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.
23 Reviews
a soulful transposition to exclaim Jarman's cri de coeur
lasttimeisaw22 April 2019
Wearing his gay-right crusading heart on his sleeve, Derek Jarman's antepenultimate work EDWARD II is a post-modern interpretation of Christopher Marlowe's play about the eponymous Plantagenet sovereign (Waddington, a celluloid debutant), whose partiality towards his male lover Piers Gaveston (newcomer Tiernan), raises Cain in the court and prompts his wife Queen Isabella (Swinton), in league with Lord Mortimer (Terry), to usurp his throne.
Shot in Jarman's characteristic sparse, claustrophobic setting which avails itself of minimal indoor lighting and cherry-picked iconography to great effect (striking use of refraction, a quasi-black-box theater intimacy, etc.), EDWARD II radically strews anachronistic items into its theatrical foreground: a slick modern dance, characters sporting contemporary costumes and its trimmings (business suits for the members of the court and for Queen Isabella, a Hermes bag accompanies her entrance), brandishing modern weapons, notably a band of rioting gay right activists constitutes the king's army, Jarman has economically, but also impressively warps its source play's temporality and gives its story an exigency and immediacy that elicits strong topicality, when cruelty is wantonly lashed out at the beleaguered gay lovers.
Among the cast, every single one of the main cast robustly sinks his or her teeth into Marlowe's florid wording, a savage-looking Tiernan flouts the traditional aesthetics of a rakish lotus eater and brings about a fierce ugliness that contests for a basic human right which goes beyond its often beautified physicality and narcissism (a self-seeking whippersnapper still has his inviolable right to love someone of his own sex); both Swinton and Terry grandly chew the scenery of lofty operatics, but in a commendable way which resoundingly adds the dramatic tension and heft of their sinister collusion, and by comparison Waddington, looks unfavorably bland and wishy-washy in a role who pluckily hazards his monarchial reign in favor of one single mortal that he holds dearest.
As Annie Lennox's belts out "EV'RY TIME WE SAY GOODBYE" in her cameo appearance, Jarman's EDWARD II is a soulful transposition to exclaim his cri de coeur, and steeped in his sui generis idiom that sublimes a tenacious beauty out of its rough-hewn components, but with a proviso that an acquired taste is requisite.
Shot in Jarman's characteristic sparse, claustrophobic setting which avails itself of minimal indoor lighting and cherry-picked iconography to great effect (striking use of refraction, a quasi-black-box theater intimacy, etc.), EDWARD II radically strews anachronistic items into its theatrical foreground: a slick modern dance, characters sporting contemporary costumes and its trimmings (business suits for the members of the court and for Queen Isabella, a Hermes bag accompanies her entrance), brandishing modern weapons, notably a band of rioting gay right activists constitutes the king's army, Jarman has economically, but also impressively warps its source play's temporality and gives its story an exigency and immediacy that elicits strong topicality, when cruelty is wantonly lashed out at the beleaguered gay lovers.
Among the cast, every single one of the main cast robustly sinks his or her teeth into Marlowe's florid wording, a savage-looking Tiernan flouts the traditional aesthetics of a rakish lotus eater and brings about a fierce ugliness that contests for a basic human right which goes beyond its often beautified physicality and narcissism (a self-seeking whippersnapper still has his inviolable right to love someone of his own sex); both Swinton and Terry grandly chew the scenery of lofty operatics, but in a commendable way which resoundingly adds the dramatic tension and heft of their sinister collusion, and by comparison Waddington, looks unfavorably bland and wishy-washy in a role who pluckily hazards his monarchial reign in favor of one single mortal that he holds dearest.
As Annie Lennox's belts out "EV'RY TIME WE SAY GOODBYE" in her cameo appearance, Jarman's EDWARD II is a soulful transposition to exclaim his cri de coeur, and steeped in his sui generis idiom that sublimes a tenacious beauty out of its rough-hewn components, but with a proviso that an acquired taste is requisite.
