So far, I have only been able to find one of Jarman's films online in excellent condition, and that is JUBILEE, so tonight I watched that (after watching MULTIPLE MANIACS for the first time beforehand - two films with Jesus bleeding at the mouth, haha!).

I'm not the most intelligent film viewer sometimes, so I'm not sure I get this movie. While in one way it was much more straightforward (ie, not so arty) than I was expecting, it was also kinda confusing too. I haven't read up on it much so far, as I want to get my thoughts out first. I'm not sure if it is meant to be a criticism of the punk ethos of the time, maybe?

The thing about a dystopia for me is that I want to know all about it - how it happened, and even if that is only shown through hints - which I don't necessarily mind - then I want to know the rules of the dystopia, how things work in this world, etc. And I couldn't get a good grip on that. The best part in the film for that was the conversation between the two older women in the bingo hall, but that was pretty brief.

I thought there might have been some themes of the loss of history and creating new history out of misunderstandings of the past, but then in the end Hitler is shown to be alive and living in Dorset?

It looked good though, and I have to say, I am a compulsive time checker when I watch film, and I didn't check during this one until about 80 minutes in and that's only 'cause I was curious how long was left. So it kept my attention and I was interested. I did wonder, while watching, if I would ever watch it a second time, because it has quite an unpleasant feel to it, and initially I thought no, but now I'm not so sure. I have a lot of questions about it.

Interesting seeing all those musicians: Adam Ant, Toyah, The Slits... I found that and the punk aesthetic really cool. Plus lots of casual male nudity is never a problem with me. Interesting that this dystopia seemed almost exclusively run by women and homosexual men.

I did see an interview with Toyah before I started getting interested in seeing Jarman's films, and she was saying that much of the male cast and crew were having sex quite publicly during the filming of this. It looks in some cases like they were doing it on the film, haha. She also said that initially Jarman was going to have to cut her character as he had no more money, but then, knowing how much she wanted to be a part of it, he paid her out of his own pay. What I find interesting about that is that she had a real presence in this film, one of the strongest of everyone, and I can't quite see how the film would've gone without her in it.

I liked the gay couple (despite the fact they were brothers too!), but why did they have to have that butch woman involved in everything? I preferred it with just the two of them and Adam Ant hanging out.

I wish I had more intelligent things to say about this film. I need to understand more. I will say, I didn't care much for the Queen Elizabeth I sections of the movie, though by the end I think I was more comfortable with them.

That Borgia character's cackling did start to wear on me after awhile.

Hmmm, so... yeah! That was my first Jarman (where I am old enough to remember and understand more, at least). Interesting. I am not sorry to have watched it, and I really am keen to see his version of The Tempest, if I can find it.