Edward II

Being one of only two movies (as opposed to stage productions) based on the works of Christopher Marlowe (the other is the Richard Burton 1967 DOCTOR FAUSTUS), Derek Jarman's 1991 film of EDWARD II would be important for that reason alone. However there is more to the film than that. It's not only what meets the eye but what meets the ear that really counts. Like most of his films, Jarman shot EDWARD II on a shoestring and like many a theatre director turned filmmaker, he follows the time honored tradition of re-interpreting a classic play for the screen.

The minimal settings and modern costumes, which were partially budgetary concerns, take some getting used to as does the overtly gay overtone that Jarman brings out which is not for the easily offended even though it can clearly be found in Marlowe's text. However, if you can get past that, then this EDWARD II can be a surprisingly rich and rewarding experience especially on repeated viewings.

After I have watched a film version of a Shakespeare play or in this case Marlowe, I like to run it through my sound system without the picture and just listen to the words and how the actors speak them. The cast for EDWARD II is very strong and their theatrical background comes through with most of Marlowe's lines. Shakespeare was regarded as a playwright when he died in 1616 while Marlowe was considered a poet when he was murdered in 1593. There is poetry in Marlowe's blank verse that even Shakespeare couldn't aspire to although he was the better writer overall. But I digress.

With a trio of strong performances from Stephen Waddington, Tilda Swinton, and Nigel Terry, this version of EDWARD II has a raw power that is accentuated by Jarman's visuals and Simon Fisher-Turner's music. Forget the anachronisms like Annie Lennox or the appearance of Queer Nation and focus on the story of a flawed individual who like Othello, "loved not wisely, but too well"...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

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.

A history / political science major, I usually enjoy seeing "period" films of historical significance. This film would not qualify as a "period" film. However, it definitely drew my interest.

Both Steven Waddington and Tilda Swinton performed beautifully as Edward and Isabelle.

Although Derek Jarman is sadly no longer with us, I LQQK forward in viewing other films made by those directors who approximate his vision.

Ya know that scene in Being John Malkovich, where he goes into his own mind and everyone inside says nothing but "Malkovich Malkovich, Malkovich?" I felt that way watching this movie. Through the whole movie, I heard pretty much nothing but "Gaveston? Gaveston, Gaveston? Gaveston!" It's not that the movie's difficult to understand because of the Elizabethean language. I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare's plays, having read a number of them and seen plenty of film adaptations of them, so I can follow Elizabethean dialogue. But this... well, it ain't Shakespeare. Christopher Marlowe's style doesn't have the poetry or fluidity of Shakespeare. He didn't have Shakespeare's genius. Which makes this movie tough on the ear: boring, in fact.

I'm occasionally tempted to watch this movie again, just to see if maybe it DOES have something to redeem itself, perhaps something I missed... and maybe I will, someday. But for now, I'll stick with Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing.

Edward II makes a brilliant hodge-podge of history by vaulting a sixteenth century play about a fourteenth century English king onto a dark, abstract twentieth century stage. Iconoclastic, yes; anachronistic, yes; imbecilic, no. While on the page Marlowe's poetry speaks for itself, in director Derek Jarman's hands it provides a counterpoint to the film's daring, elegant, eloquent visuals. King Edward and his lover, Piers Gaveston, are attacked by the raving heteronormative toffs for their homosexuality and Gaveston's less-than-aristocratic background. Great moments include a cameo by Annie Lennox and a bull's-eye by Tilda Swinton.