Edward II: "Come Gaveston, and share the kingdom with thy dearest friend"
Galina_movie_fan19 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Edward II" (1991) by Derek Jarman is a variation on Christopher Marlowe's 16th-century play "The Troublesome Reign of Edward II" which tells the story of England openly gay King Edward, and his relationship with Piers Gaveston that bitterly angers his queen, Isabella of France, "The French She-Wolf", and eventually leads to his fall - he will lose his Kingdom and his life. If I had not known that Jarman was a painter and a Caravaggio admirer, I would've guessed immediately after first 5 minutes or so. His usage of light and shadows was amazing. His lack of historical settings and staging the film among the bare walls as well as including many anachronisms, such as modern clothes and cigarette smoking gave the old story timeless feel. Tilda Swinton as a woman scorned never looked so ethereal and breathtakingly beautiful. For her acting, she won the best Actress award at the Venice Film Festival in 1991. "Edward II" is a gripping film that is in the same league as Julie Taymor's stunning adaptation of Shakespeare's "Titus" but it is certainly not for everyone.
7.5/10
7.5/10
Marlowe,Waddington,Swinton rule
naringc13 January 2000
I love Elizabethan drama. I had been on a Kenneth Branagh and William Shakespeare kick(and I guess I still am)when on a whim I bought this film based on the play of the same name by Shakespeare-contemporary Christopher Marlowe. I am very glad I did. Edward II(Steven Waddington of SLEEPY HOLLOW) ditches one icey, repressed Queen Isabella(Tilda Swinton) for another hot and uninhibited queen, gay lover Gaveston. But the romance is doomed when the nobility rises up with Isabella to end the affair. Director Derek Jarman's adaptation is one of those rare films that succeeds set in a time other than in its original setting. He moves the setting and action of the movie to the modern era, and this serves as a more timely backdrop for the movie's pro-gay stance, which seems to me to be its central theme. I really liked Steven Waddington, who was very, very good. And an unexpected surprise came from Tilda Swinton, an actress with whom I am not familiar but whose other work I'd like to see, based on the quality of her performance here. Strongly recommended!!!
Strange but interesting
preppy-316 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
POSSIBLE Spoilers AHEAD!!! Based on a Christopher Marlowe play, this is about a gay king and how his love for a commoner destroys him. It's a very odd film--there are very few people around (the budget was VERY low for this) and the sets all look very sparse and spare. Also director Derek Jarmans gayness comes roaring through (I'm gay too and I didn't mind!). This is probably one of the few R-rated films to include full frontal male nudity and include a passionate make-out scene between two nude men. Still, I didn't totally like it. The dialogue kept throwing me--I had trouble understanding what was happening. Modernizing it a little more might have helped. And after Edwards' lover is killed, the film slows down and gets very repetitious and boring. Still, it's worth seeing for excellent performances by the entire cast (Swinton especially), interesting costumes (Swinton has a different outfit in every scene!), getting members of the gay British version of Queer Nation (Outrage) in the film and it, visually, looks gorgeous. And the appearance of Annie Lenox is a definite highlight. So, if you can stand the archaic language this is worth watching.
Historical betrayal in cinematographic beauty
Dr_Coulardeau22 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The film has both little to do with the play and yet is quite close to it. [...]
Derek Jarman goes a lot farther since he erases the political dimension of the last scene in which Edward III has Mortimer executed in the most violent but "legal" way for the killing of his father and his mother imprisoned pending her trial as an accomplice to this murder. The young king in the film dances to some music from his MP3 reader on the cage containing Mortimer and his mother covered in waste. Edward III is wearing his mother's earrings, a fact that was also used in the previous scene when his own mother bit his uncle, Edward II's brother, at the jugular and drinks his blood like a vampire till death ensues. These earrings are the sign of the dependence of the child on the mother and become at the end, with the mother in the cage, a symbol of the continuation of the curse in this family that does not seem to clearly differentiate male from female and that is not only a question of sexual orientation. In a way that erases the feudal crime of Mortimer who seizes power or at least tries to by having himself appointed protector of the realm till the new king is of age to reign, though the protector should have been the uncle.
[...]
