"Derek Jarman's already done that"

[Martinus]

Ok, so first of all I realise this thread may be of interest to perhaps a handful of people on this forum, but I decided to make it anyway.

I discovered Jarman's movies only earlier this year (I must admit, shamefully, that I had not heard of him before maybe February or March this year) but it amazes me how much of the stuff that has been hailed as innovative in the cinema of the 1990s/2000s had been done by him before, often many many years ago.

I mean, many people like Loncraine's "Richard III" (with the fantastic role of Ian McKellen), depicted in this anachronistic fascist dystopian way (which then sparked the entire genre of Shakespearean "modernized" drama) but how many people realise that four years before "Richard III", there was Jarman's "Edward II" that did exactly the same.

I personally did not care for Mel Gibson's "Passion", but still had to acknowledge the innovativeness of having this hyper-realistic depiction of biblical times, with the entire movie acted in the languages of the era etc. - but again Jarman was there already with "Sebastiane", nearly half a century earlier.

I loved Greenaway's magical world in "Prospero's Books" - but again Jarman was there before, with his "Tempest".

Sure his movies were less polished, much much more gay (and most importantly had much lower budgets) but the innovative idea is his, not his successors'. And yet he is so relatively unknown, it's a complete shame.

He is like a John the Baptist or a Christopher Marlowe of the modern Anglosaxon cinema - all the Jesuses and the Shakespeares who came after him are more well-known, but they weren't the first.

[/fanboi rant off]

[Ed Anger]

Gay.

[Martinus]

You could hijack this into a discussion about cottaging, but then it wouldn't really be a hijack.

[Ed Anger]

Gay.

We should hijack this into a discussion about cottages:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8282368.stm 

gayer.

[Neil]

Stop being so gay.

[Eddie Teach]

Didn't like Richard III, haven't seen any of the others mentioned.

[CountDeMoney]

Jesus H Christ, Marty...I'm not gay but even I've had my copy of Edward II for damned near 15 years.  Why? Because Nigel Terry's that fucking cool, that's why.

You totally failsuckbot at everything, from gayness to cinema.  Maybe one day you'll catch up to the rest of us, and get a fucking horseless carriage.

[Neil]

If I was CdM, I'd be pretty annoyed that Martinus is coming along and messing up the things that I like with his unclean presence.

[CountDeMoney]

If I was CdM, I'd be pretty annoyed that Martinus is coming along and messing up the things that I like with his unclean presence.

No shit I'm fucking annoyed.  It's like Timmay Taint, although worse and all sticky with groady Polock sperm and shit.

"Well, there's another thing I can't appreciate anymore, now that it's all gayed up and shit."
*tosses Edward II in trash*

[Neil]

Fortunately, you'll always have the Ravens.  Homos hate team sports, because of their contempt for teamwork and social groupings.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Fortunately, you'll always have the Ravens.  Homos hate team sports, because of their contempt for teamwork and social groupings.

LOL missed the ball on that one. The Lesbian softball league here has more teams than the NFL (and they could kick the asses of most of those steroid users) and the one thing that queers do better than anyone is organize into little groups.
try again.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Ok, so first of all I realise this thread may be of interest to perhaps a handful of people on this forum, but I decided to make it anyway.

I discovered Jarman's movies only earlier this year (I must admit, shamefully, that I had not heard of him before maybe February or March this year) but it amazes me how much of the stuff that has been hailed as innovative in the cinema of the 1990s/2000s had been done by him before, often many many years ago.

I mean, many people like Loncraine's "Richard III" (with the fantastic role of Ian McKellen), depicted in this anachronistic fascist dystopian way (which then sparked the entire genre of Shakespearean "modernized" drama) but how many people realise that four years before "Richard III", there was Jarman's "Edward II" that did exactly the same.

I personally did not care for Mel Gibson's "Passion", but still had to acknowledge the innovativeness of having this hyper-realistic depiction of biblical times, with the entire movie acted in the languages of the era etc. - but again Jarman was there already with "Sebastiane", nearly half a century earlier.

I loved Greenaway's magical world in "Prospero's Books" - but again Jarman was there before, with his "Tempest".

Sure his movies were less polished, much much more gay (and most importantly had much lower budgets) but the innovative idea is his, not his successors'. And yet he is so relatively unknown, it's a complete shame.

He is like a John the Baptist or a Christopher Marlowe of the modern Anglosaxon cinema - all the Jesuses and the Shakespeares who came after him are more well-known, but they weren't the first.

[/fanboi rant off]

uh Marti people having doing "modernized" Shakespeare since Welles in the 30's. Probably earlier. Jarman is interesting but ultimately more boring than watching paint dry. I do however like his writing on film and art very very much. His journals from when he was dying are must read for anyone interested in the AIDS.

I think anyone reasonably cultured knows from Jarman. Not unheard of in the least.

[CountDeMoney]

Stay tuned for Marty's next thread, entitled "Why Doesn't Keith Haring Make More Art? He's Boffo!"

[CountDeMoney]

And, of course, the inevitable "ZOMG When is Jonathan Larson Going to Do A Sequel To Rent?"

[Alatriste]

Errr... Marty, do you know Shakespeare didn't write 'Edward II'? Christopher Marlowe did...