Jubilee

I have only one word for this film. Pants!.

I watched this film in college as part of a Media & Culture lesson, and I felt that this was a complete waste of time. The film had no reason, no story, and above all, made no sense. This is without a doubt, and I say this with my hand on my heart, that this is the WORST film that I have ever seen in my whole life, and I doubt that I will ever see anything worse than this in the future. And I didn't even get to watch all of it because the lesson finished. I would like to see the rest of it, but only to see how the ending could maybe improve an already messed up film. This makes home movies look like major Hollywood productions. Avoid at all cost, and if anyone you know talks about it, and says that they liked it, I strongly suggest that you make new friends.

I can think of a great many words to describe Jubilee. Yet the one that I most want to scream is pretentious art-house crap. All these borderline masturbatory gushing reviews for this pap smear of a "film". why? because it "thinks outside the box", or "in your face", or "poetry in action"?? The former two might be true, the latter one is NOT. This film is not punk, it's tripe. Tripe of the worst kind boring, inane, idiotic tripe.

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: "Jubilee: A time less Golden" Documentary; Jordan's Dance (a super-8 short); theatrical trailer; shooting script; costume sketches; Continuity stills; "a new wave movie" (a collection of odds & ends)

This Derek Jarman film is split between Queen Elizabeth I and John Dee talking about.... well, I'm not sure what, and modern nihilistic young people living a slovenly life. At first I thought it was going to be a contrasting of the high-flown aspirations of the Enlightenment and an ironic view that "yes, this is what we fought Hitler for"

Well, that's present, but Jenny Runacre as the Virgin Queen doesn't offer much in the way of commentary. I suspect Jarman expected his audience to compare and contrast and reach the correct conclusion, with a strong hint from the director. As such it lacks passion and subtlety, and I'm still wondering why Jarman's policeman wears a helmet which doesn't seem to protect his head.

Let me start off by saying I love Derek Jarman's work. Caravaggio and Edward II are among my favorite films. But he, like a lot of filmmakers, just didn't get punk. I realize that this movie is about more than punk and what it has to say about society and class is important. But dressing people up in torn clothes and playing any generic loud/fast music does not equal punk. Having so many non-actors in important roles doesn't help either. If you want a film that gets what punk rock is about, has something to say about society, and has great music, try Rude Boy.

Jarman uses real people and places. He had an eye for the beauty of gardens planted with plastic flowers, wastelands with grass and daisies waving in the wind, Westminster Cathedral, people like Toyah, Jordan, Helen the dwarf. It's subversive on many levels, being a celebration of bisexuality and fetishism ("This is Chaos, our au pair!"). Jarman himself can be spotted once. I love Jordan's history lessons, read in an immature voice, and the fact that people sound off at length. In some ways the film or even punk itself was a protest against the obliteration or rewriting of history (note Jordan's old-fashioned twinset and pearls). Non-standard people are allowed to be beautiful and sexy - both Jordan and Toyah are pretty overweight. Jordan's obscene rendition of Rule Britannia is a show stopper. Over 20 years later, capitalism is still with us but Derek Jarman sadly is not. xxx