Jarman creates a very dark and menacing atmosphere by having many scenes in the underground foundations of some airless and lightless dungeons in a castle, and some of these scenes show the King imprisoned in such underground dump in which all wasted water, grey and black alike, are rejected in a pool that covers the whole ground and in which the king is supposed to live while he is prevented from sleeping by constant drumming day and night. These prison scenes interspersed in the whole film make the plot very awkward since there is no plot any more with these flash-forwards that tell the end before it ever could be envisaged. And this dark subterranean world is invaded and dominated by all kinds of military personnel in modern attire and equipment. We deal here with one characteristic of Derek Jarman's cinematographic art: the art of anachronistic references. From the very start we have cigarettes, then Big Ben's chimes, then those modern uniforms, then modern weapons, then the prince is playing with robots. There is no end to such anachronistic elements or props The intended meaning is that nothing has ever changed.
[...]In fact the political dimension, including gay rights, is totally erased or veiled or hidden by the dark, tortuous, perverted world we are given to see: the people at all levels and all of them are perverted, including the King who forgets who he is and his responsibilities towards the peers, his family, his wife, his son, the church, etc. He is a perverse feudal ruler.
Including Gaveston who forgets who and what he is. He is from France, from the lower levels of feudal society trying to dominate and get some revenge from the top layers of the English feudal society, and thus he becomes a perverted social climber. Spencer, in a way, is more respectable because he does not want anything from the King. He is at the King's service and provides the King with the care he needs.
Including all the peers, church people and nobles alike, who are all perverted because they want to defend their privileges, their power, their social position without taking into account anyone else: they only speak of themselves and never of the people without whom they would be nothing. They are perverted feudal barons who have forgotten they are the protectors and the providers of their serfs and villains.
Including of course the church who rants and raves about some kind of fictitious power of God or the church itself. Gaveston on that point is right when he rejects the See of Rome and calls it the See of Hell. [...]
In other words Jarman is overdoing it.
The transformation of the Prince from a discreet and invisible voyeur who can see things without being seen, into a mother's child, wearing her hat, her earrings and even her shoes on the cage at the end is pathetic and deeply unfaithful to Marlowe. This Edward III should be the restoration of order, law and order, authority, the expulsion of the perverted and rotten fruits or eggs from the basket. From the capricious authoritarian love affairs of Edward II we shift here to a childish whimsical tyrannical brothel of sorts in which the perverse sexual desires of Edward III will be totally assumed and satisfied. The realm is falling one full subterranean hell-scraper down with this Edward III.
[...]
As a song says in the film, Jarman has changed history and Marlowe's play "from major to minor" but here not "every time we say goodbye," rather from the very start and till the very end. The film is in minor tone and as such misses the multi-tonal music of today.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Derek Jarman goes a lot farther since he erases the political dimension of the last scene in which Edward III has Mortimer executed in the most violent but "legal" way for the killing of his father and his mother imprisoned pending her trial as an accomplice to this murder. The young king in the film dances to some music from his MP3 reader on the cage containing Mortimer and his mother covered in waste. Edward III is wearing his mother's earrings, a fact that was also used in the previous scene when his own mother bit his uncle, Edward II's brother, at the jugular and drinks his blood like a vampire till death ensues. These earrings are the sign of the dependence of the child on the mother and become at the end, with the mother in the cage, a symbol of the continuation of the curse in this family that does not seem to clearly differentiate male from female and that is not only a question of sexual orientation. In a way that erases the feudal crime of Mortimer who seizes power or at least tries to by having himself appointed protector of the realm till the new king is of age to reign, though the protector should have been the uncle.
[...]
Jarman creates a very dark and menacing atmosphere by having many scenes in the underground foundations of some airless and lightless dungeons in a castle, and some of these scenes show the King imprisoned in such underground dump in which all wasted water, grey and black alike, are rejected in a pool that covers the whole ground and in which the king is supposed to live while he is prevented from sleeping by constant drumming day and night. These prison scenes interspersed in the whole film make the plot very awkward since there is no plot any more with these flash-forwards that tell the end before it ever could be envisaged. And this dark subterranean world is invaded and dominated by all kinds of military personnel in modern attire and equipment. We deal here with one characteristic of Derek Jarman's cinematographic art: the art of anachronistic references. From the very start we have cigarettes, then Big Ben's chimes, then those modern uniforms, then modern weapons, then the prince is playing with robots. There is no end to such anachronistic elements or props The intended meaning is that nothing has ever changed.
[...]In fact the political dimension, including gay rights, is totally erased or veiled or hidden by the dark, tortuous, perverted world we are given to see: the people at all levels and all of them are perverted, including the King who forgets who he is and his responsibilities towards the peers, his family, his wife, his son, the church, etc. He is a perverse feudal ruler.
