Gaiety Folliesrnby David R. SlavittrnEdward IIrnProduced by Steve Clark-Hall andrnAntony RootrnDirected by Derek ]armanrnScreenplay by Derek ]arman,rnStephen McBride, and Ken ButlerrnBased on the play byrnChristopher MarlowernReleased by Fine Line FeaturesrnHowards EndrnProduced by Ishmail MerchantrnDirected by ]ames IvoryrnScreenplay by Ruth Prawer jhabvalarnBased on the novel by E.M. ForsterrnA Sony Pictures Classic ReleasernIwent to Edward 11, expecting to haternit. In New Haven the week before, Irnhad seen the extraordinarily fine productionrnof the play Stan Wojewodski,rnthe new dean of the Yale Drama School,rnhad mounted at the Yale Rep, and I wasrnskeptical of any screen version, particularlyrna gay-rights polemicization. WhateverrnMarlowe’s own sexual orientation, itrnseems clear that his rendition of EdwardrnII’s homosexual liaison with Piers Gavestonrnwas intended as yet another and almostrnincidental perversion. The promotionrnby Edward of his lowbornrnminion over the nobles was the primaryrnviolation of order and the main affrontrnto Mortimer and other peers. In anyrnevent, the drumbeat for the gay-liberationrnparade had not begun to sound eitherrnin Edward’s time (early 14th century)rnor Marlowe’s (the play was registeredrnin 1594).rnMostly, though, I had been amazedrnat the power of Wojewodski’s production,rnthe effectiveness of the staging onrnMichael Yeargan’s amazing set, the dramaticrnlighting by Jennifer Tipton (whornteaches lighting now at Yale), and thernextraordinary music of Kim Shermanrnwho uses a glass harmonica, violins, cello,rnand drums, to particularly eerie andrnmenacing effect. There was a certainrnunevenness to the cast and a considerablernrange in its abilities with the declamationrnof blank verse, but through itsrnenergy and concentration, it brought thernsprawling play to life and by the end tornsplendid incandescence. Byron Jennings’rnEdward was just right: childishrnand willful but never totally contemptiblernand, toward the end, quiternmoving. And Thomas Gibson as Gavestonrnand Cara Duff-MacCormick as Isabelrnwere admirably inventive in theirrnstrategies for resisting the monotones ofrntheir roles.rnShakespeare’s Richard U—with whichrnEdward II is sometimes paired in repertorvrnproductions—is in many ways similar.rnBoth plays show us foolish kingsrnwho, undone by their folly, repent of itrntoo late. Shakespeare’s drama is sensiblernand sane, recognizing the inevitabilityrnof Bolingbroke’s triumph and yet ablernto mourn the loss and the death of arnRichard who may be incompetent butrnis poetic and, in his way, more wonderfulrnthan the man who has displaced him.rnMarlowe’s Edward is impossible, arndandy, a totally inappropriate fellow tornbe a king, but Marlowe gives him arngrand threnody that must have been thernmodel for Shakespeare’s play, written inrn1594 or 1595. How could Shakespearernnot have been moved and challenged byrnthe grandeur of the defeated king’s complaint?rnMarlowe writes:rnThe griefs of private men are soonrnallay’drnBut not of kings. The forest deer,rnbeing struck.rnRuns to an herb that closcth uprnthe wounds;rnBut, when the imperial lion’s fleshrnis gor’drnHe rends and tears it with hisrnwrathful paw.rnAnd highly scorning that thernlowly earthrnShould drink his blood, mountsrnup into the air.rnAnd so it fares with me, whoserndauntless mindrnThe ambitious Mortimer wouldrnseek to curb.rnAnd that unnatural queen,rnfalse Isabel,rnThat thus hath pent and mew’drnme in a prison;rnEor such outrageous passions cloyrnmy soulrnAs with the wings of rancourrnand disdainrnFull often am I soaring up tornHeaven,rnTo plain me to the gods againstrnthem both.rnBut when I call to mind I amrna king,rnMethinks I should revenge me ofrnthe wrongsrnThat Mortimer and Isabel haverndone.rnBut what are kings, whenrnregiment is gone.rnBut perfect shadows in arnsunshine day?rnIt is splendid stuff, and Jarman hasrntaken this splendor as warrant for somernkind of gay-lib manifesto. Eor Marlowe,rnhowever, the homosexual affair was relevantrnnot because it was anv more orrnless immoral than a heterosexual liaisonrnwould have been, but because a man, asrnthe king’s favorite, was a danger to thernkingdom in a wav no woman could havernbeen.rnJarman’s film was produced in partrnfor the BBC, which will air it next yearrnfor the 400th anni’ersary of Marlowe’srndeath, and the director may also havernfigured that he could make it an act ofrndefiance, using the text as a gauntlet tornthrow in the faces of such stodges asrnJesse Helms and Margaret Thatcher.rnEdward’s balmy incompetence as a rulerrnseems to Jarman not even worth mention.rnAt one point in the play, for instance,rnEdward gets word of the loss ofrnNornrandy but is not even interested becausernhe is so absorbed in his longingrnfor Gaveston’s return. In the film,rnthough, this is cut, and we get insteadrnodd emendations and additions, not sornmuch of dialogue as of action. The playrncalls for Edward’s brother, Edmund, thernEarl of Kent, to be beheaded offstage.rnJarman has Isabel, Edward’s Queen, descendrnon her manacled brother-in-lawrnand bite him in the neck, ripping out arnhuge gobbet of flesh and tearing at hisrnveins deeply enough to kill him. She isrnNOVEMBER 1992/49rnrnrn