I saw this at a recent cinema screening and really enjoyed it. I actually thought the time travel element distracted from a series of fun events, but I'm glad I saw it.
I remember personally not really liking Jubilee and wishing the whole time travel thing was more the focus, but the aesthetics were awesome and it was nice seeing folk like Little Nell, Toyah, Adam Ant, Richard O'Brien etc!
It'a a cruel movie, in a way, but I'm really intrigued by how well it blends a celebration of and a warning about punk at the same time, and from the heart (or at least adjacent to the heart) of the community it's depicting.
This quote from Jarman's diary is pointed: "The instigators of punk are the same old petit bourgeois art students, who a few months ago were David Bowie and Bryan Ferry look-alikes - who’ve read a little art history and adopted some Dadaist typography and bad manners, and who are now in the business of reproducing a fake street credibility." (From the Quietus article linked above)
I watched the film again, 40 years on. Derek, what were you thinking mate. What was I thinking? The cafe scene, fair enough, a lot of time was spent in cafes.
Great dystopian warning immersed in nihilism. Serves as a warning of anarchic society desending into chaos and destruction. The film is quite convoluted. The punk element is fantastic imagery and the messages are important. It may be a critique of industrial decline, economic misery and social strife of the middle/late 1970s? Margaret Thatcher's militant monetarist policies and social Conservatism was being talked about as the panacea to the economic difficulties of the 1970s. Her message: social order and self reliance.
The presence of Hitler at the Dorset manor was not a critique of the punks flirtation with Nazi imagery, but rather the exploitative nature of the profiteers of punk (Ginz, in this case), or popular media in general, who would put Hitler in an exclusive TV spot if they could. Like the Clash song "(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais" lyric, "If Adolf Hitler flew in today, They'd send a limousine anyway."
It's a good overview but it suffers from a lot of inaccurate context. Some of that inaccuracy stems from the fact that an avante garde film is difficult to pin down. And you kind of had to be there as well. I saw Jubilee around 1979 and it's a brilliant overview of Britain at the time. The characters, for me, depict various cultural and human traits. Bod; the animus. Amyl; the drug. Chaos; the external milieu. Mad; the psyche or human Id. Crabs; the sex drive. Angel and Sphinx; the victims. Viv; the artist and anti-artist. Kid; the boy band singer. Ginz; the media mogul. The film very much depicts what the Sex Pistols railed against. Ginz as McClaren reflects the main area of concern regarding the music business and a wider economic vision that reflects the era of stagflation and collapse. Murders occur for a variety of reasons. There's been a civil war - or possible invasion. The cops are killed because they murder Angel and Sphinx - end of. Apart from the fact they represent the dictatorship and allow for revolutionary reaction to occur within the script. There are so many great scenes in this film. One of the best is when Viv et al visit the old guy living in the past with his poisoned garden. A reference to modern chemicals - something zombie films (Living Dead at Manchester Morgue 1974) and thrillers (Soylent Green 1973) were depicting a lot. Even horror films were signalling the collapse of a frail human animal lost in its own doings. It's all metaphor. QE1 allows for the Shakespearean Tempest to manifest. But the parallels between a fight for religious supremacy and modern political uproar and rife. Ariel is perhaps the most frightening character. Just like in the play when he steers a ship to their doom and creates mayhem to further the narrative. Likewise, when Chaos is walking the tightrope. What does it suggest? That the future could go either way. That a Cold War could end everything tomorrow. And here we are in 2024 and a new generation is facing a very similar threat. Amyl's depiction of Britannia, for me, is another reference to John's lyric. God Save the Queen. The fascist regime. We all knew the British establishment was fascist. Just read what happened to Harold Wilson just before he suddenly resigned. Big hints of Jeremy Corbyn and we'll never let you rule. The punks in the film are not fascist. They're fallen victims to a fascist regime. They've given up on caring about the future. There is no future. The blank generation. Vast swathes of the globe with no economic future. Not economically viable. The pram scene is disturbing. Far more so than the cafe scene. Hints of collaboration. And also, again, no future. A lot of people, in the real world, were talking about bringing another generation into a world that made it impossible to thrive. Thatcher made things so much worse after 1979. But it was all on the cards because no other way out seemed plausible. And the new world hoodwinked everyone into thinking the old world was so much worse. You just had to be there, in London, at the time. What went before punk failed to materialize. The hippies opted out, as did the punks, giving the elite a free ride to 2024. It must be remembered that a lot of the early gigs circa 1976 - 1980 were being organized and run by old hippies, bikers, and hells angel types. People