Including Gaveston who forgets who and what he is. He is from France, from the lower levels of feudal society trying to dominate and get some revenge from the top layers of the English feudal society, and thus he becomes a perverted social climber. Spencer, in a way, is more respectable because he does not want anything from the King. He is at the King's service and provides the King with the care he needs.
Including all the peers, church people and nobles alike, who are all perverted because they want to defend their privileges, their power, their social position without taking into account anyone else: they only speak of themselves and never of the people without whom they would be nothing. They are perverted feudal barons who have forgotten they are the protectors and the providers of their serfs and villains.
Including of course the church who rants and raves about some kind of fictitious power of God or the church itself. Gaveston on that point is right when he rejects the See of Rome and calls it the See of Hell. [...]
In other words Jarman is overdoing it.
The transformation of the Prince from a discreet and invisible voyeur who can see things without being seen, into a mother's child, wearing her hat, her earrings and even her shoes on the cage at the end is pathetic and deeply unfaithful to Marlowe. This Edward III should be the restoration of order, law and order, authority, the expulsion of the perverted and rotten fruits or eggs from the basket. From the capricious authoritarian love affairs of Edward II we shift here to a childish whimsical tyrannical brothel of sorts in which the perverse sexual desires of Edward III will be totally assumed and satisfied. The realm is falling one full subterranean hell-scraper down with this Edward III.
[...]
As a song says in the film, Jarman has changed history and Marlowe's play "from major to minor" but here not "every time we say goodbye," rather from the very start and till the very end. The film is in minor tone and as such misses the multi-tonal music of today.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Thoroughly brilliant
jeannine198020 March 2005
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.
Visually Arresting but weaker on content
dngoldman30 January 2022
This film is stunning to watch, constantly odd and surprising visually. Verging on expressionistic many times. However, I found the substance of the film somewhat weak. The themes are interesting, how Edward turns his back on power for the sake of the people he loves, Who end up being sacrificed because of it. Mortimer craves power only, and achieves it at a brutal cost. Edward's brother is in the middle, loving both his brother and country. The middle does not hold. Well these themes are interesting the production lacks much new ones in presenting them. I don't know if this is the fault of the play or the director. In general I have found Marlow's plays to be good but not exceptional in the waybid Shakespeare is.
Derek Jarman's Greatest Film
davidals15 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*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.
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.
Needs an Objective Viewpoint
Bologna King17 October 2000
Warning: Spoilers
The story of Edward II is a story of obsession, of a man whose one-track mind causes him to lose his kingdom, his lover and his life. Marlowe's play (probably his most dramatic and certainly his least poetic) gives lots of scope for developing the problems raised by Edward's infatuation for the unscrupulous and self-seeking Gaveston: his inattention to affairs of state, his irresponsible spending, his granting of important positions to Gaveston who has no interest in actually fulfilling his duties and Gaveston's general contempt for church, nobility and everyone else.
Unfortunately director Jarman has arranged this production in such a way as to make us see Edward's story through Edward's eyes rather than those of an outside observer. The sets are mostly pueblo-style interiors, giving the impression that this is a middle-class household not the palace of a king. There are no extras, and the scenes are bare of people, again reinforcing the idea that this is a private rather than a public story. The nobles are treated as tourists who are out of place in the life of the king. Our attention is focussed constantly on the intimate relations between individuals: Edward and Gaveston, Edward and Isobel, Isobel and Mortimer.
Edward, whose whole life was dominated by his obsessive love for Gaveston (just count how many times he says "my Gaveston" in the play) saw his world in just this way: everything anyone did was measured against how it affected his romance, and everything he did was to further it. When Isobel abandons him, she loses her humanity and becomes in his eyes a grotesque vampire. Indeed one wonders how much of what we see as reality in the film is Edward's fantasies and imaginings as he becomes increasingly deranged.
An intriguing approach, perhaps, but the problem is that Edward's one-track mind makes for a one-track monochromatic presentation, and quite frankly it becomes so superficial as to be tedious after a bit. Without the depth provided by an objective viewpoint we lose interest.
