Movie “The Uprising”: The rich could get s#$$

All weather. Did actor Andrew Garfield actually quickly take on the richest people in the world? At a press conference for Paul Greengrass' new film "The Uprising", in which Garfield plays a taciturn English farmer named "Ploughman" (in the 14th century, you are named after what you do, and someone who tries to wrest a barren harvest from the merciless earth is a "plowman"), the former Spider-Man actor explained to the media that he hoped billionaires would watch the film - and then be fed up.

The statement made the rounds, also because the term “scared shitless” that Garfield used was mostly substituted with typographic symbols due to the “shit” ban, which in turn is classic clickbait. But if a billionaire makes it to a screening of “The Uprising,” will he actually get cranky?

The film tells of a historical peasant revolt, the English “peasant’s revolt” of 1381. The “Black Death” raged in Europe, carried off many workers and also Plowman’s family and left the people highly traumatized. The “lords” and landowners, who report to the 14-year-old, mentally unstable King Richard II (Woody Norman), still exploit their subjects: Given the dire food situation, the king's soldiers show no mercy, collect the money they don't have by force, and sexually assault young women. Until Plowman, who has nothing left to lose, rebels furiously - and sparks a revolt that brings the farmers all the way to London with pitchforks and axes.

They are officially led by two historical figures, the priest John Ball (Jamie Bell) and the ex-soldier Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis); During the march they refer to the legendary “Books of Doomsday”, which is supposed to guarantee the status of free-born people, and above all they want to overthrow the king's no-good council. However, the revolt degenerates into a massacre that no longer has anything to do with “justice”.

Because London-based traders and craftsmen are taking advantage of the chaos to pluck their own bloody chickens. In addition, the power-hungry Council gives the wrong advice to the king, who is weak in decision-making, and in the end he legendaryally breaks his word to the insurgents who are actually loyal to him.

Greengrass' filmic aesthetic relies primarily on performative violence in slow motion, on punching and stabbing, on orgiastic murder and assassination. The flowing blood sometimes almost drags the interesting psychology of the story away. If Garfield still wants to address modern and (as is often the case in the USA) right-wing rich with his statement, it is to be hoped that his gentle swipe drowns out the aforementioned sound of sword and ax hits to the body.

By the way, the film is a co-production between companies from the USA, Germany and Great Britain, was shot entirely in Bavaria, and received at least two of its stated eleven million dollar budget from the Bavarian film and television fund. And that fits Garfield quite well: On a current billionaires list consisting of 78 countries, the USA, Germany and Great Britain take first (902 billionaires), fourth (171 billionaires) and tenth (55 billionaires) places - a lot of people who could get s#$$.

Today's rich would only have to accept the parable, support the fight for justice and against capitalist exploitation, and contritely compare themselves with the evil Council. But cinema can work wonders.