can think whatever about the 1970s. But I wish I had a time machine. And I wonder how many other people would turn back time. Jarman was a great film maker. And Jubilee is his opus driving force. Viv; "The end's inevitable. It's either now or later. It's what makes the present so vital." The overview gets a bit ridiculous near the end. Westwood literally designed the DESTROY shirt with the upside-down crucifix and swastika on it. Punk flirted with Nazism in the same way comedies like The Producers and comedians like Freddie Starr flirted with it. Siouxie wore a swastika armband, sang Metal Postcard and other early stuff, but was no way a fascist. Likewise with Sid. Belsen was hardly a pro-fascist song. Whatever Jarman meant, or people think he meant, Hitler in Buckingham Palace or some former royal residence could mean a lot. Comparing teenagers to a clearly fascistic establishment is farcical. And likewise with the gay issue. People back in the 70s, and 80s, used to go gay bashing. And some immigrants got it too. Yet above and beyond such dreadful behaviour - are people not entitled to have an opinion? Are we all now forced to accept a narrative that says you must never use a word like queer because it might hurt someone's feelings? Are we supposed to accept a culture - but not be allowed to feel something about it that does not chime with that culture? That's fascism. If someone is homophobic, and makes it known, condemning them is creating an enemy, as opposed to teaching them about the failure of their fear. A free society should be allowed to express itself. Even if you do not agree with the sentiments. Just so long as no abuse or violence gets promoted. Ban words if you want. But that notion will be abused. It is being abused. Everyone is now anti-Semitic if they do accept a genocide in Gaza. Bombing an embassy is fine because it's a Muslim embassy. But retaliation is not fine. The word bloody was banned on British TV around 1973. programs were banned in 1976. The Pistols were banned. Clackers (look it up) and conkers on string were banned - because they might hurt a child. The playground witches hat was banned because children were losing fingers on it. Hate speech should definitely be condemned. But banning stuff leads nowhere good. Just get a grip on yourself.
I saw this at a recent cinema screening and really enjoyed it. I actually thought the time travel element distracted from a series of fun events, but I'm glad I saw it.
I remember personally not really liking Jubilee and wishing the whole time travel thing was more the focus, but the aesthetics were awesome and it was nice seeing folk like Little Nell, Toyah, Adam Ant, Richard O'Brien etc!
It'a a cruel movie, in a way, but I'm really intrigued by how well it blends a celebration of and a warning about punk at the same time, and from the heart (or at least adjacent to the heart) of the community it's depicting.
The contradiction between anarchy and poetry. Great film
Great analysis, thank you!
Work of total genius. Super challenging stuff.
This quote from Jarman's diary is pointed:
"The instigators of punk are the same old petit bourgeois art students, who a few months ago were David Bowie and Bryan Ferry look-alikes - who’ve read a little art history and adopted some Dadaist typography and bad manners, and who are now in the business of reproducing a fake street credibility." (From the Quietus article linked above)
I watched the film again, 40 years on. Derek, what were you thinking mate. What was I thinking? The cafe scene, fair enough, a lot of time was spent in cafes.
Than you in advance !! Just found your vid and channel . I'm 2 minutes in and I have a feeling you're gonna nail it !!
Ha ha, cool! Hope you liked the rest of it!
I just watched this last weekend! I loved it!
It reminded me a lot of Ken Russel.
Some Clockwork Orange too.
Derek Jarman worked with Ken Russell on "The Devils". He did all of the set design.
Well that would explain it, then! :)
Thanks for that, and for all your work. I thoroughly enjoy your channel.
Great dystopian warning immersed in nihilism. Serves as a warning of anarchic society desending into chaos and destruction. The film is quite convoluted. The punk element is fantastic imagery and the messages are important. It may be a critique of industrial decline, economic misery and social strife of the middle/late 1970s? Margaret Thatcher's militant monetarist policies and social Conservatism was being talked about as the panacea to the economic difficulties of the 1970s. Her message: social order and self reliance.
The presence of Hitler at the Dorset manor was not a critique of the punks flirtation with Nazi imagery, but rather the exploitative nature of the profiteers of punk (Ginz, in this case), or popular media in general, who would put Hitler in an exclusive TV spot if they could. Like the Clash song "(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais" lyric, "If Adolf Hitler flew in today, They'd send a limousine anyway."
Gene October is from the band Chelsea not several other bands
Margaret Thatcher was not even in Power till 1979 - Jubilee was made 2 years previous
He's talking about Derek Jarman's later social campaigning in the 80s
It's a good overview but it suffers from a lot of inaccurate context. Some of that inaccuracy stems from the fact that an avante garde film is difficult to pin down. And you kind of had to be there as well.