Scenes of unnamed naked men making love or playing rugby without a ball must have been put in for the titillation of gay viewers. They added nothing to the story. On the other hand the love between Edward and Gaveston was sincerely and persuasively played, and a good thing too, because that's about all you get here.
Waddington's performance is splendid and gives a lot of life to what might otherwise have been a total yawn; it's worth the trouble of watching this just to see him. Tilda Swinton's performance is overrated; she delivers her best monologue as slowly and tonelessly as possible and it doesn't take long to start wondering when she's going to show some emotion.
Unfortunately director Jarman has arranged this production in such a way as to make us see Edward's story through Edward's eyes rather than those of an outside observer. The sets are mostly pueblo-style interiors, giving the impression that this is a middle-class household not the palace of a king. There are no extras, and the scenes are bare of people, again reinforcing the idea that this is a private rather than a public story. The nobles are treated as tourists who are out of place in the life of the king. Our attention is focussed constantly on the intimate relations between individuals: Edward and Gaveston, Edward and Isobel, Isobel and Mortimer.
Edward, whose whole life was dominated by his obsessive love for Gaveston (just count how many times he says "my Gaveston" in the play) saw his world in just this way: everything anyone did was measured against how it affected his romance, and everything he did was to further it. When Isobel abandons him, she loses her humanity and becomes in his eyes a grotesque vampire. Indeed one wonders how much of what we see as reality in the film is Edward's fantasies and imaginings as he becomes increasingly deranged.
An intriguing approach, perhaps, but the problem is that Edward's one-track mind makes for a one-track monochromatic presentation, and quite frankly it becomes so superficial as to be tedious after a bit. Without the depth provided by an objective viewpoint we lose interest.
Scenes of unnamed naked men making love or playing rugby without a ball must have been put in for the titillation of gay viewers. They added nothing to the story. On the other hand the love between Edward and Gaveston was sincerely and persuasively played, and a good thing too, because that's about all you get here.
Waddington's performance is splendid and gives a lot of life to what might otherwise have been a total yawn; it's worth the trouble of watching this just to see him. Tilda Swinton's performance is overrated; she delivers her best monologue as slowly and tonelessly as possible and it doesn't take long to start wondering when she's going to show some emotion.
Elegantly filmed minor masterwork.
Maestro-194 July 1999
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.
Avoid This
Wackiest25 February 2008
My advice is to avoid this film and try and see a stage version instead.
It is highly unfair, I think, to criticise Marlowe's writing capabilities based on this rather terrible rendition of his play Edward II, as another user has commented on. In this film lines are swapped between characters, scenes are drastically changed, new scenes are added in and key scenes and characters are omitted. The whole film stands as a rather disfigured version of the original play.
Of course perhaps it could be said also to be unfair to criticise it's lack of loyalty to Marlowe's script, after all it is an adaptation. Looking at it simply as a movie it still creates rather laughable viewing. The actors talents are wasted on the directors odd obsession with the surreal and abstract, which is just simply random and out of place. And an odd musical cameo from Annie Lennox just adds to the madness.
To look at the positives yes there are some imaginative shots and several scenes are performed and presented well but as a whole it appears as a rather flimsy and hastily put together film that would be more suited as a three part drama on ITV.
It is highly unfair, I think, to criticise Marlowe's writing capabilities based on this rather terrible rendition of his play Edward II, as another user has commented on. In this film lines are swapped between characters, scenes are drastically changed, new scenes are added in and key scenes and characters are omitted. The whole film stands as a rather disfigured version of the original play.
Of course perhaps it could be said also to be unfair to criticise it's lack of loyalty to Marlowe's script, after all it is an adaptation. Looking at it simply as a movie it still creates rather laughable viewing. The actors talents are wasted on the directors odd obsession with the surreal and abstract, which is just simply random and out of place. And an odd musical cameo from Annie Lennox just adds to the madness.
To look at the positives yes there are some imaginative shots and several scenes are performed and presented well but as a whole it appears as a rather flimsy and hastily put together film that would be more suited as a three part drama on ITV.
Completely entrancing
Red_Identity25 December 2014
What an exhilarating, entrancing, searing piece of work. Oh, it did cost me a bit to go along with the dialogue so easily, but the whole thing was just fantastic. The ensemble cast seems to be having the time of their lives speaking all of these juicy dramatic lines. Tilda Swinton, especially, manages to go beyond my expectations to deliver an all-time worthy performance. This is what she's best at, this sort of icy, hypnotizing, ethereal role, and she more than delivers. In a film full of wonderful performances, she stands at the very top. The whole thing is just completely and utterly mesmerizing, impossible to look away.
