Is this a Robin Hood origin story? I’m not really sure. I don’t think the filmmakers were sure, either.
The main focus of this picture, written and directed by Paul Greengrass, is a peasant revolt in the late 1300s where a group of farmers and townsfolk descended on London to demand changes from King Richard II. At the time, the king, still a teenager, had a council making many of the decisions, including the levy of higher taxes.
Helping spark the revolt is a farmer who goes by Ploughman (Andrew Garfield), who kills a soldier to protect fellow citizens. The rest of his town and nearby communities rally behind him, as well as former soldier Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis) and priest John Ball (Jamie Bell), with a coalition forming to march on London and ask for relief.
While Greengrass has often been a reliable director when it comes to putting out good films, his latest effort is one of his weaker projects. That’s the case for a couple of reasons, the first is how the film is paced. The movie often, especially in the second half, builds up momentum as if a narrative climax is approaching, only for the protagonists to be met with a setback.
That in itself isn’t a non-starter. Plenty of movies have the heroes be met with obstacles and stumbles, but there has to be the right structure and appropriate level of buildup. This movie, though, puts a great deal of emphasis on certain moments without a proper level of payoff, exhausting an audience in roller coaster like fashion.
From a realism perspective, this is somewhat understandable, because revolutions are messy, unpredictable and don’t always go the way leaders expect. An episodic mini-series could pull that off, showing different issues week-to-week. However, in a two-hour movie format, it leads to an inconsistent watch.
The second problem is in who the flick centers on for a protagonist. See, Ploughman over the course of the film is also hinted at being the folk hero, Robin Hood. So, on top of being a movie about old world politics and peasant revolts, it’s also a pseudo-origin story for the bow wielding outlaw. It muddles things immensely.
Had the movie mainly just been about John Ball and Wat Tyler leading a well-meaning but unorganized revolt, it likely could have operated better as a historical drama with a more streamlined approach. But because it also focuses on this individual character, it only complicates things, leading to a viewer’s attention being pulled in too many directions.
That’s not to say the actual performance is poor. Garfield actually does respectable work portraying a humble man of the land who is forced into political conflict due to circumstance rather than passion in challenging the system. However, by making him also apparently Robin Hood, the character loses the everyman feel.
The rest of the cast, from Jarvis and Bell, to Woody Norman as King Richard II, are largely good, too. Had the plight of their characters and actions in response been better crafted, one could probably appreciate the dedicated performances more.
The same could be said for the efforts of Greengrass and his crew. The filmmaking is fine here, with good design to recreate the time period and establish grit, while capturing the passion and violence through camerawork. Yet the way the story and character elements come together ultimately trip up the positives. 2.75 out of 5.
Photo courtesy Focus Features.
