Wrong Again

It was based on Christopher Marlowe's play. Not the apparent truth. Were you there mr. historian? It's a theatrical piece and in the original the theme that was constant was that of Edward being gay, and being oblivious to what was going on around him in the politics of the country. When Jarman made this film, it was a statement to clause 28, that the government was going to introduce to ban homosexuality and same sex education. This clause is still discussed to date in the British government. Obviously you're not a fan of Jarman's films and came to the board to gain some kind of reaction. So there you have it. Now Jarman's dead. This film is the last of it's kind. Not many film-makers take the risks and have the artistic vision that Jarman had, nowadays.

I know what you mean. I always want to like Jarman's films, but almost always find them disappointingly dull.

The film follows Marlowe in presenting Edward and Gaveston as completely obnoxious in the first half of the film. But Jarman omits Edward's transformation through suffering.

Because Mortimer is never fully developed in the film, his changes of fortune are uninvolving.

The lack of a clear point of view on the material makes itself evident in the introduction of gay activists half way through the film--are we to see them as dupes or are Edward and Gaveston victims of homophobia? Honestly, if anyone other than Jarman made the film, it would be easy to dismiss the film itself as homophobic.

The only strong performance is Tilda Swinton as the Queen. Her movement from suffering wife to vicious harpy is well delineated. She also shows what may be part of the issue with the other characters. She finds a surprizing vocal variety in the restrained delivery of the verse. Perhaps the other roles seem so monochromatic because the actors do not have her vocal resources?

In any case, Jarman's films always look better in photos and sound better in descriptions than they actually are to see. The only exception is Blue. But that film is an exception in so many ways.

How many times did you actually masturbate to "TROY" ?

Being a retarded idiot -
you would probably make a version of "EDWARD II",
where Gaveston IS a woman .

Probably played by Pamella Anderson,
and the last line would be :
"Do you have a quarter ? CALL SOMEONE WHO CARES ." !

GO WATCH "BAYWATCH" - YOU MORON !!!











Titus Androgenicus

[deleted]

I suggest you re-read the play. Marlowe makes it unequivocally clear that the relationship between Gaveston and Edward is homosexual. It may not be so striking to a modern audience, but taking into account the allusions used by the playwright, it would have been unmistakable to a Renaissance audience. In the play Edward's murder is also associated with the conventional motifs of medieval martyrology, which is quite daring, applying a fate reserved for saints to that of a profane sodomite. Marlowe's play isn't the straightforward, damning critique of the King that you seem to think it is, it's much more ambiguous. Gaveston's first soliloquy for instance spells out Edward's sexual preferences quite clearly (1.50-70):

I must have wanton poets, pleasant wits,
Musicians, that with touching of a string
May draw the pliant king which way I please:
Music and poetry is his delight;
Therefore I'll have Italian masks by night,
Sweet speeches, comedies, and pleasing shows;
And in the day, when he shall walk abroad,
Like sylvan nymphs my pages shall be clad;
My men, like satyrs grazing on the lawns,
Shall with their goat-feet dance the antic hay;
Sometime a lovely boy in Dian's shape,
With hair that gilds the water as it glides,
Crownets of pearl about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive-tree,
To hide those parts which men delight to see,
Shall bathe him in a spring; and there, hard by,
One like Actæon, peeping through the grove,
Shall by the angry goddess be transform'd,
And running in the likeness of an hart,
By yelping hounds pull'd down, shall seem to die:
Such things as these best please his majesty.

Or Mortimer Senior's classical allusions to famous homosexuals (4.394-404):

The mightiest kings have had their minions:
Great Alexander loved Hephestion;
The conquering Hercules 9 for Hylas wept;
And for Patroclus stern Achilles drooped
And not kings only, but the wisest men:
The Roman Tully lov’d Octavius;
Grave Socrates, wild Alcibiades.
Then let his grace, whose youth is flexible,
And promiseth as much as we can wish,
Freely enjoy that vain, light-headed earl;
For riper years will wean him from such toys

His overreliance on court favorites is tied inextricably to his preference for male company and Gaveston's abuse of power when placed in a position of importance. Most of the objections raised by the barons refer to Edward's wanton ways as the source of his misrule, both textually and historically.


If I could drop dead right now, I'd be the happiest man alive.