The Tempest (DVD) > Reviews (1)

The late Derek Jarman was a stage designer but is best known as a film director, particularly for his forthright defence of gay rights during the 1970’s and 80’s, which translated into a number of films on artistic/historic subjects the crux of which seemed to be to find a specifically gay perspective by sexualising characters of interest to him. Thus his film about St Sebastian is about homo-eroticism rather than martyrdom, Edward II's army in his film of Marlowe's eponymous play are portrayed as gay activists and in Caravaggio the artist (on no evidence other than he apparently paints attractive boys) is also portrayed as homosexual. It is not unkind to suggest that nobody could really accuse Jarman of having a two-track mind.

On this occasion he tackled the last play to be written solely by William Shakespeare who, hopefully, needs no introduction. Ominously, the dvd is sometimes marketed as “Derek Jarman’s Tempest” (although the copy I purchased is titled “The Tempest”). Rightly so, as the Jarman in this film overrides the Shakespeare. The title may be the Bard's, everything else is Jarman's.

The story of The Tempest is of a widowed Duke of Milan, Prospero, who neglects his
dukedom for his studies and is deposed by his brother with the help of the King of Naples and exiled together with his infant daughter, Miranda. Helped by an old courtier Gonzalo who gives them food they are set adrift on a boat, They reach an island where Prospero’s magical arts free a spirit, Ariel, who helps them and subjugates the other inhabitant of the island Caliban, spawn of a witch.

The years have passed and when the action starts Prospero has conjured up a tempest which will bring all the participants to the island for a showdown and/or a reconciliation.

Unfortunately Jarman first of all plays fast and loose with the dialogue. At first this seems intriguing, and clever, but as the film progresses it is pointless and sloppy. Pointless because it does nothing to tell the story in a different way and sloppy because on occasions it has characters saying things which really make little sense.

The lighting of the film is truly terrible. Firelight and shadows may look really gothic but taken too far, as they are here, and you just get darkness. More power-cut than power-play.

The Byronic setting is, regrettably, not ironic. No explanations offered as to how or why Prospero has a huge mansion on the island with a workforce consisting of one magician, his daughter, a spirit and a subhuman. Magic? Ok, so why does Prospero need Caliban to carry logs then?

The acting is mannered, unsympathetic and there is no feeling that either any of the characters are acting with each other, or that they are acting the parts at all. There is much gazing away from people and into thin air as lines are delivered grandly or otherwise, in short one big post-modern ham sandwich.

Heathcote Williams is a suspiciously young Prospero, long on brooding and romantic looks and short on charisma and magical presence.

Toyah Willcox as Miranda is more of a novelty than a success. Christopher Biggins and Peter Turner are a drearily camp yet unamusing comic double-act as the drunken Stephano and the clown Trinculo. For Caliban we get the usual black actor (Jack Birkett) trundled out - no racism here of course - to play a half-man, half-beast. A tired stereotype.

Finally Jarman adapts the play to make it of gay interest – it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for the simple reason there is no gayness in Shakespeare’s play (if you are very inventive you can speculate about a homoerotic relationship between Prospero and Ariel except the latter is a SPRITE therefore no sex possible) and since Jarman largely uses Shakespeare’s text and narrative any manner of gay discourse superimposed on this feels contrived and irrelevant. So of course we get plenty of male organs, Ferdinand lands on the beach without a stitch enabling us to admire his shapely buttocks (in the process giving the lie to the line where Ariel says the wrecked party's clothes have not been damaged), and although Jarman feels free to cut a quarter of Shakespeare’s text Jarman adds a ridiculous dance with lots of young men dressed as sailors mincing about as they might in a Victorian male bordello.

I doubt this film would have gone anywhere had it not been for the buzz created about the director. Andrew Jarvis, a very fine Shakespearean actor once said a very wise thing to me. He claimed he was puzzled every time someone wondered what some famous director or other would “do” with Shakespeare. Surely, the argument goes, the best you can do is to present the playwright as faithfully as you can, honour his spirit at least and not twist the play out of all recognition? No-one seems to have shared this with Jarman.

I love art-house films, I love obscure films, but this is pretentious and dreary nonsense. It is the type of film which certain critics will gush over and ordinary people feel embarrassed not to appreciate as if they are missing something. They're not. This is garbage. The “punk sensibility” (is this not a contradiction in terms anyway) of the times which has been seen in the film is simply not there. Perhaps this is simply a confusion with the punk-influenced Jubilee also directed by Jarman and starring Wilcox. If there is any outside aesthetic influencing this version of The Tempest it is the world of fashion, particularly the vacuously pretentious end of that which hints at much meaning without delivering any. Tinsel and glitter.

The extras included in this dvd are an incomprehensible interview with Jarman billed as “There We Are John”, commentaries by Wilcox and the cinematographer Peter Middleton and two mildly visually-interesting short silent films in a Wildean mode - “Art of Mirrors” and “Garden of Luxor”.

You can buy this from hmv.com for £11.00 inclusive of postage. I would pay to have my copy taken from me if someone is interested.