A Field in England

[Blumf]

Great that it's being released this way, but I didn't watch it because I don't have Film4 HD and I wanna watch it without breaks...

It was shown without breaks, and I don't think HD would add too much to it, being more character driven than visual.

[Paaaaul]

Great that it's being released this way, but I didn't watch it because I don't have Film4 HD and I wanna watch it without breaks... so I reckon it'll be a Blu-ray rental for me. I liked Kill List, although

Spoiler alert

the ending owes maybe a little too much to The Wicker Man.

[close]

It looked great in SD and was shown without breaks...

[Glebe]

Ah. Oh well. Still, will give it a rent, cuh.

[Subtle Mocking]

It was shown without breaks, and I don't think HD would add too much to it, being more character driven than visual.

Yeah, I rented an HD copy and it really didn't add much to it. I still would have liked to have seen it in the cinema, but it's not exactly Enter the Void in terms of visuals. As you say, it's much more story/character driven.

[Beep Cleep Chimney]

Yeah, I rented an HD copy and it really didn't add much to it. I still would have liked to have seen it in the cinema.

I would imagine that 10 minute psycheledic sequence near the end with all the rapid cutting and strobing would be unbearable in the darkness of the cinema.  I had to look away a couple of times during that bit last night and I was watching it with the bedside light on.

[gloria]

I thought this was loads of fun.  Shearsmith was watchable as always.  Beautiful soundtrack. 

[Johnny Townmouse]

Zeitgeisty 'state of the nation' film innit? Englishness, masculinity and mushrooms.

[Noodle Lizard]

Is it as slow as/slower than 'Valhalla Rising'?  I don't have an issue with that, but it may influence my decision whether to watch it tonight or not as I'm feeling a bit speedy.

[Bored of Canada]

Just watched it. Really, really enjoyed it. Feel it's definitely the absolute least accessible Ben Wheatley film so I can understand people not liking it. It's definitely an acquired taste but just like the rest of Wheatley's films, it feels like the kind of film made specifically for my tastes. Regardless I did curb my expectations before seeing it and just went in understanding that this wasn't going to be a conventional film. I'd likely not have answers to many questions and it'd be hard to follow, bordering on pretentious or self-indulgent.

And actually, I was surprised at just how easy it was for me, personally, to follow. It felt quite unpretentious. It almost strayed into a "psychedelic art-student film" at times but felt like it didn't cross that line and remained unreservedly it's own thing. Ultimately, the plotting and characters had tangible goals and beliefs and they all acted realistically for their characters, despite the more mystical and psychadelic context. It's grounded in it's own internal logic and that really did help a lot, as opposed to more avant garde films that bombard you with schizophrenic editing, insane visuals, passive characters, where the filmmaker tries everything to instill a mood without taking advantage of plotting or grounding it in it's own understanable world. 'Field in England' bridges that gap really well in that it instills a mood without sacrificing a followable narrative. 

I was actually watching through the second series of the League of Gentlemen a couple weeks ago which I haven't seen in many years, coincidentally. And honestly, seeing both these things together has really reminded me just how brilliant Reece Shearsmith is as an actor. His performance as Whitehead in this was so bloody strong! I mean, really, geez. He's just fantastic. Hoping to see him in more serious roles after this. 

Michael Smiley didn't feel quite as menacing as he should have been, at least for me. I feel that could come down to the cinematography though. Laurie Rose's cinematography in this was fantastic in some of the shots, but the camera-work wasn't quite benefiting the performances as well as the other films. Probably because the other Wheatley films were all just so claustrophobic and always holding in on Medium close-ups and mid-shots, when this felt like it was always wide to accommodate the location and the four characters at all times.

Spoiler alert

The only tension I was really feeling was from not wanting Whitehead and the other two likable yet nameless guys to die, when really I feel I should have been tense because of O'Neil's presence as well.

[close]

Overall, I still think Laurie Rose and Michael Smiley did a great job.

