Customer Reviews

Edward II [VHS]

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Derek Jarman seems to have come within reach of mere human understanding. This film actually has a narrative, which is unusual for Jarman and satisfying for us regular folk. Edward II is based on a play by Christopher Marlowe, a playwright who,like the subject of this film, was persecuted for his homosexuality in his own time.

Steven Waddington lustily portrays the doomed king. Jarman places the sexuality square in the audience's face with enough edge to make it interesting, yet avoids gratuitous tastelessness and boredom.

One especially memorable Jarmanesque event is the surprise appearance of Annie Lennox singing the haunting "Ev'ry Time We Say Goodbye" by Cole Porter. Ms. Lennox is quite simply, Ms. Lennox. Other striking touches are the contemporary clothing on some of the characters and the appealingly moody sets.

As for historical reality,I suggest you consult your English history books for the grim facts of this king's life and death. Matthew Shepard's death reminds us that animal brutality is alive and well in our own time. The film does make obvious reference to the modern day persecution of gays and lesbians, and perhaps this is at least part of Jarman's reason for filming this story.

I can't say enough about this film. When my local video store was about to liquidate its supply of seldom rented video, I bought the only copy. It saddened me to see that little piece of art taken out to make room for the everyday and the mundane.

First off, I have to say that this movie should not be viewed as a rendition of the Marlowe play, but as its own creation. If you are expecting a faithful adaptation, you will be disappointed. However, if you come to it without prejudice, it is an impressive cinematic work of scope and vision.

Jarman's directing style is not for everyone--plot continuity or story structure is not very important to him--but he crafts each scene of the film with such care and skill that the sensuousnes of the cinematography becomes the central point. The film is presented as a gallery of images: every shot is a painting. Everything is subordinated for the effect of these images: the narrative is presented in a series of symbols and allegories, switching between times, places, reality and fantasy, until it all blends together in a wonderful cascade of pure visual exhiliration. This movie is first and foremost an aesthetic experience: watch it for the sake of watching it, enjoy first and alalyze later.

Should you wish to analyze it after all, you will find that the seemingly aimless or irrelevant images are actually an integral part of the story, carefully distributed throughout. There is meaning in everything that is presented in the film, from the extraneous vision of an Apollo with a golden snake, to the huddle of Rugby players Edward's son stumbles upon during his midnight forays. It is telling that the final scene has the Queen and Mortimer sitting inside a cage, caked in flour, while the son (wearing a suit and his mother's earrings and listening to a walkman) dances on top. Jarman goes with the maxim "a picture is worth a thousand words," and prefers to tell his story through abstract yet meaning-laden images.

Another approach that Jarman has to the play is taking literally the figurative language of it. Many of the images come from the words the characters say, adding new dimensions to the language. Thus, when in the play, Edward's actions are compared to that of a butcher, during those scenes in the film, he is literally a butcher: coat, knife and all.

There are also elements that are outside the play, such as the gay rights protests that form a background but necessary part of the movie. Injecting new interpretations to the text, Jarman's work is a comment on boith the modern and the ancient problems that intolerance causes. Substance is something this film has a-plenty, convention is something that it does not. Don't expect logic or an easily (if at all) understandable story, but do expect an aesthetic experience that you will remember.

A unique blend of older dialogue and modern dress, all wrapped up in a castle that has seen better days. Thoroughly enjoyed the drama. Great acting by Steve Waddington. Makes me want to look up the entire period in books to see what the whole environment was like back then. Would I recommend the video? Absolutely. Sure wish a DVD version (with extras!!) would rear its head soon. My VHS copy won't last forever! Cheers, Jack

Wonderfully cast, this film, based on the play by Marlowe about openly gay monarch Edward II, is simply a work of art. Much of the action is made more poignant by the absence of sets; costumes are present-day. All very Jarmanesque touches down to the Annie Lennox cameo. Not for all tastes. Steve Waddington is superb as Edward II.

Definitely Derek Jarman's most refined film. That said, refined for Jarman is bizarre for most.

Based VERY loosely on Christopher Marlowe's play from 1592, however, should be viewed in its own light / right. Whereas it does tend to capture the wonderful Marlow language, this is no "Shakespeare" here! It's a brilliantly acted ensemble piece, set in Jarman's abstract vision of the world, with a core message that is as valid today as it must have been shocking then.

Jarman "paints" his film - as he always did - not in any logical manner or order, but like a mosaic of images, creating a whole and a statement - a strong statement about intolerance in this case.

This one might even be palatable for non-Jarman fans.

This film is very good at catching Marlowe's wordplay and the actors here are all well known and great at their craft. The problem I had with this was Jarman's use of contemporary issues to illuminate the story of England's openly gay monarch. Better correlations could have been drawn from then to now, not putting pro-gay protestors in the background. Show us how Edward II's treatment by his family and subjects contributed to the kind of gay bashing that still goes on today, hundreds of years afterward. I slightly recommend this film.

I came across this film by chance, and it was on a German channel - yes, overdubbed. Even if my first watching was robbed of its original language, I was completely won by the director's mastery in creating such rich images unsing practically no 'background' at all. This simplicity puts characters forward and also makes the film look like a dream, a story --- as they should be told, leaving enough space to listeners/ viewers to imagine their own settings for the plot & its protagonists. It's at the same time thrilling and sad, sensual and merciless - a fantastic experience in all.

For some the language in the movie will be hard to follow. But if you just stick with it you will find that it is one of the best movies ever made. Edward, is touching and heart felt. It tells of the all comsuming love Edward had for Gaveston, his sweet favorate, and how that love led to his ruin. It also takes a real look at homophobia in this day and age, and shines I think a very bright light on it. Well done.....

I have heard of movies not living up to the book. I admit that Marlowe was a genious and his work must be hard to bring to life. But this is rediculous! It must have taken real talent to mess this exquisite masterpiece by the great Christopher Marlowe up. The movie seems to concentrate more on graphic images of Edward II's affair with Gaveston than anything else. The entrances, exits, and dialogues between the characters are jumpy and abrupt. But that is not even the worst! They delete so many vital scenes. They delete Gaveston's sorrowful dying speeches; they delete when Edward II shows some of his father Edward Longshanks' strength and crushes the 1st rebellion against him; they delete when Edward II uses diplomacy to stop France from aiding Mortimer and Isabella; they delete when Edward II finds religion; they delete Edward II's moving soliloquies that enable us to feel honest pity and sorrow for him once he has been defeated; they really gloss over the scene when Edward II's 17 year old son Edward III flips the tables, crushes his corrupt mother, has Mortimer put to death, and offers prayers to his murdered father. I think these people owe Christopher Marlowe a MAJOR apology for messing up his exquisite masterpiece.

This movie was barely above atrocious. The movie is based on a play by Christopher Marlowe. The play, Edward II, is very good! This movie does not do it justice. It is very tacky and poorly made. The first thing a viewer is forced to watch is an unnecessary love scene between two men. The movie itself is not set in any one time period. It is confusing to try and figure out where the characters are, or when they are. The acting is terrible as well. It is more like a soap opera then a movie based on a great literary accomplishment.