← Back to Reviews
in
The Garden, 1990
This largely dialogue-free narrative mixes religious iconography and the story of two gay men (Johnny Mills and Kevin Collins) persecuted by their community.
Perhaps the most direct in its messaging of Jarman’s films (or of those I’ve seen), this one delivers on emotionally evocative sequences and experimental use of video projection.
When a film goes to an unreal space to explore a theme, it can swing one of two ways. One direction is highly abstract, while the other direction is very overt. This film, for me, distinguishes itself from his other films in terms of how often it goes in that overt direction, and how well those sequences work as a mix with the more abstract, artsy sequences.
In one scene, a man in drag is hounded by some high society women and a man in a suit. When was this film made? Over 30 years ago? And we’re still quaking in our boots over a man in a wig? Just checking. In another sequence, the two gay men are detained and humiliated by a group of men. This follows on a scene where the two gay men, sleeping together in a bed, are surrounded by men dressed as Santa Claus pointedly singing religious songs. The message is clear: why do they care so much about these two dudes, who are doing nothing more than sleeping together? How can anyone see their obsession as not being completely deranged?
As with all of his other films, Jarman impresses with his ability to compose an image and get a lot of emotional mileage out of seemingly simple staging. For me, the stand out sequence is one in which a young man and a boy (probably his brother, possibly his son? I’m terrible with ages!) laughingly bathe in a washbasin in their backyard. This sequence is intercut with an eroticized version of such an interaction between two men in an ornate bathtub on a beach in front of crashing waves. Suddenly the image cuts back to the backyard sequence, where the older man grabs up the boy, taking him away from the view of the camera.
Here more than in Jarman’s other films, the camera itself and the people pointing that camera, are a part of the narrative. In the scene where the man in drag is being assaulted, a camera follows and records all of the action while another man wields a torch. The media itself has become part of the mob mentality. The first scene in the film involves a woman--in some plot summaries referred to as the Madonna (Tilda Swinton)--with a baby, but the baby is soon chased after by an intrusive camera. The film’s view on the intrusive camera fits with the film’s questions about why we make other peoples’ lives our business.
There are plenty of classic “art movie” moments, such as a group of older women seated at a long table, making the tops of glasses sing or a mixed-gender troop of people dancing around a sleeping man in a bed on the beach. But as always, these sequences are beautifully composed and make for a nice alternation with the more emotionally charged sequences that follow the persecution of the gay couple.
The anger and frustration in this film is palpable, and the visuals as engaging as ever. The continued relevance of both the sentiment and the actual political content is maddening.
The Garden, 1990
This largely dialogue-free narrative mixes religious iconography and the story of two gay men (Johnny Mills and Kevin Collins) persecuted by their community.
Perhaps the most direct in its messaging of Jarman’s films (or of those I’ve seen), this one delivers on emotionally evocative sequences and experimental use of video projection.
When a film goes to an unreal space to explore a theme, it can swing one of two ways. One direction is highly abstract, while the other direction is very overt. This film, for me, distinguishes itself from his other films in terms of how often it goes in that overt direction, and how well those sequences work as a mix with the more abstract, artsy sequences.
In one scene, a man in drag is hounded by some high society women and a man in a suit. When was this film made? Over 30 years ago? And we’re still quaking in our boots over a man in a wig? Just checking. In another sequence, the two gay men are detained and humiliated by a group of men. This follows on a scene where the two gay men, sleeping together in a bed, are surrounded by men dressed as Santa Claus pointedly singing religious songs. The message is clear: why do they care so much about these two dudes, who are doing nothing more than sleeping together? How can anyone see their obsession as not being completely deranged?
As with all of his other films, Jarman impresses with his ability to compose an image and get a lot of emotional mileage out of seemingly simple staging. For me, the stand out sequence is one in which a young man and a boy (probably his brother, possibly his son? I’m terrible with ages!) laughingly bathe in a washbasin in their backyard. This sequence is intercut with an eroticized version of such an interaction between two men in an ornate bathtub on a beach in front of crashing waves. Suddenly the image cuts back to the backyard sequence, where the older man grabs up the boy, taking him away from the view of the camera.
Here more than in Jarman’s other films, the camera itself and the people pointing that camera, are a part of the narrative. In the scene where the man in drag is being assaulted, a camera follows and records all of the action while another man wields a torch. The media itself has become part of the mob mentality. The first scene in the film involves a woman--in some plot summaries referred to as the Madonna (Tilda Swinton)--with a baby, but the baby is soon chased after by an intrusive camera. The film’s view on the intrusive camera fits with the film’s questions about why we make other peoples’ lives our business.
There are plenty of classic “art movie” moments, such as a group of older women seated at a long table, making the tops of glasses sing or a mixed-gender troop of people dancing around a sleeping man in a bed on the beach. But as always, these sequences are beautifully composed and make for a nice alternation with the more emotionally charged sequences that follow the persecution of the gay couple.
The anger and frustration in this film is palpable, and the visuals as engaging as ever. The continued relevance of both the sentiment and the actual political content is maddening.