Spoiler alert

Also. Those frozen painting motif things. They were genius and I enjoyed them a lot. I kinda wanted more of those.

[close]

I really liked all the writing too. Amy Jump did a great job. Most of the lines feel like they're just so loaded with multiple meanings and symbolism; makes me look forward to seeing it again and interpreting into it further. I've got a ticket for the screening at MIFF later this month, but it's really starting to look like I'm going to be working during that time. So, if anyone's interested in a free ticket and is in Melbourne around the end of the month, you're welcome to it if I'm unavailable.

Spoiler alert

The ending of the whole thing. Oh man, I heard an interview with Ben Wheatley talking about how he was looking to film actual battles of the civil-war reenactors and I feel that would have really sold the world and not highlighted the limited budget if Whitehead clawed through the brambles, and stumbled back into the war, still not a soldier, though vindicated that he is no coward. I feel the film really needed something like that to just sell the location. It had a very limited budget and one shot could really have sold the whole world a lot more. I'd like to say that it didn't take me out but it did. Always felt like they were staying in one location because the filmmakers didn't have enough money. Something that Down Terrace never felt like to me, despite similar production. Because they have just a few limited shots of the world around that house to sell it as a real living breathing location.

[close]

Overall though, I really, REALLY liked it. Otherwise I wouldn't have written all this. 

EDIT: Looks like the latest Empire Podcast has an interview with Reece Shearsmith on it. Haven't listened to it yet but am interested, especially as I agree with Empire's review of it. http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=138170

[gloria]

It reminded me very much of Reservoir Dogs: a group of misfits bickering over treasure while the big event is always kept offscreen.

[checkoutgirl]

Watched this last night and....hmmm, I'm not sure I can......it was......interesting, in a way. Ben Wheatley fan as I am and all but it seemed to lose the track half way through. Bits of it were like an Aphex Twin video. The sound design was very enjoyable and I really liked the song. The story is non existent, after about 40 minutes it gets very abstract. Overall the plot is just some stuff that happened in a field. I feel Wheatley is edging closer and closer to David Lynch territory and that's a problem for me.

The film is just insubstantial, is it a coward becomes a man because he took hallucinagens ? I don't know, I'm not much the wiser for watching it. I still enjoyed the acting, cinematography and sound for what it was but I agree with SMBH, don't watch in an agitated or depressed mood because this film will just piss you off if you're not in the mood for it. Luckily I was and quite enjoyed it but I think Wheatley needs to follow this up with a cracker of a film because he might be squandering a lot of people's good will. I can see critics liking this film and non critics just being baffled by it. I'm somewhere in between. But fuck it, it only cost £300,000 and if you got 3 of these for every million pounds spent in the film industry then the world would be a better place.

[WesterlyWinds]

The film is just insubstantial, is it a coward becomes a man because he took hallucinagens ?

Maybe Wheatley is a fan of the theory that hallucinogenic drugs brought about consciousness, and this was an allegory for that? Eh? EH?!

[checkoutgirl]

Maybe Wheatley is a fan of the theory that hallucinogenic drugs brought about consciousness, and this was an allegory for that? Eh? EH?!

Maybe, I'm open to an interpretation that will fill in the blanks. I said I enjoyed it, I'm just not sure why, which is fine.

[WesterlyWinds]

Maybe, I'm open to an interpretation that will fill in the blanks. I said I enjoyed it, I'm just not sure why, which is fine.

I think that theory's a load of bollocks, personally. Having watched Kill List last night I think I now understand Ben Wheatley; he just likes to confuse people, which is fine as all of his films, so far, have been completely enjoyable. That's my expert, film-buff opinion.

[checkoutgirl]

Having watched Kill List last night I think I now understand Ben Wheatley; he just likes to confuse people, which is fine as all of his films, so far, have been completely enjoyable. That's my expert, film-buff opinion.

