Comments on: Derek Jarman, Sex vs. Politics

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:18:51 +0000

Yes, I agree - I meant conservative more in the sense of 17th century anti-establishment liberals who want to conserve individual freedoms and what is your own and your entitlement rather than conserving the ruling classes/the establishment/blah blah blah (not to be too allusive or anything..!). What Jarman did really well was make you realise that there was beauty on the fringes and in those who did what came naturally to them, not what was imposed - which genuinely is what was happening in the 17th century UK, and (if I remember right) Jarman wrote a bit about in ones of his books…

By: Karina Longworth

Karina Longworth — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:14:26 +0000

Thanks Brian, I’ve swapped out the wrong video for the right one.

By: Glenn Kenny

Glenn Kenny — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:53:29 +0000

I think Charlie’s right, although I would never call Jarman’s perspective a conservative one—it’s more in the classic Western liberal tradition as articulated by this recent Johann Hari piece about…wait for it…why multiculturalism must be abandoned:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html

As for Jarman showing more of an affinity for the Pet Shop Boys than the Smiths, my hunch is that it had something to do with the fact that, believe it or not, at the time of “The Queen Is Dead,” Morrissey had not yet come out and was rather steadfast in his refusal to do so. That’s something that surely would have rubbed the truth-insistent Jarman very much the wrong way and hence dampened his enthusiasm for working with the group. The Pet Shop Boys, of course, never even HAD to come out, and Neil Tennant is more comfortable with being a collaborative artist than Morrissey ever was.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:12:07 +0000

I’m a slightly obsessed Jarman fan (and British), so forgive me if I’m reactionary on this, but I think Jarman was pushing the buttons that would most irk the establishment, and at that time, that was sexuality. Remember, Thatcher banned any promotion and mention of homosexuality anywhere pretty much, whilst national pride and reclaiming of national symbols was a non-controversial act in an era where Britain hadn’t yet adopted the weak-kneed ironic notion of nationality it now has.

Contextualise Jarman’s films now - and I mean all of them - and they seem like shocking almost-conservative love letters to British free-thinking, and they do reclaim tatty symbols of national pride. But look at the sexuality stuff and actually, they seem quaint on that level - the battle hasn’t been won but boys kissing is a major part of mainstream telly here now that would have amazed him…

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:04:23 +0000

Zeitgeist is putting out a box set of Jarman films on DVD this spring. I’m disappointed that Edward II isn’t part of the box, but otherwise this makes all his best work available in the U.S., as the box includes Blue, Caravaggio, and Wittgenstein.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:42:47 +0000

Very interesting take. Somehow the Smiths diss didn’t register for me, as someone no more familiar with Jarman’s work than you are. But then, who wouldn’t say something contradictory in the midst of a 14-hour interview? It’s interesting that Julien chose to include both statements in his tribute film. There may be a great deal of validity in the submerged theme you’re unearthing. Nonetheless, I was moved by the film. Not all biographical documentaries must hold their subjects to the critical torch.

By the way, the “It’s a Sin” video you have above is not Jarman’s, but something put together by the Canadian Dance Company. Jarman’s take is here.