THE STAMP OF ZOD
An interview with the most powerful evildoer ever seen on the motion picture screen

  Recently, FAMOUS MONSTERS had the opportunity to chat with Terence Stamp, the actor who plays the infamous and regal Kryptonian villain General Zod in the current super-hit SUPERMAN II.
  Like his screen counterpart, Stamp is an intense actor who takes his profession, and any discussion of it, very seriously. Whether or not Zod returns for SUPERMAN III, which goes before the cameras in one year -- indeed, at the moment only Christopher Reeve is committed to the project -- Stamp can be seen in the fantasy film MONSTER ISLAND, based on a work by Jules Verne.

We know that Richard Donner, the director of SUPERMAN I, shot a portion of the footage for SUPERMAN II -- yet Richard Lester is credited as the director. Can you explain who did what, and why Lester was brought in for the sequel?

  Well, there are a lot of things to be taken into account. When I was initially approached about the films, there was a very special group of people who were involved. The two scripts were very, very good and they were conceived as a two-part saga, which would absolutely end with part two. It was structured that way; there wouldn't have been any way to go to part three. The director, Richard Donner, had a very clear vision of what he wanted to do, and he just persisted with that vision. Well, he wound up in a position after a while where the producers wouldn't speak to him. They just wanted to get the movies finished and made for their original budget, which was eight million dollars each. And Donner just continued doing what he wanted to do.
  The result is that we were all formed into a very tight-knit group on the artistic end of it, to withstand these tremendous pressures from the material end of it. We would accept nothing less that excellent. And when we had spent thirty-six million dollars, shooting the two films simultaneously, it was decided that we would postpone part two and finish part one. At the point I finished, as I had only a few minutes in part one anyway. So the movie came out and was an incredible success, and was also an absolutely extraordinary movie. The first of its kind, from a qualitative point of view.
  Then, the key artistic people were either fired or died. The great cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth and the set designer John Barry both died. The script was rewritten to get the film finished more economically, and to leave a corner open so if in fact SUPERMAN II were another golden egg, there could be many more.
  Part two lost something as far as I was concerned. Obviously, it had been meant to be kind of a complete story. Then, also, there wasn't the kind of astringent flavor to it because Marlon Brando was cut out, to weaken his case for payment against the producers. So the film became a more ordinary experience... unlike the first part which had been extraordinary.
  I think this version is going to be a spectacular commercial venture (Editor's note: Stamp's prediction has proven correct, as the opening week of SUPERMAN II shattered every existing box-office record). However, for me, part one paved the way for us to do something commercial and and meaningful. Part one contained really very many things that you could ponder upon.

How much of the second film was actually shot by Donner?

  About two-thirds had been shot, but because of the way part two was restructured, it was necessary for us to reshoot more. Only about half of the original footage shot by Donner was used.

Did your character change dramatically in the rewritten script?

  Because the action was different, the theme was different, and so my part played differently. The original screenplay was really very witty, and contained some very exciting scenes between Zod and Superman. But when the plot changed, there was much more emphasis put on the love story. In the original script, the warhead which Superman pushed into space in part one was the explosive which blew the villains out of the Phantom Zone. That whole thing of Superman rescuing Lois Lane from the Eiffel Tower was just a repetition of all the other times Superman rescued Lois. So the villains would have gotten into the film right away, originally. Also, originally, they were a lot tougher. There was a diabolical quality to them that could be seen, visibly, as the men and women of Krypton were wiped out. In this film, they ended up just like three freaks, with General Zod the most diabolical and therefore the most powerful.
  Also, scenes were shot between Zod and the character Marlon Brando played, which gave it a lot of kind of high science fiction points in the movie. It was the father which originally explained to Superman about the dangers of these characters. I don't want to seem that I'm carping, because it's out and SUPERMAN II is still a fine motion picture. It's just that the end result is a lot different from the original concept.

What was your mental attitude toward Zod?

  Although we were filming what was 'just a comic book,' it wasn't 'nothing.' It was a very big deal to me. For one thing, everyone who had ever read a Superman comic book would come to see this film. We couldn't let them down. Also, we had to play it seriously because people who enjoy Superman take him seriously. That's what the audience expects, and one does not want to let an audience down.
  As for playing Zod, intellectually, a genuinely powerful man can afford to be gentle, like Superman. He doesn't need to prove anything to anybody, he's confident. Zod isn't like that, which is why he's an archvillain.

You did play a few scenes with Marlon Brando in the first film. How was it to act with him?

  He was very good with me. He seemed a little embarrassed because he can't remember lines. Gene Hackman was also very nice and very friendly.

Did Brando take the film seriously?

  When he realized that I was really taking it seriously, he was absolutely with me.

You played Dracula on the stage in England, in the part rediscovered by Frank Langella. The critics, however, were most unkind. How did you react to that criticism?

  You take away the rings that people can put hooks into. If I'm ambitious, that's a very strong ring there, there are all kinds of hooks which can be put into that. It makes me extremely vulnerable to say to myself, 'I really want my Dracula to be good, and want it to be recognized by everybody. I want people to be fighting to get in every night.' If I don't have that want, if I'm doing Dracula because it genuinely interests me, the critics can't have any effect. When you react to them, that's when you give them a sense of accomplishment.

Do you think that SUPERMAN II has any real value, in a social sense?

  I think that's giving a bit too much weight to fantasy. An individual may realize that greed and jealousy and hatred aren't things to make his or her own existence any better or more peaceful. Anyway, good and evil are relative. People who identify with Superman don't want to be super so they can go around helping everybody. They want to be Superman so they can do what Zod is doing.

What's your most vivid memory of the Superman films?

  That they were tremendously hard work. It's physically painful work, being rigged for flying on wires and things. It's also terrifically tedious work, because you're sometimes waiting around for days for these things to be set up. All in all, it's a curious kind of masochism just to get paid, so one really needs something else, must like the part and look forward to going to the studio.

<<<Back to Index