Edward II (1992)

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

*Possible spoilers*Before his AIDS-related death in 1994, English filmmaker Derek Jarman (also an acclaimed painter and writer whose introduction to film was working as a set designer for Ken Russell) created a large and aggressively experimental body of work, developing a vivid personal style notable for its' political ferocity and its' unbelievable visual lushness. By the time EDWARD II appeared, Jarman had honed his innovative mix of surrealism, mind-bending shifts in perspective, and a well-articulated take on the political implications of gay liberation into a vision that at once placed him in the vanguard of late 20th century independent filmmakers, while simultaneously establishing him as one of the most uncompromising activist/artists to have never been described or marketed as such.EDWARD II – very loosely adapted from a 500-year-old Christopher Marlowe play about the doomed, deposed (and gay) English king – is all of the above combining in one brilliant flash, and Jarman was aware of the irony built into the fact that this very challenging, explosive tour-de-force of a film - shot on a shoestring budget - brought him closer to 'mainstream' success than anyone (including Jarman) would've ever believed possible. Maintaining much of Marlowe's original play – and the Old English dialog – while visually placing the story in the present day (the sets are minimalistic, with contemporary clothing and set design), Jarman attempts to locate – with surgical precision - the origins of violent, contemporary homophobia, and contemporary class bigotry as well (Edward's lover was a peasant, so the implications of social-class transgression are also integral to the story) in historic precedents.Jarman's art background contributes to the stunning visual effect, and he had worked with most of the cast before, lending the film an effective intimacy – things never seem too avant-garde, and the righteous sense of corrosive rage seen here (this is one of the angriest, most politically enraged films I've ever seen) – essential to this story – never veers off target.

I think a couple of cinema school students have met to create this film, trying to make something "different". It makes a strange mixture of present and past, not 100% convincing. They seems to me more concentrated in the costumes, than in the film itself, it was like a mode parade. Symbology too pretentious.

I've watched this movie at least half a dozen times while adapting and directing my own stage version of this brilliant, but somewhat long-winded and un-focused Marlowe play. That said (and my bias revealed), I have to admit that I don't care much for this film- though I do admit it has some strengths- namely the visual elements, which reflect the director's background as a painter (he knows how to frame and arrange a shot, and he picks beautiful lines and colors to illustrate his story). Tilda Swenton's performance is amazing (has she ever been bad?) and provides the emotional thrust of the movie- we believe she wants Edward so badly that she's willing to kill him so no one else will have him. Unfortuneately, Gaveston just comes off as a twisted psychotic and Waddington's performance as Edward renders the king weaker than Marlowe writes him, and yet devoid of the inner vulnerability that ultimately makes the King sympathetic- I never once believe they really love each other, let alone madly enough to topple a whole nation. But plot and character don't seem to be a priority of the film as much as statements about gay rights and strange, arty and really heavy-handed intrusions. Too bad, really. There's so much to be dug out of the script- and some of those gems DO appear in this film... but so many seem not only undiscovered, but lost in a lot of camp, confusion, violence and raw, un-erotic sex. Don't get me wrong- the film is worth seeing... I just hope that one day, I get to make a new interpretation.

This beautifully filmed, strangely erotic minor masterwork is Derek Jarman at his best. Dark and brooding, Jarman draws the viewer into the world of medieval England while still being his unusual, original self. Homoerotic without being blatant about its pro-gay leanings, Jarman tells a story of doomed love in a time where certain loves were life threatening.