Despite not having grown up with Catholic iconography, as a gay man I knew that the paintings of St. Sebastian's martyrdom were considered by some to have homo erotic appeal. I have had to consult a saint's dictionary to find out exactly who the saint was, what he did, and why he's revered. The facts have little relevance to this film.
Jarman's Sebastiane seems to be an imagined back story of how homo eroticism might have come to be associated with the saint's imagery. The story's framework gives Jarman an opportunity to incorporate big themes into the film: persecution, alpha males, authority, love, unrequited love, devotion, loyalty, idealism, morality, and group dynamics. Religion, not so much. These themes are not editorialized, necessarily, other than being woven into the daily lives of a small group of Roman soldiers living in an isolated outpost.
While Sebastiane's Christianity is the reason he is persecuted by his comrades, Sebastiane does not evangelize. His Christianity, in the few instances he articulates it, seems to be a jumble of spiritual and erotic love for the Christian god and the god Apollo. Sebastiane's ideals also seem to be somewhat muddled. After a lengthy group training session with mock sword fights, he throws down his weapon and declares that Christians don't fight. His participation in the practice fight and his sudden refusal to continue don't make any logical sense; perhaps the scene is meant to be a metaphor for a gay man refusing to act straight any longer.
The whole movie is, of course, somewhat of a rumination about what it means to be a gay man and outside of the mainstream of male sexuality. It acknowledges that being male includes same sex activity, but it also makes it clear that exclusive same sex activity, especially if there is sentiment attached, is considered aberrant. In other words it's okay for straight males to screw each other, but it's not okay for them to love each other.
The film is often cited as an exercise in self-indulgent eroticism, and I'd agree it leans in that direction. The naked men are not hard to look at, especially the extraordinarily sexy Ken Hicks. There is a long slow-motion scene of him frolicking with his lover that would not be out of place as an introductory sequence in any '70s gay porn movie. I can understand intellectually why it deserves to be included, but I think the film would have been stronger--and taken more seriously--if those kinds of scenes had been minimized.
I found the end of the film somewhat unsatisfactory. Sebastiane's martyrdom looks more like target practice than an execution. I think that Jarman's having each soldier in turn shoot Sebastiane with an arrow was meant to symbolize something, but whatever it was eluded me. By stretching it out, the scene lost its power. I suppose it was done that way to emphasize the origin of the familiar homo erotic imagery of the saint, but it didn't feel right to me.
This film is required viewing for any student of gay cinema.
Jarman's Sebastiane seems to be an imagined back story of how homo eroticism might have come to be associated with the saint's imagery. The story's framework gives Jarman an opportunity to incorporate big themes into the film: persecution, alpha males, authority, love, unrequited love, devotion, loyalty, idealism, morality, and group dynamics. Religion, not so much. These themes are not editorialized, necessarily, other than being woven into the daily lives of a small group of Roman soldiers living in an isolated outpost.
While Sebastiane's Christianity is the reason he is persecuted by his comrades, Sebastiane does not evangelize. His Christianity, in the few instances he articulates it, seems to be a jumble of spiritual and erotic love for the Christian god and the god Apollo. Sebastiane's ideals also seem to be somewhat muddled. After a lengthy group training session with mock sword fights, he throws down his weapon and declares that Christians don't fight. His participation in the practice fight and his sudden refusal to continue don't make any logical sense; perhaps the scene is meant to be a metaphor for a gay man refusing to act straight any longer.
The whole movie is, of course, somewhat of a rumination about what it means to be a gay man and outside of the mainstream of male sexuality. It acknowledges that being male includes same sex activity, but it also makes it clear that exclusive same sex activity, especially if there is sentiment attached, is considered aberrant. In other words it's okay for straight males to screw each other, but it's not okay for them to love each other.
The film is often cited as an exercise in self-indulgent eroticism, and I'd agree it leans in that direction. The naked men are not hard to look at, especially the extraordinarily sexy Ken Hicks. There is a long slow-motion scene of him frolicking with his lover that would not be out of place as an introductory sequence in any '70s gay porn movie. I can understand intellectually why it deserves to be included, but I think the film would have been stronger--and taken more seriously--if those kinds of scenes had been minimized.
I found the end of the film somewhat unsatisfactory. Sebastiane's martyrdom looks more like target practice than an execution. I think that Jarman's having each soldier in turn shoot Sebastiane with an arrow was meant to symbolize something, but whatever it was eluded me. By stretching it out, the scene lost its power. I suppose it was done that way to emphasize the origin of the familiar homo erotic imagery of the saint, but it didn't feel right to me.
This film is required viewing for any student of gay cinema.