The Uprising Movie Review contains minor spoilers:
Paul Greengrass' The Uprising is at once compelling and a tad too simplistic in places, especially in how it grounds its story based on a 14th century peasant revolt. At the start of the film, a man named Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) reacts aggressively to an oppressive taxation system, instantly triggering a mass uprising and a march to London to petition King Richard II. As with his fellow revolutionaries, Ploughman believes that Richard II is a just and fair man whose tender age renders him powerless amidst corrupt councilors. Are Ploughman and his allies right in their assessment of Richard II, or is the young king just as corrupted by the idea of absolute power as the councilors? The Uprising has a fascinating storyline and achieves a level of immersion that makes it engaging for a large part. However, the film fumbles at the most pivotal point, where it resorts to an anticlimactic piece of revisionist history that tries to tie the story with the myth of Robin Hood. Greengrass swings for the fences, but he misses the mark more often than not.
Director: Paul Greengrass
Cast: Andrew Garfield, Woody Norman, Jamie Bell, Tom Hollander
Let us focus on the parts that work here. After a sluggish start to the film, Greengrass ratchets up the tension with a sequence where the peasants invade the royal halls. The moment is reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey with regard to the message of anti-violence and the sheer anarchy on display, with the peasants taking out their pent up frustration on the councilors while leaving mass casualties in their wake. Thus, Greengrass ensures that the film does not romanticise anarchy as a noble path towards change. The film is at its most intriguing when Ploughman and his closest allies start to question their faith and belief and even their cause amidst the rising violence in the streets. Garfield masterfully channels his character’s internal crisis, delivering one of the finest performances of his career.
However, the film loses its way when it imposes revisionism over an otherwise historically grounded story. Instead of steeping the narrative in existential dread, Greengrass takes a heavy-handed approach to history. Minor cinematic liberties are expected in such a story, but the issue with The Uprising is that these moments come all of a sudden out of the story, as if on a whim. Similar to how all other peasants rally behind Ploughman, as scores of men would with John Wayne in a Western, the history-altering stretches feel too cinematic and are in dissonance with the gritty reality of the story. Further, King Richard II's character arc in the film is not convincing enough. When he abruptly reclaims power and control, it is unclear what has been holding him back in the first place. And when he falls to a sudden ambush, you wonder whether it is this easy to bring down the King. While the screenplay hints at deeper motivations, its broad and convenient writing never gives these ideas room to breathe.
Despite the flaws, strong performances and technical craftsmanship redeem the film to an extent. The cinematography and the music, in particular, combine to transport the viewer to a horrific chapter from old England. Aside from a brief moment that employs a modern camera technique for a sweeping overhead shot, the cinematography adds up to a nihilistic and anarchist atmosphere that befits the story, serving as a parable on the perils of power and greed. Besides Andrew Garfield, the standout performance in The Uprising comes from young Woody Norman, who is a revelation in the role of Richard II of England. He shows equal amounts of restraint and dramatic prowess to make the King an empathetic figure and a looming, brooding presence capable of unleashing unimaginable evil. Now, if only Greengrass’ writing measured up to the task, we would have had a more spellbinding drama.