Based on Kit Marlowe's play of the same name
The-Sarkologist7 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is based upon a play written by Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe lived in the 16th century (1500's) while the events in the play took place in the 14th Century (1300's), thus there is approximately a 200 year difference between the events the play depicts and its writing. This means that Marlowe could have been making a political comment at the time, but using a king from the past so as not to make it too controversial.
The play is about the King of England, Edward Plantagenat II, who ascends the throne after the death of his father Edward I. Edward is a homosexual and within the first couple of scenes, seeks and finds a lover in a peasant named Galveston. Edward uses his kingly powers to raise this peasant to nobility and proclaims him chancellor of the realm, Duke of Cornwell, and King of the Isle of Mann. Edward does this because he loves this man, but he does not understand tradition. He, as a king, has no right to bestow such titles on peasants. This angers the nobility, especially the general.
His wife, on the other hand, is frustrated because he find no interest in her. She would rather see him rid of Galveston and return to her, but when Galveston is exiled through pressure from the nobles, she discovers that he is even less interested in her and instead pines for the return of Galveston. Thus throughout the play we discover that his wife, Isabella, becomes ever more alienated from her husband and becomes closer to the general, who becomes Regent of England until her child, Edward III, becomes old enough to take the throne.
Marlowe lived in a rather turbulent time in English history, namely during the reformation when England was being pulled between Protestantism and Catholicism. King Henry had broken away from Rome and had set himself up as the head of the church. There were going to be repercussions to this action and I think this is possibly what the play represents. Edward makes a peasant his second in command, and the repercussions was that he alienated himself from his nobles, thrust the country into civil war, and in the end he was executed. In real history, Edward was removed from the throne by an act of parliament and a regent set in place to rule until Edward III was old enough to rule. The turmoil that resulted from the events with Galvaston reflect what might happen with the break from the church, though there is little that I can comfortably say without knowing too much about the dates of the play.
The film itself was done in a very abstract style. The clothing was modern day, but the scenes were very abstract. The film closed with Edward III standing on top of a cage in which queen Isabella and the general were frozen. Edward III did finally master Isabella and the regent when he burst into their room and slew them. After that he turned his attention to France.
The question in my mind, is the film pro or anti-homosexual. There are a lot of men kissing men in the film, and in my mind the film probably is designed to be pro-homosexual. Obviously considering the topic. The play, I don't think so. I think the play possibly serves a different purpose. I don't think homosexuality was the issue then that it is today. The film confronts us with it and tries to show us that there is nothing wrong with it, yet the play flares out about how unnatural it is. Maybe the director is trying to confront us with the images for shock value for the play does not come out for or against. The king is executed along with Galveston who is also exiled and spat upon during the play.
I thought the play was brilliant, but generally literature from that time was of a very high quality. The movie annoyed me with the homosexual images but I was able to look past that to the play itself in which a very powerful and violent story was unfolding.
The play is about the King of England, Edward Plantagenat II, who ascends the throne after the death of his father Edward I. Edward is a homosexual and within the first couple of scenes, seeks and finds a lover in a peasant named Galveston. Edward uses his kingly powers to raise this peasant to nobility and proclaims him chancellor of the realm, Duke of Cornwell, and King of the Isle of Mann. Edward does this because he loves this man, but he does not understand tradition. He, as a king, has no right to bestow such titles on peasants. This angers the nobility, especially the general.
His wife, on the other hand, is frustrated because he find no interest in her. She would rather see him rid of Galveston and return to her, but when Galveston is exiled through pressure from the nobles, she discovers that he is even less interested in her and instead pines for the return of Galveston. Thus throughout the play we discover that his wife, Isabella, becomes ever more alienated from her husband and becomes closer to the general, who becomes Regent of England until her child, Edward III, becomes old enough to take the throne.