I agree..........in theory. Yeah, I think Wheatley likes a bit of confusion or 'mystery' as some people call it in his films. The reason I can get along with Wheatley but not Lynch is that Wheatley wouldn't replace all the actors with different ones and change the location half way through for no reason and with no explanation. Something for Wheatley's next project perhaps.

[gloria]

On the post-screening chat he did on Film 4, Wheatley said that everything in the film is explicable historically - e.g. people did use magic mushrooms in occult divination - but that he chose to exclude all exposition so that it felt as much as possible as if you had been genuinely transported into the past.  I think the same kind of thing goes for Kill List.  I wouldn't be surprised if Wheatley and Amy Jump had conceived a lengthy explanation for the behaviour of the

Spoiler alert

weird cult

[close]

, but we, as the audience sharing Jay's point of view, only get to see the parts of it that impinge directly on him.

[Custard]

How the cast kept a straight face as Shearsmith came staggering out of the tent, I'll never know

Reminded me of my grandad's old pisshead mate walking home at closing time

[checkoutgirl]

What was that scene about, can someone explain ?

Spoiler alert

The Shearsmith walking out of the tent in slow motion scene, I mean.

[close]

And what was

Spoiler alert

Smiley doing to Shearsmith in the tent that made him scream so ?

[close]

Spoiler alert

And why did the guys just walk away from battle ?

[close]

I know they were sick of it but what were they doing there in the first place ?

Spoiler alert

And what was the tug of war bit about ?

[close]

That bit confused the fuck out of me. There are probably other bits that I'd like explained that I can't remember now.

Any theories or explanations ?

[gloria]

Wheatley explained a fair amount in his talk but of course I've bloody forgotten a lot it.  Loads of cool-looking stuff here though so it may well contain a few explanations: http://www.afieldinengland.com/masterclass/

[WesterlyWinds]

What was that scene about, can someone explain ?

Spoiler alert

The Shearsmith walking out of the tent in slow motion scene, I mean.

[close]

And what was

Spoiler alert

Smiley doing to Shearsmith in the tent that made him scream so ?

[close]

Spoiler alert

And why did the guys just walk away from battle ?

[close]

I know they were sick of it but what were they doing there in the first place ?

Spoiler alert

And what was the tug of war bit about ?

[close]

That bit confused the fuck out of me. There are probably other bits that I'd like explained that I can't remember now.

Any theories or explanations ?

Well, here are my incoherent thoughts:

Spoiler alert

Whitehead coming out of the tent all weird was presumably just to symbolise he had been broken by whatever the fuck was going on inside the tent; his spirit destroyed and complete subservience achieved (for the time being anyway, as it appeared to wear off later on). Considering the apparent 'mystical' elements to the film, and an apparent lack of any blood on him when he came out, one possible assumption about the screams would involve 'demons' or conjurations of some kind. Alternatively he could have just caused incredible physical pain without actually drawing any blood, as I'm sure that's entirely possible Or maybe even he just started ripping up those books and pages in front of him and Whitehead, being such a nerd, was like 'no, please AAARRRRGHHH!'.

[close]

Spoiler alert

By the tug of war bit do you mean when they first found the Irish fella? Presumably there's something 'magical' about the ring of mushrooms that prevented him from escaping/being seen. Hence they needed to exert a shit load of effort to pull him out of it. That's my theory, anyway, even if it is a little simplistic.

[close]

[gloria]

From the Film 4 web site:

Spoiler alert

Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump's research into the folklore and mythologies of the period fed into the creation of a field and a mushroom circle where time and space do not play by the rules. As Ben says, "That's part of the mushroom circle folk lore. Within it time moves at a different speed. The lore is that if you go into a circle it takes four men and a rope to pull you out and although you feel that weeks may have passed – it could be minutes in real time."

[close]

[Bored of Canada]

What was that scene about, can someone explain ?

Spoiler alert

The Shearsmith walking out of the tent in slow motion scene, I mean.

