Directors, Actors, Audiences: Dynamism of Instability Love or politics; the man or the king: these are the polarities of choice for a director of Edward II. individual tragedy of love, with politics only the politics of sex, is the emphasis of the most widely-known modern production, Derek Jarman's film adaptation? range of focuses with which the play can be staged admits of no simple summary. Within its chronicle narrative there is a dramatized debate, complex but readily recognizable for the first audience, about the responsibilities are the obverse of the king's rights--responsibilities to the Church, to the nobility, and to the commonwealth. How far political drama is brought to the fore, how it interacts with the love story of Edward and Gaveston, and how love story itself is seen--with its mixture of on one side idyllic ideal and ruinous obsession, and on the other exploitative manipulation and real devotion--is open to a variety of presentations. Until the king's defeat any audience is likely to be alternately drawn to and repelled by each of the main characters--Edward, Gaveston, Isabella, Mortimer. This unstable network of interacting attractions and repulsions is complicated by a political conflict of complex and varying rights and wrongs which similarly stabilizes only late in the action, as legitimate power passes to Edward III, and Mortimer hardens into a pure overweening Machiavel. Instabilities of judgment in relation to character and political arguments are further complicated by the play's aesthetic variety--its mixture of chronicle-type realism with (moral) emblems or tableaux; and its partly loose structure is complemented by patterned echoes and symmetries. While all these elements give directors, actors, and audiences a good deal of freedom of interpretation and response, response is also steered by guidance written into the text about expressive action, costuming, and setting. first audiences and modern audiences equally are likely to feel Marlowe invites a range of responses to and judgments about Edward. However sympathetic the presentation, his feelings are bound to appear from the start in some measure egotistical and self-absorbed. He is cruel and violent towards Isabella; his accusations about her relations with Mortimer are, at best, no more than partially justified. He is careless of the common good in his attitudes to taxation (the use of the broad seal [2.2.146-7]) and to invasion (by the French [2.2.9-10; 3.1.66-8], elaborated in relation to the Irish, Scots, and Danes [2.2.160-66]: all in the context of his overriding pre-occupation with Gaveston). (2) Edward's failure at Bannockburn--the great national disgrace of his reign--is presented all too credibly as characteristic (2.2.178-94). His feelings leave him open to manipulation by the unscrupulous (as appears to be in his opening soliloquy; as Spencer and Baldock appear to be in their first exchanges). He sees only his rights in a complex context of rights are recognized as not absolute, but as entailing responsibilities. Limitation of the Church's power proper in Elizabethan terms (Edward's thoroughly Tudor denunciation ofProud Rome [1.4.96-103]) does not sanction unprovoked attacks on churchmen (the Bishop of Coventry [1.1.185-205]). While much draws an audience's sympathies from Edward, his homosexuality is largely treated neutrally. To Coventry, his favorite is that wicked Gaveston (1.1.175) (which must surely mean sexually corrupt), and the barons express some contempt for him as Edward's minion; but, though this can be made to appear homophobic--as it emphatically is in Derek Jarman's film--it is entangled with, and can largely be absorbed into, the barons' class antagonisms. Broadly, the play takes the view of Mortimer Senior: The mightiest kings have had their minions (1.4.390). Edward's love for is a matter of indifference so long as it does not impinge on affairs of state. …
Read full abstract