The Uprising turns a medieval insurrection into chaotic modern myth
Paul Greengrass waggles his camera all over the place in his grim, muddy, simpleminded Middle Ages revolt.
Photo: Focus Features
There’s a misapprehension among a certain kind of filmmaker and filmgoer that when something is muddier it’s more realistic, and when it’s more realistic it’s better. It’s become shorthand for R-rated period pieces like The Uprising, which is nothing if not muddy.
Despite what the film’s conflicted marketing may have teased, The Uprising isn’t a Robin Hood movie, even though it does share some qualities with The Death Of Robin Hood: It’s a grim tale mired in the muck of semi-historical fact and soggy fields, its court politics and bloody battles striving self-seriously to conform to the standards expected by a present-day audience. Filmed with writer-director Paul Greengrass’ characteristic handheld instability, supplemented by mockumentary-style sitcom zooms, this chaotic retelling of the Great Uprising in Late-Middle-Ages England aspires to a modern aesthetic of realism and to a modern understanding of its rebellion.
That should lend the forgettable action and simple story an elevating resonance, the coming-together of the common people to confront their political and economic exploiters speaking to our modern moment, just like the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt has spoken to other Western revolutions over the centuries. But even if the trickle-down pains weathered by these serfs remain relatable—even before the film mentions the trauma of the Black Death plague, or drops cringe-inducing lines of dialogue with zeitgeist-born descriptors like “deplorables” and phrases like “no kings”—that doesn’t mean The Uprising‘s broad storytelling is a particularly enjoyable or effective way of making that connection.
Keep scrolling for more great stories.