The Last of England

Jarmen manages to create a world stinging from Thatcherite policies, with viscious imagery burning on the screen. If you want an indictment of the eighties without irony loaded sentimentality or crass stereotypes, then experience The Last of England.

This is the sort of movie which is usually defended with a phrase such as 'Oh you clearly didn't understand' or 'It's narrative is too unorthodox'. The sad fact is the film's limited distribution is due to its own wretched pretensions rather than its intelligence. A barrage of depressing images (man shoots up, man humps portrait of woman and so on) and an endless meandering dialogue is not enough to make a film involving. Jarman's intention is clear, Thatcher's Britain was every bit as horrible as it is shown to be here but surely there were better ways to articulate that. His work remains infuriating rather than involving and for that reason alone this film must be judged a failure.

Reading the comments on this film or others like it is a frustrating experience, because so many people don't seem to be clear on the concept. Let me put it very simply:

This. Is. Not. A. Narrative. Film.

If you're going to complain about lack of a plot, character development, or other features of narrative films, don't go see a non-narrative film! It's an entirely different experience, and that's the whole idea. Judging an experimental montage of images and music and voice by the standards of a conventional narrative film is ridiculous -- like complaining about a drama because it wasn't funny. It's not SUPPOSED to be. If you don't like films that don't have a conventional narrative, don't see them.

So, for those who DO actually like experimental, non-narrative film, I'd highly recommend this one -- it's one of my all-time favourite films of any sort, even though know the majority of the population probably couldn't sit through it. I found it incredibly powerful, evocative and visually stunning, and even 15 years after seeing it, some images from it are still burned into my mind. I'm a big fan of Jarman's work in general, but if I had to pin down one single favourite from his work, I think this would be it.

The other day was Derek Jarman's birthday. I discovered him last year because I really like independent cinema, particularly from the fringes of society, and his name came up repeatedly. So on a whim, I bought "The Last of England". When BFI described him as a "queer pagan punk" for his birthday, I knew it was time to put that movie on and give it a whirl. It was a wholly unexpected, but mostly pleasurable, experience.

"The Last of England" is a highly personal bitch fest about the state of the country and even the world as it was in the mid 80s. Jarman was English and was reacting to life under the Thatcher rule, while I was an American living under Reagan rule. I think more than anytime before or since, the English and American experiences coincided culturally in the 1980s. Jarman's film was shot in 8mm, shaky cam and all, and is more or less and decoupage of raw emotions and experiences of growing up in the cold war, never knowing when the bombs will drop, and being led by leaders who seem to think such a state of constant anxiety is sane. Add to it, the newly emerging queer revolution and the punk scene, complete with drugs, and life at the time did seem quite precarious.

I loved the odd stream of consciousness, the nightmare visions, the lack of dialog or plot or even characters. Well, OK, I loved about 2/3 of it. The last 15 minutes which was where Tilda Swinton came in with her wedding gown made the least sense to me and could have been cut with no loss (which pains me to say as I admire her, but here she was like an extra at the last moment to add time and a name to the film, which was already quite intriguing). I enjoyed how he merged past with home family videos with present and future. I'm glad to have the film and I will certainly look for more by Jarman, though he is clearly not going to be everyone's cup of tea.

Jarman is a tough filmmaker to recommend, but he occasionally rewards. As we've seen from practically the first film on, he sets out to make pictures entirely for himself; with each one intellectually structured, creatively shot, but almost always a reflection of his personal thoughts and feelings, his sexuality, and England in decline. Here we have a film that combines all of these preoccupations, told in a combination of wordless images and narrated prose, with little or no clarification given as to what is actually going on. Jarman has said that he wanted the film to feel like a visual poem, but really, this is far from poetic. Instead, this seems more like something that Godard would have directed in the 1970's; angry, venomous and always seething with contempt. The images here are violent to the extreme and the approach that Jarman brings to the editing room is visceral and heavily kinetic. Here we see the use of various colour filters, tints and distortions used alongside a multitude of film stocks and spliced-in video footage. The images of middle-class households rounded up, driven into the depths of a post-apocalyptic wasteland and detained at gunpoint must have had a shocking relevance at the time, when terrorist attacks and IRA bombings were as common as they were incomprehensible.

Other notable images depict a couple of soldiers dressed for manoeuvres copulating on the Union Jack; a naked tramp rummaging around a land-fill, with his bare feet barely missing the scattered syringes and shards of broken glass, and most effectively; Tilda Swinton as a young bride, ripping off her wedding dress under an acidic skyline whilst a parade of well-wishers cheer and applaud. Often the film can become a chore, especially when it becomes obvious that the director is preaching as opposed to suggesting, however, it must be said that images throughout speak volumes. Nonetheless, the real problem here, or at least, for the majority of viewers, is the fact that from a 21st century perspective, Jarman's message will seems somewhat obvious, and indeed, overstated. An hour and a half of alienating, shocking and largely episodic rambling mixed with poetic ruminations is a lot to ask when your ultimate message seems to be "England is in decline, and it's getting worse". It's a real shame too, especially considering the extent that Jarman has gone to in crafting this abstract and almost post-apocalyptic landscape.

A film like this makes you wonder what Jarman would have made of Britain twenty years on. Acceptance of sexuality, race and the roles of gender seem to have become more widely accepted, however, even here, it is often fragmented and approached (in the media at least) with a sense of irony. It would also be interesting to see how Jarman would interpret the rise in anti-social behaviour, teen violence and vandalism, terrorist attacks and the asylum issue, the dominance of advertising and the rise of the "new-lad" culture. I suppose you could easily interpret Jarman's feelings on subjects of this nature from his past work, though it's obvious from the treatment of these subjects in films like The Last of England, as well as his subsequent works, The Garden (1990) and Edward II (1991), that the director saw darker, more troubling issues still on the horizon. Ultimately, The Last of England is a hard film to recommend to an audience, as it isn't intent on offering entertainment, but rather, expressing a personal opinion and a sense of feeling within fixed theme. However, it is an entirely original experience, filled with thought and some incredibly astounding images that are sure to appeal to anyone with a taste for Jarman's work or a fondness for the more extreme side of the avant-garde.