Spanish philosopher George Santayana is credited with the maxim “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The quote comes from “The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress,” Santayana’s five-volume philosophical work, published between 1905 and 1906. British statesman Winston Churchill echoed the sentiment in a 1948 speech to the British House of Commons, saying “those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Well … yay! Here in the 21st century, we all know this aphorism. If we accept it as true, and we commit ourselves to studying history and avoiding that trap of forgetting past mistakes because they will lead to the same disasters, civilization should have smooth sailing from this point forward, right? Right?
It doesn’t currently feel like we’re experiencing fair winds and following seas. It doesn’t even feel like we’re on the right track. Maybe that’s because history isn’t always straightforward. The study of the human record and human behavior over time depends upon the accuracy of written, visual, and spoken sources, as well as its interpretation and analysis. It is subjective, and it can be influenced by contemporary values and politics. It can be censored by oppressors to maintain power. It can be rewritten to control the public narrative. It can be erased to justify tyranny.
Speaking of tyranny, “The Uprising” examines a 14th century incident most known in modern history books as the Peasants’ Revolt. Directed by Paul Greengrass, the film was released on Sept. 10 in the United States through Focus Features. At best, it is a dreary dramatization that reduces to bare bones the socio-economic and political tensions that precipitated the protest. Greengrass goes to great lengths to convey a strong sense of atmosphere, relying on a predominantly gray color palette, shadows, mist, and perhaps too many digital-effects enhanced drone shots of medieval London. What’s missing is genuine character engagement. Most of the characters fail to leave an impression and never evoke an emotional response from the viewer.
The film opens with a few onscreen notes: It is 1381 and half the population of England is dead from the Black Plague. Common folk — peasants and rural agricultural workers — are facing extreme hardships while coping with the loss of family members. The film illustrates this by showing the Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) tilling a muddy plot of land and visiting the graves of his wife and children. As he toils on the wind-beaten fens of east England, a council of self-serving advisors are basically calling the shots as 14-year-old King Richard II (Woody Norman) grapples with all the responsibilities that come with the crown. Desperate to raise funds to finance England’s wars — in Scotland and France, we’re told — the council enacts a brutal poll tax on the peasantry, because taxing the church and the merchant class would be political suicide.
The tax collectors sent by the council arrive in a small village where the people assert that adhering to the new tax law will leave them unable to survive. One of the officials also demands that the Ploughman pay death taxes again on his family because he lacks documentation proving they died seven years earlier. As the crowd grows more hostile, the Ploughman intervenes in a violent assault, killing a soldier.
The Ploughman’s actions inspire additional peasant revolts across the region. As word spreads, leaders emerge. In addition to the Ploughman, the uprising is led by Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), a soldier who served the military under the king’s late father; and John Ball (Jamie Bell), a proto-Protestant priest branded a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church. They decide to lead their forces to London to petition the king, whom they believe is being held hostage by the oligarchs of the council.
According to history books, the rebels arrived in Blackheath on the outskirts of London on June 12, 1381. Their demands included the abolition of serfdom, freedom of movement and labor, and the removal of corrupt royal advisors.
To find out what happened, you can trudge through the soggy fields with the Ploughman by watching “The Uprising,” or you can read a history book.
Something about “The Uprising” just doesn’t click. The viewer feels no real connection with Garfield’s character. Likewise, the script only gives us glimpses as to the personalities of other key members of the uprising. Oddly, a less important character, Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie), gets a more generous helping of backstory, but her inclusion has no real impact on the film’s plot.
The script handles King Richard II more diligently, providing a legitimate example of personal growth — although not necessarily an encouraging one. The king’s mother, Joan of Kent (Katherine Waterston), is equally established as a convincing character, and is ably depicted by Waterston.
But it’s not enough. “The Uprising” comes across as a high-budget History Channel reenactment without the benefit of context or empathy. There is no passion and no sense of enthusiasm for a more just society.
Spoiler: The epilogue, which takes place one year following the march on London, seems to be the point of this entire exercise. The Ploughman is now living in the woods with a band of militant dissenters, presumably robbing from the rich to give to the poor. In other words, “The Uprising” may as well have been titled “Robin Hood Begins.” Where’s Christopher Nolan?
Lee Clark Zumpe is entertainment editor at Tampa Bay Newspapers, a Tomatometer-Approved Critic, and an author of short fiction. He can be reached by email at lzumpe@TBNweekly.com.