I saw Jubilee around 1979 and it's a brilliant overview of Britain at the time. The characters, for me, depict various cultural and human traits. Bod; the animus. Amyl; the drug. Chaos; the external milieu. Mad; the psyche or human Id. Crabs; the sex drive. Angel and Sphinx; the victims. Viv; the artist and anti-artist. Kid; the boy band singer. Ginz; the media mogul.
The film very much depicts what the Sex Pistols railed against. Ginz as McClaren reflects the main area of concern regarding the music business and a wider economic vision that reflects the era of stagflation and collapse. Murders occur for a variety of reasons. There's been a civil war - or possible invasion. The cops are killed because they murder Angel and Sphinx - end of. Apart from the fact they represent the dictatorship and allow for revolutionary reaction to occur within the script.
There are so many great scenes in this film. One of the best is when Viv et al visit the old guy living in the past with his poisoned garden. A reference to modern chemicals - something zombie films (Living Dead at Manchester Morgue 1974) and thrillers (Soylent Green 1973) were depicting a lot. Even horror films were signalling the collapse of a frail human animal lost in its own doings. It's all metaphor. QE1 allows for the Shakespearean Tempest to manifest. But the parallels between a fight for religious supremacy and modern political uproar and rife.
Ariel is perhaps the most frightening character. Just like in the play when he steers a ship to their doom and creates mayhem to further the narrative.
Likewise, when Chaos is walking the tightrope. What does it suggest? That the future could go either way. That a Cold War could end everything tomorrow. And here we are in 2024 and a new generation is facing a very similar threat.
Amyl's depiction of Britannia, for me, is another reference to John's lyric. God Save the Queen. The fascist regime. We all knew the British establishment was fascist. Just read what happened to Harold Wilson just before he suddenly resigned. Big hints of Jeremy Corbyn and we'll never let you rule. The punks in the film are not fascist. They're fallen victims to a fascist regime. They've given up on caring about the future. There is no future. The blank generation. Vast swathes of the globe with no economic future. Not economically viable.
The pram scene is disturbing. Far more so than the cafe scene. Hints of collaboration. And also, again, no future. A lot of people, in the real world, were talking about bringing another generation into a world that made it impossible to thrive. Thatcher made things so much worse after 1979. But it was all on the cards because no other way out seemed plausible. And the new world hoodwinked everyone into thinking the old world was so much worse.
You just had to be there, in London, at the time. What went before punk failed to materialize. The hippies opted out, as did the punks, giving the elite a free ride to 2024. It must be remembered that a lot of the early gigs circa 1976 - 1980 were being organized and run by old hippies, bikers, and hells angel types. People can think whatever about the 1970s. But I wish I had a time machine. And I wonder how many other people would turn back time.
Jarman was a great film maker. And Jubilee is his opus driving force.
Viv; "The end's inevitable. It's either now or later. It's what makes the present so vital."
The overview gets a bit ridiculous near the end. Westwood literally designed the DESTROY shirt with the upside-down crucifix and swastika on it. Punk flirted with Nazism in the same way comedies like The Producers and comedians like Freddie Starr flirted with it. Siouxie wore a swastika armband, sang Metal Postcard and other early stuff, but was no way a fascist. Likewise with Sid. Belsen was hardly a pro-fascist song.
Whatever Jarman meant, or people think he meant, Hitler in Buckingham Palace or some former royal residence could mean a lot. Comparing teenagers to a clearly fascistic establishment is farcical.
And likewise with the gay issue. People back in the 70s, and 80s, used to go gay bashing. And some immigrants got it too. Yet above and beyond such dreadful behaviour - are people not entitled to have an opinion? Are we all now forced to accept a narrative that says you must never use a word like queer because it might hurt someone's feelings? Are we supposed to accept a culture - but not be allowed to feel something about it that does not chime with that culture? That's fascism. If someone is homophobic, and makes it known, condemning them is creating an enemy, as opposed to teaching them about the failure of their fear.
A free society should be allowed to express itself. Even if you do not agree with the sentiments. Just so long as no abuse or violence gets promoted.
Ban words if you want. But that notion will be abused. It is being abused. Everyone is now anti-Semitic if they do accept a genocide in Gaza. Bombing an embassy is fine because it's a Muslim embassy. But retaliation is not fine. The word bloody was banned on British TV around 1973. programs were banned in 1976. The Pistols were banned. Clackers (look it up) and conkers on string were banned - because they might hurt a child. The playground witches hat was banned because children were losing fingers on it. Hate speech should definitely be condemned. But banning stuff leads nowhere good. Just get a grip on yourself.
Hideous inaccuracies in this.