For those of you who are
unfamiliar with director Ben Wheatley, he is a polemic inducing British
director, responsible for productions Down Terrace, Kill List and Sightseers.
All of which defy simple categorisation as they continuously transgress generic
boundaries. I’d argue he is the marmite of British directors, people either
love him or hate him. A Field in England is his latest production and in
atypical Wheatley fashion, he has once again defied normalcy in the realms of
film by choosing to release this latest picture of his via simultaneous distribution.
That’s right, on its release date of the 5th of July you could watch
A Field in England via cinema screens, Video on Demand, DVD or Film4
(refreshingly without ad breaks). This method, I’d like to believe, may well be
the future of film distribution – say what you will about the latest
blockbusters, but the anticipation and virality upon this films’ release felt
on another level thanks to this distribution model. But anyway, that is
perhaps a debate best served in an article of its own right. For now there is
a greater matter at hand here, and that is trying to describe what A
Field in England is like. Wish me luck...
The year is 1648 and the
eponymous field serves as a battle ground for the English Civil War. A scholar
and alchemist, Whitehead (Reece Shearsmith) flees from his master (Julian Barratt) and encounters three soldiers, Jacob (Peter Ferdinando), Friend
(Richard Glover) and Cutler (Ryan Pope). All four escape battle and hike through the fields of
staple British countryside (which inhabit magic mushrooms) partly in search of
an ale-house and for a man named O’Neil (Michael Smiley), an Irish alchemist. The men eventually
find O’Neil, who proceedingly uses hallucinogens to force
Whitehead, Jacob, Friend and Cutler to help him search for some treasure.
Bear with me... as explanation of the plot does the film a great mis-service. In truth, if a
coherent plot is what you’re after anyway then odds are, this film is not for
you. Synoptically speaking, A Field in England is incredibly non-sensical and
many narrative strands remain unanswered. The film is
baffling and the true nature of the characters' quest remains shrouded under a huge
question mark. The same can be said for the apparent ale-house and mystical
treasure. But is that what the film is really about? No. In truth, the film is
an incredibly existential affair questioning ideas of death, religion, fear,
despair and humanity – all explored through an increased psychedelic
sensibility. It requires spectators to let go of all narrative coherence and
bathe in the films’ peculiar filmic process, one that is evocative, atmospheric
and utterly compelling.
Aesthetically speaking, the film is shot
in black and white, with each frame possessing the utmost clarity. It is beautiful and Director of
Photography Laurie Rose does a wonderful job in transforming the titular field
into a macabre yet wondrous space. Elsewhere, certain editing techniques,
specifically used in the films’ climactic psychedelic trip, may at times feel a
little self-indulgent but are nonetheless a pure, dizzying assault on the
spectator’s senses.
Each member of the cast
upholds an incredibly strong and intense performance; this is by and large, a
performance piece after all. There is a distinct literary and theatrical feel
to each scene, one that almost harks to playwrights such as Samuel Beckett and
Harold Pinter, whose work often explored the type of absurdist and existential
elements that are at play here. Intertextuality is abound elsewhere also, as
one could pinpoint definite influences from the likes of Ingmar Bergman and the
film Witchfinder General, both in terms of characterisation and the execution
of dialogue. Generally speaking however, Reece Shearsmith (Whitehead) is the
stand out, transgressing from a wimp and weak character, through the paths of
sadism and submission, to a strong soldier in a post-hallucinogenic state.
Yet for me, I feel the films’
strongest feat is the imagery. Wheatley frequently
implements tableau vivant - at times comical and at others, completely baffling - providing a refreshing technique that draws you in whilst framing the next piece of
narrativisation. They’re so wonderfully done it will have you reaching for the
pause button, just to view it a little longer. However it wouldn't be a Wheatley
film without some element of horror and this in turn provides A Field in
England with its most compelling and disturbing imagery. In a
particular standout sequence, after Whitehead has inadvertently become the captive
of O’Neil, he is subsequently sectioned in a tent and undergoes unknown brutalisation.
The overwhelming screams allude to the depravity taking place -conversely, the actual act is not shown in a
choice of pointed secrecy. Following this - through a magnificent combination
of slow motion editing, a leveled medium shot and somewhat synthesised score -
emerges a delirious Whitehead harnessed by a rope, acting as a leash. This
moment is without a doubt one of the most compelling sequences to have featured in film for quite some time. If there is anything from A Field in England that
will stay with you once it has finished, it will be this.
What can I say?! A Field in
England is a unique experience and one that I personally loved. It is a strange,
powerful... indescribable piece of cinema that will undoubtedly frustrate some
but astonish others. Although I guess that is the beauty of Wheatley, his films’
spark debate and division. You either love it or lump it, and I, my English
Civil War enthusiasts, loved it.
Have you seen A Field in England? What where your thoughts? Post a comment!
No comments:
Post a Comment