A Field in England (2014)

Such an amazing film, the dream like nature of the ending. Truly loved it.

In this saga, where it's set in the 17th century in rural England where a nervous man goes along with three others during the chaos of a civil war to try and locate the man who vexed or did some wrong to his master and once he comes upon this sorcerer of sorts (O'Neil is his name, played by a great British character actor, Michael Smiley, you've seen him before somewhere) who makes this man and the others dig in the dirt to find treasure that may likely not be there, it's all about its unique sense of the world through visuals. This is black and white, grimy and gritty, where men have to squat and take s***ts and may end up being stung by nettles (or already have various ailments since it's g-ddamn 17th century backwoods England), and the director is one for bringing out the artifice in this stylized world, how it is all a moving painting after all.For the first hour I was digging what is a fairly unique experience, with a filmmaker really in love with the kinds of films that Herzog and perhaps Tarkovsky too made in their prime (Aguirre and Andrei Rublev come to mind at first, especially Herzog with the moments where the characters pause to be frozen - but we know they're being frozen as they intentionally pose - for tableaux that are funny and disturbing, but paintings all the same). It's also wildly violent at times, and the shock of it is visceral but it's also done in such a way that we shouldn't be too repelled by it since it already goes hand in hand with everything else around these people.There are hallucinatory touches here and there - a moment of intense screaming from Whitehead, as he follows O'Neil into a tent and proceeds to scream for a reason we can't see or know exactly why (call it the wiles of a sorcerer I guess) leads to Whitehead walking out of the tent being led by a rope tied around him, and it's done in the sort of intense slow-motion long take that might make von Trier sit up and take notice. It's a massive moment in a movie that is meant to wow us with visual splendor over plot, which is fine... until the last half hour when it becomes *only* that. Wheatley is working from a script (written by someone else) so there is the semblance of a story, and the small cast makes it that we know who everyone is despite some (though certainly not all) of the dialog being that British that needs subtitles.But, know this before going in, this movie is weird. I mean like, weird-weird, the sort of weird that tests my thresh hold as someone who loves weird s***. I think the thing for me is the context: is it from the mushrooms that Whitehead scarfs down while squatting in the field more than halfway into this movie? What's with the, uh, fuzzy planet that he keeps seeing in the sky coming his way? And then Wheatley and his editors go completely daffy with cutting together and superimposing images like there's no tomorrow - there's actually a warning at the start of the film that there are intense strobe effects (guess Wheatley may not get too many epileptics coming up to him with Field in Englanfd posters) - and it all is impressive on the surface.... but at the end of it all, what's the point? I couldn't help but feel by the end of this that I wasted my time, even as I was impressed by the actors who really commit to this world, and it's a truly unique world that we feel immersed in, because there wasn't a good emotional through-line. That may sound like I'm not opening myself up to the experimentation or poetry but, believe me, I was. I left this somewhat cold, admiring it being a vision from someone really going for something daring, but not giving a squib for the people on screen - and by the last ten minutes especially it's squarely an exercise in style and ultra-violence (how a couple of characters die is especially graphic, I mean gratuitously so). A Field in England is like when your much hipper friend on facebook posts some obscure underground rock album that is supposedly one of the coolest/most hardcore things you've never heard before. And there may be a reason it's obscure.

As a big fan of Kill list, I was really looking forward to this one. Those high expectations may be the big problem. The predictable replies would be there. Yes, maybe more viewings might be necessary. But personally I am the kind of person who would like some sort of an attraction in the movie for me to watch again. I was not particularly interested in the setting. The setting was a thoroughly desolate part of England. The characters were somewhat irritating. When the main character is so spineless, it is a little difficult to continue watching. The others were not too interesting to me either. I didn't like the comedy aspect much either. It felt like they were trying too hard to be smart. It didn't seem like I was watching people from 200 years ago, it felt like I was watching a bunch of drunk guys in the present time watching football. The comedy seems forced and I couldn't appreciate it. For a long time, it was moving on aimlessly and finally they hit upon a treasure hunt. So what was that about? I don't get it. There were some obvious drug induced behaviour at various points (during the tent scene for example). Frankly I was wondering why the characters wouldn't just kill each other. They seemed to irritate each other as well. Talking about the nudity, well you get your fair share of nudity from the men. Yes, that is disappointing but there it is. And that too, pretty ugly ones too.The whole movie can be considered as the meek striking back against the bully but I don't understand how some drug induced behaviour or black magic (I think that was a part) had any part in fighting against the bully. Yes, there was a particular scene towards the end but frankly he could have dealt with him earlier as well. In much simpler ways. But it does give some interesting visuals and nice music. And what was with the frozen shots? That doesn't make any sort of sense to me. It looked ridiculous to see that frequently in the movie. I don't get it. 4/10 (for some interesting visuals and music)

Well, views about A Field In England range from the admiring with one IMDb reviewer claiming it depicts 'the failure of the modern day class struggle and the easy triumph of liberal capitalism over working class indifference', another seeing it as an allegory with O'Neill the necromancer as the arrogant Charles I and Whitehead, the coward who finds his balls as Oliver Cromwell.Yet others claim it is a self-indulgent waste of time, nicely acted perhaps and a minimum of resources put to good use, but all to very little end. Me, I am prepared to accept that director Ben Wheatley and screenwriter Amy Jump have an idea as to what they were doing, but yours truly was left guessing.That isn't to say the film doesn't have its attractions: I did, after all, bother to watch all 90 minutes (and I am prone to give up on films which don't really strike me as worth my time, The Fifth Element recently being one on which I called time long, long before the final curtain). It is well enough made to be intriguing, but I do feel Wheatley and Jump took rather too many liberties.I see the relationship between the artist and 'her/his public' as one similar between a host and her/his guest: both have privileges and responsibilities, and as in all good relationships it is a matter of give and take between equals.So we are obliged to give Wheatley the benefit of doubt and hang on in there when we are most at sea in the hope that it will, in some way, pretty much all come together when the film is seen as a whole. I don't mean, crassly, that there should be some resolution with all loose ends tied up: what 'whole' Wheatley (or any artist) wants to serve up is entirely up to him.Wheatley, on the other hand, has a duty to give us something to go on. What that something is is also entirely up to him. And this is where I feel Wheatley has come unstuck: we get striking images and odd direction and a hint at this and that but unless Wheatley merely wants to make a film in the manner of the surrealists of 90 years ago, there should be that ingredient X for the reasonably intelligent viewer to latch onto. Well, I'm buggered if I know what it is or whether Wheatley has provided one. So for me Wheatley has failed at the final lap.A Field In England is entertaining enough - and I don't mean 'entertainment' in the 'showbiz' sense, but more that one might 'entertain' and idea, but Wheatley has got to hone his talent rather more if he really wants to evolve into a director of note. At the moment he strikes me as still paddling in the shallow end.