"The Uprising" Falls Short
Why do they keep making movies about this guy? Maybe the last time anyone was excited to see a Robin Hood movie was in 1938 with The Adventures of Robin Hood, but we’re past that. A good Robin Hood movie can be made, and this is a solid attempt. Yet Mr. shaky-cam Paul Greengrass gets lost in the frenzy of his own style, where the picture loses momentum. It seems to end once, then another time, and another. It’s one climax followed by another. The movie rises, then falls, then rises again. By the second rise, the audience can feel the collective exhaustion from all the action. It’s okay to make a movie motivated by action. But if not paced well, it becomes frustrating.
If not for the name Robin Hood, this movie doesn’t stand out from many other similar stories about the poor fighting back against the rich. Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) is a simple farmer and a simple character. The film explores some of Ploughman’s past and internal struggles, but it's unengaging. This is due to terrible pacing. Paul Greengrass is known for quick cutting to make you feel like you’re in the moment. Yet this movie cuts between violent crises happening even when other instances already seem resolved. I don’t care if it’s meant as dramatic misdirection; it’s not the best way to keep the audience hooked. King Richard II (Woody Norman) is a more interesting character than the protagonist, who feels more like a collective consciousness than an individual. Although we despise the King in the end, he shows signs of hope at the beginning. Ploughman, however, is rightfully rageful. His anger is fueled by his sorrow when losing his family to the Black Death.
Instead of helping the poor, the Kingdom of England raises taxes to save face politically by avoiding taxing the Church. Even before mega churches and Jesus Camps existed, the men of God went against the Lord's teachings to feed their vanity. Stuck with nothing, one day Ploughman snaps. He’s being charged again for the death taxes on his family, although he can barely afford to live. At the same time, the soldiers decide to inspect the genitalia of the children to see if they should be taxed as adults or not. This is enough to force Ploughman to fight back, killing a guard and leading the other peasants into a violent revolt. At least back in the 1300s, folks knew what to do with pedophiles.
The themes of The Uprising are powerful in its first act. The first ten minutes of the picture work quite well. Once the revolution starts, it seems to hurry itself to a conclusion. At one point, the movie could have ended. It would have been completely historically inaccurate, but it would have been a nice message about diplomacy winning. The movie has a problem knowing who to make us care more about. The King or the Ploughman. This is supposed to be Robin Hood’s story; thus, it has a predictable outcome. We know the villain will lose and the hero will win. The picture explores Ploughman’s dichotomy with the King. Other than their dreams, both are fueled by fear and rage. King Richard II, at 14, is too young to rule a Kingdom. So he fears the people's rage. With no family and no money left. And a Kingdom who shows no care at all for him, Ploughman resorts to the only emotion he can find that can bring terror upon its leaders in hope for change. When the two finally confront one another, the confrontation seems to be a pack of conclusions crammed into one messy sardine.
Paul Greengrass likes to make movies with historical accuracy. However, his pseudo-documentary style doesn’t work here. It’s not like cutting to the control towers in United 93 or the NSA in the Bourne movies. The clipping between people being beheaded and a document being signed in this movie is disjointed. Even more, Greengrass's digital cameras look cheap. The sensors blur when there’s too much action on screen. This should look like a movie set in that time period; celluloid’s illusion of movement is the only way to go unless you’re making this movie for television. Which is what the format makes it look like. There are interesting attempts here at telling the story of the peasants' uprising in 1381. With a little more time structuring the movie’s story and pace, Paul Greengrass could have made a fantastic, topical picture. Instead, he makes a convoluted movie that stumbles after its rise.
