by Jake Bourgeois, Contributing Writer
As a history buff, I’m always game to sit down for a new historical tale, especially one I am unfamiliar with. It’s why I find World War II movies so fascinating, there’s always a new struggle, a new story of perseverance to dig down and shine a light on.
I got the same feeling when I first heard about the new film by Paul Greengrass, starring Andrew Garfield about the Peasants’ Revolt—an event I was, to that point, completely unaware of—and fascinated to be fed this cinematic version.
Garfield plays a farmer, or Ploughman, who lights the fire on a revolt of the common folk in England after being pushed too far by the taxes in the aftermath of the plague in the 14th century. Whether he’s a real person or not doesn’t really matter, he functions fantastically as an audience stand-in at the middle of the revolt’s leadership. He’s an easy-in for us because we can understand the initial torment that leads him to taking a stand and what makes him so great is he never loses himself along the way. While the dynamics at play are constantly shifting, what he wants never shifts: to make an appeal to the king himself, tear him away from what he viewed as the corrupting power of those around him, and get rights for the people, through the end of the serf system. It’s the most measured plan put forward and his desire to limit bloodshed makes him easy to root for. Throughout everything, Garfield’s ability to act just with his face easily conveys the emotions he is processing from moment to moment. It’s a great lead performance from an actor that’s always choosing interesting projects.
Garfield’s not alone though. There are good performances on both sides of this conflict.
When it comes to his fellow peasants, Cosmo Jarvis (Shōgun) as Wat Tyler was a more nuanced performance than I expected. A former soldier, there was more to him than I thought when he first showed up on screen. Jamie Bell, as excommunicated and recently liberated John Ball, provides the most hardline view and brings some fieriness to the leadership team. Though I’m always happy to see Thomasin McKenzie, her performance as a former nun left me a bit wanting until she gets a great emotional moment later in the film that stood out. The trio, when in a group with Garfield’s character, provide a complete tableau of the forces they are attempting to change.
On the royals’ side, it was great to see both Tom Hollander (Pirates of the Caribbean) and Stephen Dillane (Game of Thrones) back on screen being hate-able as two members of the king’s council. As for the king himself, Richard II, Woody Norman (C’mon C’mon) gives a great child performance in a role that requires the young ruler to show some range—from a young, scared king to one that has to step up and deal with a crisis—and he handles the requirement well. However, I was not expecting to come out of the movie liking Katherine Waterston’s (Fantastic Beasts) performance so much, but as Richard’s mother, she provides a bit of softness I was not expecting.
When it comes to the technical side, Greengrass comes into the movie with a recognizable style, utilizing handheld shooting, but it’s a style that I think really fits with the story that’s being told. The on-the-ground feel that it evokes really fits what the movie wants to get across from the populist uprising and also heightens the tense moments where the mob is driving the action or some other medieval brutality is being portrayed. It’s the perfect application of his very particular style, even if there are still the odd moments where I wish the visuals would come across a little clearer.
Now, as I said before, I’m usually more than happy to let history be history and let cinematic retellings take their artistic liberties. (Do I care that Gladiator fudges around with who Commodus really was? I do not.) However, when an American marketer just decides to start trumpeting some sort of Robin Hood connection that leaves prospective audience members and the UK distributors scratching their heads, you’re just begging me to look into it. Frankly, the only reason I even bothered to was to back up my research, because everyone with a basic knowledge of the mythical character knows it takes place during the reign of Richard the Lionheart, which this is most definitely not. However, the fact that our fictional Ploughman could be a nod to Piers Plowman, who wrote down the first literary version of the character around the time the revolt occurred, is fun a possible connection, but that also disregards the oral tradition of the character that preceded its written appearance (spoilers for history). Though the movie perhaps winks and nods at the connection, they don’t make it obvious, so feel free to ignore it as I did. Also, I’m not sure what Focus Features thought they were really achieving, I mean when was the last time the character of Robin Hood was attached to a box office winner?
Despite Focus’ best efforts to get me in my own head about the movie, it largely succeeded at what it was actually trying to do: put a gritty, cinematic version of a medieval uprising in front of me that entertained and intrigued me about a moment in history of which I was previously unaware. The less said about the other guy, the better.
Rating: Liked It
The Uprising is currently available to watch in theaters.
You can read more from Jake Bourgeois, and follow him on Bluesky and Letterboxd