It robs the rich actors but then gives to the poor pacing.
Paul Greengrass’ latest film “The Uprising” focuses on the Peasant Revolt, and then a few weeks before its release, the ads make it out to be a prequel of sorts to the story of Robin Hood. The new tagline, which has confused movie goers, says: “Witness the Rise of Robin Hood.” And then, Focus Features released a trailer with the leading man Andrew Garfield dressed in green and being implied as Robin Hood. The Peasant Revolt began with the Black Death, which killed off half the population, the taxes that were resulted from the conflict with France during the Hundred Years’ War, and the instability with the leadership of London. This movie isn’t about Robin Hood, but rather the peasants trying to fight for the right causes. There’s no direct historical link, especially when the name already existed before the Peasant Revolt. I think the people who run the big ad campaign need to study their history right. Not while watching movies.
If this movie falsely advertises as a Robin Hood movie, then it would be too outdated especially when we just had “The Death of Robin Hood,” which made the folk hero into a murderer. It’s a shame it bombed at the box office, because I really enjoyed where it was going and what version of the story it wanted to tell, and Hugh Jackman was dark and brilliant in the role. “The Uprising” is a film made by Greengrass, who never exploits real tragedies for entertainment purposes (examples include “Bloody Sunday” about the shootings in Derry, Northern Ireland, “United 93” about the plane that was hijacked and prevented from hitting our nation’s capital, “Captain Phillips” about the merchant mariner held hostage by Somali pirates, and “The Lost Bus” about the school bus escaping from the 2018 Camp Fire). Here, he uses the right actors to display the darkness of the Peasant Revolt, but he doesn’t have the narrative or pacing to bring it all together. In fact, at times, we wonder what is going on with the shaky camera angles.
As the film begins, young Richard II (Woody Norman) has just taken his father’s throne at the age of 14, and is having nightmares about his future. And since he’s young and indisposed, the decisions for England are made by the council (Tom Hollander as Treasurer Hales, Stephen Dillane as Archbishop Sudbury, and Jonny Lee Miller as William Walworth), while his mother Joan of Kent (Katherine Waterston) is the countess. And their decisions greatly affect the hardworking peasants.
Andrew Garfield stars as a widowed farmer, labeled by the film as “Ploughman,” who has had it with all the taxes the kingdom takes out of the hungry, hardworking peasants. And therefore, he begins a revolt, and collaborates with the former military Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), the priest John Ball, and a tomboy named Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie). They all make the long trek to London to petition the king, and even after they make him listen to their demands, and even after they slaughter the council in the streets, Richard II transitions into a sadistic monster.
Before the misleading “Robin Hood” promotions, “The Uprising” is a film I wanted to like, especially when it’s directed by Greengrass and stars Garfield. These are two great talents, and his direction and his acting are what helps the movie speak for the right causes at the time. I liked the actor’s connection with McKenzie when she tries to talk some sense into him, and Norman does a good job displaying Richard II’s mental problems at his age. But there’s not much that stands out within the supporting cast, as they’re basically caught in the same situations. The shaky camera angles bounce around to the point of confusion and inconsistencies, and they distract us from the narrative.
I can’t speak for the historians or target audience, but I can speak for Greengrass fans and anyone who needs a good retelling of a revolt. We like that he wants to represent that, but he needs the right pacing and structure.
