Cast: Michael Smiley, Reece Shearsmith, Julian Barratt
Director: Ben Wheatley
Country: UK
Genre: Drama | History | Thriller
Official Site: Here
Editor’s Notes: The following review is part of our coverage of the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival. For more information on the festival visit http://tiff.net and follow TIFF on Twitter at @TIFF_NET.
Ben Wheatley is a filmmaker who is taking the genre scene by storm. He has a way of toying with his audience. He takes an idea and twists it around and churns out a piece of art. His films don’t connect with all audiences, but isn’t that part of the fun? Witnessing daring filmmakers who are willing to take risks and expose it all. Wheatley could play it safe and stick to ultraviolent, straightforward genre films but he continues to demonstrate a wicked imagination.
The film is incredibly inaccessible. It’s refreshing when a filmmaker respects his/her audience enough to allow them to piece the film together, but A Field in England is an exercise in futility, confusion and frustration which ultimately leads to disinterest.
All things considered, A Field in England will polarize audiences. The film is incredibly inaccessible. It’s refreshing when a filmmaker respects his/her audience enough to allow them to piece the film together, but A Field in England is an exercise in futility, confusion and frustration which ultimately leads to disinterest.
The film is set in the 17th century during the English civil war. A group of four deserters from both sides leave the battlefield in search of an ale house. Whitehead (Reece Shearsmith) emerges as the early point of interest. Whitehead is a coward, but he’s a well-educated man with an agenda. The men stumble through a field when they encounter a mysterious, powerful man named O’Neil (Michael Smiley). It’s at this point where audiences will either abandon ship or stay alongfor the ride. O’Neil’s arrival is a bit of a puzzle and his power over the men is even more mysterious. Under O’Neil’s guidance, the men set out to find treasure in the field.
The rest of the film becomes a mash of men stumbling through a field in a mushroom-induced haze. The pace becomes jagged and the cinematography matches the chaos that ensues on-screen. There is one sequence in particular which is an assault on the senses. When you feel like you need to plug your ears or look away, that’s by design. It’s a bizarre sequence that will place audiences in the mind of a person who is tripping on drugs. Soon after said “trippy” sequence, Laurie Rose (Cinematographer) catches some truly mind-bending visuals that will either hypnotize or repulse (maybe a bit of both).
The cinematography is worth noting. Rose and Wheatley captured beautiful imagery of the English countryside. The pair made the choice to shoot A Field in England in black and white, the monotone palette giving it a timeless look, conveying the surface of a classic war film. Black and white has a way of numbing the violence on-screen, à la Kill Bill Vol. 1. That’s one constant in Wheatley’s films: the audience can count on graphic, stomach-turning violence. O’Neil is quite often the instigator of said violence.
Smiley’s performance as O’Neil is haunting, domineering and downright frightening! Wheatley has used Smiley in previous films (Down Terrace and Kill List). The actor has a magnetic bad guy charm to him: his screen presence is spectacular and his performance is spot-on.
The remaining cast members bring much to the table. There is a lot of funny banter involving the dim-witted character named Friend (Richard Glover). He has a bit of dialogue near the end of the film that is sure to receive a round of applause. Jacob (Peter Ferdinando) also adds an element of humor and darkness.
The cinematography is worth noting. Rose and Wheatley captured beautiful imagery of the English countryside. The pair made the choice to shoot A Field in England in black and white, the monotone palette giving it a timeless look, conveying the surface of a classic war film.
The film has beautiful cinematography, an interesting premise, captivating characters and terrific performances all around, yet it manages to fall short. Wheatley took the “mind-bending” knob and cranked it far too hard this time around. As the film unfolds it becomes more abstract, more confusing and comes off as pretentious. Is there something lost in cultural translation? Is Wheatley’s vision beyond the grasp of simpletons like myself? Was the project too ambitious? My vote goes to all of the above.
[notification type=”star”]40/100 ~ BAD. A Field in England has beautiful cinematography, an interesting premise, captivating characters and terrific performances all around, yet it manages to fall short. Wheatley took the “mind-bending” knob and cranked it far too hard this time around. [/notification]
