Andrew Garfield leads a righteous revolt in timely tyranny takedown The Uprising
Courtesy Focus Features
When I think of Robin Hood, I think of the orange fox in the green tunic with a bow and arrow, with Little John and Maid Marian and all the Merry Men happily stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor. It’s bright, colorful, and ends happily.
In The Uprising, however, the story of the man behind the hood is far more grim, dark, and real.
Now, the “Robin Hood’ aspect was tacked on to the title (The Uprising: Rise of Robin Hood) about a month before the movie hit theaters. It was a bit of a shock, to say the least, to see their marketing try something new mere weeks before release. The earliest known recordings of the legendary Robin Hood date to 1377, four years before the events of this film. I could see some Hood-esque moments in the movie, but I’m not sure whether or not he was actually a playing character in this. I don’t think historians know his true identity yet, anyways.
But I digress.
The Uprising, written and directed by Paul Greengrass (United 93, Bloody Sunday), retells the true story behind the revolution of the ‘True Common’, the people of Great Britain who live and work on the outskirts of the island country. Andrew Garfield plays the lead character, a farmer only called Ploughman because, as he tells the Chief Justice, “I am what I do.”
He doesn’t need a name; he just needs to work.
A mere seven years after the Black Plague decimated the population, Ploughman and all of the common people worked from sun up to sun down, only for King Richard II and his counsel to raise their taxes even more. Ploughman leads his people, along with rebel groups from countless other counties, to petition the young king.
Garfield’s performance started quiet, albeit discontent, but almost embarrassed to have started something that got too big and too fast for him. He is haunted by the family he lost to the plague, and he is bone tired from working as hard and as long as he needs to. By the end of the film, however, Ploughman becomes the angry rebel leader I wish would appear today. His choice of weaponry was the cherry on top for me.
Woody Norman plays the 14-year-old King Richard II, a wide-eyed and terrified child who was the first in line for the throne at the age of 10 when his father died. He is smothered by his council and his mother, referred to only as the Countess, is forced to watch from the sidelines. She may be the mother to the crown, but she’s still a woman in the 1300s. For better or for worse, she could only sit back and watch everything unfold. I’m not going to spoil anything, but I resonated with her and all the emotions her teenage king made her feel, especially towards the end.
I gotta say, I am a sucker for period pieces, especially when it comes to hair, makeup, and costuming. While, of course, the film followed the ‘True Common’ with their worn tunics and shawls of tan, beige, and brown, I had to suppress a squeal every time the Countess, played by Katherine Waterston, came on screen. She was the only female character in the king’s court, so her dresses and hairstyles were a sight to behold: pearl-studded jewelry and decadent gowns of burgundy and royal blue.
Courtesy Focus Features
While we didn’t get to see much of the Commoners’ journey itself, cinematographer Pål Ulvik Rokseth (22 July, The Last House) used shaky-cam footage that made me feel like I was marching in the rebellion, too. I could practically smell the sweat, mud, and soot that drenched the marchers. The shakiness grew even more frantic and disorienting during pivotal fight scenes, which amplified my feelings tenfold.
The Uprising, though taking place almost 700 years ago, had a very poignant message that could very much apply to today. There were several lines of dialogue that gave me chills, even thinking about them again now. Andrew Garfield and the entire cast gave an incredible performance in this inspiring film about tyranny, rebellion, and justice. I’ll see you guys at the next No Kings protest.
