By Evan Allred
Picture this: it is the year 1381 and the Black Plague has swept across your land. Just as you begin to deal with the fallout that has come about to your family and your city, the king issues a tax that you simply cannot afford. Something must be done.
“The Uprising” follows the story of a farmer by the name of Ploughman (Andrew Garfield). He is a nobody who has lost his entire family to the plague. Upon entering the city, Ploughman learns that the king (Woody Norman) has issued a tax against the peasants and none of the people are happy. In a fit of rage, Ploughman kills a soldier and becomes a town hero. This Moses-esque character quickly rises from zero to hero.
This film is based upon the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. This sad historical event refers to the time in which the many peasants of England rose up against the young King Richard II against a poll tax placed upon them. No party truly won in this revolt as all were brutally impacted by the Black Plague and its consequences. Death compounded upon death and hate upon hate when people became greedy.
The film does a great job in hiding the antagonists. It is difficult to root for a particular side of the revolt as it seems both sides might originally be justified—but each side goes too far. The audience is forced to make a moral decision and pick who to root for. The peasants want recompense in intense bloodshed, while the government seeks to tax the people far more than they can bear.
While Ploughman is the protagonist within the story, he is not the only leader of the revolt. Both Priest John Ball (Jamie Bell) and Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis) lead the peasants in their revolt, but they go to far more extreme lengths than that of Ploughman. They want more bloodshed from the government and focus on making the council pay for their wrongdoings.
The film does very well in its plot, but the timing is poorly done. Ploughman receives little to no introduction and receives hero status from killing a soldier in less than ten minutes into the film. The king’s sideplot of his rapid coming to age fits oddly into the narrative. And the final scene of the movie seems out of place and could have been left out entirely or been massively changed.
Despite this, one positive about the film is the placement of the violence. The many fight scenes are exciting and come at times that hugely impact the plot. Every fight scene seems to be some sort of turning point within the narrative.
Interestingly, “The Uprising” underwent a name change by U.S. distributors, and was briefly called “The Uprising: The Rise of Robinhood.” This was quickly reverted back to the original title, but raises many questions. Is Ploughman Robin Hood? Is the film actually about the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 at all?
The answers to these questions were not really answered by these rapid name changes, but what is important is the final name. Thankfully, they chose to stick with the original name instead of forcing the legend of Robinhood into this historically-founded film. While this movie is considered historical fiction, it does hold fast to many historical events within the revolt and it is fantastic to see this come to fruition without the overused legend of Robinhood.
If you watch this movie, you should be prepared for the gore of this film, as there is a lot of blood and violence. The film’s pacing will take you on a rollercoaster ride around sections of plot that are faster than others—always anticipating every next fight. If you choose to root for the peasants, you are in for some exciting fights. Yet, if you choose to root for the king, you will be on the edge of your seat praying for his character development.
“The Uprising” is currently playing in theaters
Evan Allred is a fourth-year MDiv and writer for Cedars in the Arts & Entertainment department. If he could yield any weapon from this movie, it would be Ploughman’s sickle.
Images courtesy of Blumhouse Productions
No Replies to "‘The Uprising’ turns a sorrowful historical event into cinematic excellence"