Marlowe lived in a rather turbulent time in English history, namely during the reformation when England was being pulled between Protestantism and Catholicism. King Henry had broken away from Rome and had set himself up as the head of the church. There were going to be repercussions to this action and I think this is possibly what the play represents. Edward makes a peasant his second in command, and the repercussions was that he alienated himself from his nobles, thrust the country into civil war, and in the end he was executed. In real history, Edward was removed from the throne by an act of parliament and a regent set in place to rule until Edward III was old enough to rule. The turmoil that resulted from the events with Galvaston reflect what might happen with the break from the church, though there is little that I can comfortably say without knowing too much about the dates of the play.
The film itself was done in a very abstract style. The clothing was modern day, but the scenes were very abstract. The film closed with Edward III standing on top of a cage in which queen Isabella and the general were frozen. Edward III did finally master Isabella and the regent when he burst into their room and slew them. After that he turned his attention to France.
The question in my mind, is the film pro or anti-homosexual. There are a lot of men kissing men in the film, and in my mind the film probably is designed to be pro-homosexual. Obviously considering the topic. The play, I don't think so. I think the play possibly serves a different purpose. I don't think homosexuality was the issue then that it is today. The film confronts us with it and tries to show us that there is nothing wrong with it, yet the play flares out about how unnatural it is. Maybe the director is trying to confront us with the images for shock value for the play does not come out for or against. The king is executed along with Galveston who is also exiled and spat upon during the play.
I thought the play was brilliant, but generally literature from that time was of a very high quality. The movie annoyed me with the homosexual images but I was able to look past that to the play itself in which a very powerful and violent story was unfolding.
Why Edward II was not so good.
Darshan122 August 2002
Tilda Swinton is great, and the Act Up/Gay is good message is great, but what's not so good is the portrayal of Piers and the King. They're obnoxious, rude, and hurtful. It's sad because it seems there are perfectly valid reasons to hate and overthrow them that have nothing to do with heterosexism. Oh, and Annie Lennox is great too, but interrupting the movie for a fawning music video was a strange move.
Pretentious
joanriba23 March 2002
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.
14th Century Gay-Bashing á la Derek Jarmam
tim.halkin8 February 2003
Definitely Derek Jarman's most refined film. That said, refined for Jarman is bizarre for most.
Based VERY loosely on Christopher Marlowe's play from 1592, however, should be view in its own light / right. Whereas it does tend to capture the wonderful Marlow language, this is no "Shakespeare" here! It's a brilliantly acted ensemble piece, set in Jarman's abstract vision of the world, with a core message that is as valid today as it must have been shocking then.
Jarman "paints" his film - as he always did - not in any logical manner or order, but like a mosaic of images, creating a whole and a statement - a strong statement about intolerance in this case.
This one might even be palatable for non-Jarman fans.
Based VERY loosely on Christopher Marlowe's play from 1592, however, should be view in its own light / right. Whereas it does tend to capture the wonderful Marlow language, this is no "Shakespeare" here! It's a brilliantly acted ensemble piece, set in Jarman's abstract vision of the world, with a core message that is as valid today as it must have been shocking then.
Jarman "paints" his film - as he always did - not in any logical manner or order, but like a mosaic of images, creating a whole and a statement - a strong statement about intolerance in this case.
This one might even be palatable for non-Jarman fans.
Not worth watching
MrEricSir22 April 2004
I should start off by mentioning that Edward II is a very strange movie. All the sets look the same, most of the actors aren't young and glamorous, and everyone speaks Elizabethan English even though it takes place in 1991.
There were times that I felt I just wasn't "getting" it. But after a while I realized I was getting it -- it's just that I wasn't offered very much to begin with.
This movie is so completely visually dull with its dirt floors and bare concrete walls (did I mention this takes place in 1991?) that I felt my eyes getting heavy. Would I have missed much if I had closed them? Well, a couple of softcore man-on-man sex scenes (did I mention that the actors aren't young and glamorous?) but other than that, looking at the inside of my eyelids wouldn't have been much less interesting.
Edward II's script is also quite lacking. I don't know if this is the case with the play (the only Marlowe play I've ever actually read is Dr. Faust) but in any case, I see no sense in making a movie from the script. I can't imagine someone reading the script and saying, "this looks good." The characters are all so coldly obsessed with whining about their own petty problems that there's no way someone could really care about them. Even their bratty children have their own agendas. Anytime someone was killed, I wasn't sure whether to be glad a character I hated was gone, or to be unhappy that another character I also hated had succeeded.
