves, the movie is set in a post apocalyptic future. Zardoz is the name for a deified flying head that gives its followers, the Brutals, guns for the use in exterminating people and taking their food stores.
One Brutal, played by Sean Connery in a leather thong and body hair, stows away in the flying head to find the source and... well, there's not much of a plan for why he would do so.
What he finds at the source aren't gods, not in the sense that he expects or that we would think of as gods. Oh, they have the powers that come from advanced technology. But, they're far more self-involved aristocracy than they are worship-wanting deities. And, of course, they have their own problems.
They're an immortal aristocracy, unaging thanks to their technological advances, as well as capable of sharing their thoughts. But, they still have crime, which are primarily the crimes of thinking cruel and otherwise disharmonious thoughts, which are punished with the invocation of aging upon the otherwise unaging. As a result, some who have gone renegade are punished to the point of living in eternal senility. Still, others, without crime or punishment, become so emotionally disconnected from everything that they don't move... ever... regardless of the stimuli.
In the backstory, the immortality is discovered, but not shared, so that the group of immortals could survive the hard times. But, as people were starving outside their barriers, they had to harden their hearts against the suffering of others.
Towards the end of the movie, the aristocrats long for death, even those fighting against the efforts to end their immortality are revealed to desire their own failure.
These are the building blocks of a good story with a clear message. Aristocracy, separation of classes and peoples, is not even good for the aristocrats. Why, then, did the movie have to throw in an anti-feminist message? Or a general anti-immortality message? Or the notion that the good way to live is to pair off, procreate, then age and die?
Sean Connery's body suit of hair... actually kind of helps draw the distinction between himself and the immortal aristocrats.
There are also some very hokey 70s hallucination-emulation attempts that more attempt to look artistic than enhance the visualization of the story.
That said, those are some fine building blocks of good story with clear message. We just need to clear away a few bad messages and one bad conclusion.
Like I said, at the end of the movie, the aristocrats so long for death that, while they're being attacked by yet more Brutals, they openly smile and call out to be murdered. The movie doesn't seem to be aware of how... nothing's been resolved. The longing for death by the no-longer-immortal aristocrats is no less selfish or fearful than their retreat into changeless immortality.
And, the ending sequence of still moments, indicating one pairing that raises a child, ages, and then dies... well that shows no indication, one way or another, of whether the problems of separation and selfishness have been resolved. In fact, it seems to act as though the immortality and the magic powers were, themselves, a problem, rather than tools used in service of a deeper problem.
I dare to say that the basic story-line doesn't need much change at all, down to and including the origin of the name, Zardoz, for the worshiped god that demands death.
There are a few changes to make throughout the story, wiping away the notion that any of the problems can be blamed on women. But, the major change to make is at the end. As they call out for death, don't kill the aristocrats.
If they truly do not resist, let the Brutals capture the aristocrats. Then, the question will come, "what do we do with them?". Killing them, as they desire death, is no revenge and no justice. Instead, let them be put to work, to share their knowledge, to find that they needn't be leaders or betters, but that they can find fulfillment as equals.
Another option would be to deny them the end of their immortality. They can never die, but they can be captured and put to work. Not to live out their lives as equals, but to spend their foreseeable futures engaged in a variety of community service punishments. The separation and selfishness were the grave crimes, the consequences of which made them long for death. Perhaps becoming immortal servants will help them long to continue... or at least help repair some of the damage that they've done.
