The Uprising, a new movie directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Andrew Garfield, releases in theatres on September 11. It tells the true story of the Peasants’ Revolt, which took place in England in 1381.
Check out the trailer below. It features lots of dirt, grime and peasantry. You can tell who the king is, because he’s not covered in shit.
However, when the trailer says ‘inspired by a true story,’ what it really means is that the true events merely serve as a jumping off point for yet another Robin Hood origin story.
The Uprising’s US social media marketing team has given the game away. Brace yourself for the most unimaginative subtitle (‘The Rise of Robin Hood’) and tagline (‘Witness the rise of Robin Hood’) you’ve ever heard.
This information has been kept under wraps until now, even in the trailer. Andrew Garfield’s character was simply known as ‘the Ploughman.’
We now know that ‘The Ploughman’ is a clue to the character’s true identity, seeing as William Langland’s 14th century poem, Piers Plowman, contains the earliest known reference to the famous bandit.
But if Robin Hood’s appearance in The Uprising was intended to be a plot twist, why reveal it now, two weeks before release?
It doesn’t appear to be a mistake by the marketing team. More likely, the movie wasn’t tracking well and the studio panicked that US audiences wouldn’t know much about, let alone give a damn about, The Peasants’ Revolt.
Robin Hood is a known brand. Surely namedropping him would drum up some interest.
I guess it worked, but probably not in the way they intended.
Internet outrage
The revelation has sparked something of a backlash online. For once, the whiners may have a point. The main bones of contention are as follows:
- Do we need another Robin Hood origin movie?
- Why are the filmmakers cheapening the story of the Peasants’ Revolt by packaging it with a character best known for wearing tights?
- The Peasants’ Revolt ft Robin Hood is anachronistic. Robin is usually associated with the reign of King Richard I and King John, around 200 years earlier.
You could argue that Robin Hood appearing in the 14th Century is acceptable. He is fictional, after all, or at least an archetype/amalgam of many outlaws and criminals.
But the Peasants’ Revolt already has a cast of colourful real-life outlaws, like Wat Tyler and John Ball. if Robin Hood had taken part in the Peasants’ Revolt, he wouldn’t be a myth, would he?
Robin Hood works best when you put him further back in time and turn him into a cartoon fox.
Outlaws
Whether The Ploughman is literally Robin Hood or simply a Hood-like archetype is yet to be seen. It is true that the rich-versus-poor story of the Peasants’ Revolt has echoes of traditional Robin Hood tales.
But The Uprising already has two real life outlaws to base this movie around. Parachuting in another fictional one and centering the movie around him is a deliberate move. If only he can carry the movie, The Ploughman has to be more than just a subtle nod to Robin Hood.
With this marketing stunt (now reversed, in a remarkable attempt at putting the toothpaste back in the tube), Robin Hood is most likely going to attract all the attention in The Uprising, reducing Wat Tyler and John Ball to guest stars in their own movie. The Peasants’ Revolt is a great tale that needs little embellishing. But I guess that’s not enough for IP-obsessed Hollywood.
Are you more interested in The Uprising now you know Robin Hood is in it? I know one thing for sure – a lot more people are now aware of this movie’s existence. Task failed successfully.