My only praise for this movie is the acting. Given what these actors had to work with, I think they made a good attempt. Unfortunately, this was not enough to make this particular movie worth watching.
There were times that I felt I just wasn't "getting" it. But after a while I realized I was getting it -- it's just that I wasn't offered very much to begin with.
This movie is so completely visually dull with its dirt floors and bare concrete walls (did I mention this takes place in 1991?) that I felt my eyes getting heavy. Would I have missed much if I had closed them? Well, a couple of softcore man-on-man sex scenes (did I mention that the actors aren't young and glamorous?) but other than that, looking at the inside of my eyelids wouldn't have been much less interesting.
Edward II's script is also quite lacking. I don't know if this is the case with the play (the only Marlowe play I've ever actually read is Dr. Faust) but in any case, I see no sense in making a movie from the script. I can't imagine someone reading the script and saying, "this looks good." The characters are all so coldly obsessed with whining about their own petty problems that there's no way someone could really care about them. Even their bratty children have their own agendas. Anytime someone was killed, I wasn't sure whether to be glad a character I hated was gone, or to be unhappy that another character I also hated had succeeded.
My only praise for this movie is the acting. Given what these actors had to work with, I think they made a good attempt. Unfortunately, this was not enough to make this particular movie worth watching.
Boring and Confused Gay Low-Budget Movie
claudio_carvalho29 August 2006
This gay adaptation of Christopher Marlowe play about the passion of the British King Edward II for a plebeian made by Derek Jarman, who died of AIDS in 1994, is very boring and confused. The film was shot on a stage, but the screenplay is very unpleasant and I could not wait for the end of the movie. I was attracted by the names of Tilda Swinton, John Lynch and Annie Lennox, and in the end, only the Lennox singing Cole Porter's "Every Time We Say Goodbye" was worthwhile. The DVD released in Brazil is unbelievably dubbed in Spanish, i.e., a British movie dubbed in Spanish to make it worse. In my opinion, "Edward II" might be mainly recommended for gay and very specific audiences. I had the displeasure of watching this flick on DVD on 27 August 2005. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Eduardo II" ("Edward II")
Title (Brazil): "Eduardo II" ("Edward II")
The first Stately Homo of England...........
ianlouisiana22 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Most Brits could tell you that Edward 2nd came to an unfortunate and painful end but that would be the extent of their knowledge of the country's first acknowledged homosexual monarch.Their disinterest not being rooted in deep-seated homophobia,merely the lack of relevance to life in 21st century England of the sexual orientation of some obscure long-dead king. Quite what point Mr D.Jarman is trying to make in "Edward 2nd"is not clear to me.Homosexual men had a tough time back then?Hold the front page. Is he inferring that treatment of gays in 1991 is in any way comparable?Surely that is a gross insult to the efforts of equal rights campaigners and the abuse and injury they have sustained over the years to ensure that no sensible person cares who his neighbour sleeps with as long as it doesn't have fur,feathers or scales. Whatever,the movie's two main characters are deeply unsympathetic self - obsessed boors with no saving graces whatsoever. Mr Jarman's "brilliant" spin on Marlowe's play is to put it on in modern dress - there's daring for you.Presumably to make the patently absurd point that attitudes towards homosexuality have not changed with the passage of time. Too gimmicky by half,"Edward 2nd" might appeal to the small number of gay men who still regard themselves as victims of a heterosexual conspiracy and want to see their beliefs made flesh,as it were,up om the screen. I suspect that most people,however,might consider that Mr Jarman was over - egging the pudding just a little bit.
Period Film it is NOT, but an interesting interpretation.
CDC080519 June 2003
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.
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.
Well, it's no Shakespeare...
Movie-Man-Bob27 July 2007
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.
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.
Nice, but strange
liderc12 April 2000
I found this movie nice, but somehow strange. I would have found it better if they had either really modernized the script and the settings, as they did it with "Romeo and Julia" starring Leonardo DiCaprio, or they had set it completely in a medieval world, with big sets etc (possibly they hadn't the budget for that), but I didn't like the simple way the sets and the film was made. Still, Edward II is a play that should get the respect it deserves (=more adaptions into movies)
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