[close]

And what was

Spoiler alert

Smiley doing to Shearsmith in the tent that made him scream so ?

[close]

I felt that was

Spoiler alert

...Well, let's preface this by saying, well, obviously the film has it's own logic and it's hard to explain stuff realistically in a world where magic and the occult exist so it plays by its own rules. Regardless, I felt that O'Neil utilised his powers to put some kind of spell on him, torturing him, putting him in a trance of some sort. O'Neil did this as Whitehead seemed to be the key to finding the treasure. O'Neil knew this and admits to "summoning him". Whitehead refused the mushrooms and still had wits about him, and therefore wasn't suggestible like O'Neil and his lackey had planned and therefore wasn't cooperating. Whitehead explains that in his youth he was chosen as his master's, the alchemist's, apprentice initially, much to his confusion, despite the fact that he wasn't an educated man. Which made me feel like he was chosen because the alchemist knew he had something more in him...ie: The runic stones and such. Fuckin' hell. Look at that extrapolation. Christ. That's what I took from it. Take my opinion with heaping grains of salt.

[close]

Spoiler alert

And why did the guys just walk away from battle ?

[close]

I know they were sick of it but what were they doing there in the first place ?

Spoiler alert

Well, initially, I'd say they were just 'cowards'. Because when they give Whitehead a hard time, he retaliates by accusing them, and the guy responds violently at the accusation and claims they're JUST GOING FOR A DRINK, because he's compartmentalising his guilt. Clearly he's not feeling great about it and is putting on a tough front, but they've all ran away from the battle out of fear and self-preservation. Except the...Christ...The fact that these characters don't have names makes this fucking infuriating...Uh...The guy with the stolen rings. O'Neils collaborator. That guy had an alterior motive...In that he's the one who's convinced the the rest that retreating is a good idea, as he claims there's a pub nearby but actually just needs their help to dig up the treasure and retreive O'Neil. Whitehead on the other hand, was summoned by O'Neil. Unless you mean what were they doing at the battle? In which case, they were soldiers who joined up, right? That was pretty clear, I thought.

[close]

Spoiler alert

And what was the tug of war bit about ?

[close]

That bit confused the fuck out of me.

Spoiler alert

Uh...That one...I don't know...They were retrieving O'Neil from some kinda...thing. That definitely felt like Ben and Amy[nb]After writing this much shit, I get to be on first name basis[/nb] have a huge interest in this ancient occult shit, and really felt like it was a reference to some kind of like, ancient celtic/occult/magic/druidic/whatever ceremony, belief or urban legend. That said, it's a cool way to introduce a character. Don't really understand the symbolism behind it yet. Maybe I'll get more out of it after I sleep on/see it a second time.

[close]

Point of the film:

Spoiler alert

I think ultimately it's about Whitehead starting off as a bit of a coward who has no control over anything, he's failed his master and is trying to redeem himself but just goes from being a puppet of one master to a puppet of another. "There's always more masters". He's in no control of his fate. So much so that he's summoned to this field by O'Neil and is tortured and forced to become his literal puppet...On a rope and shit...in order to find the treasure...And after seeing the ominous dark star shining above the field, an omen of terrible things to come, and the fact that the field holds no treasure, only shadows and bones, he knows that digging up that everything is going to go to shit. And after, well, it does...He hides in the field away from O'Neil, and eats the mushrooms, and gains the magic of the field and becomes his own master, going so far as to even say that repeatedly to himself, and gains the power to defeat O'Neil.

He becomes the master of his own destiny. Putting on O'Neil's clothes, reborn as a new man. Then he returns to the wall of brambles that leads back to the battlefield. He places all the weapons on the ground. He is his own man, a master and a scholar, not a soldier. Then goes through...

Then he gets to the other side, the final three shots, his dead friends, alive and by his side, as they all face the camera. They are all white and therefore it's actually all about the racism inherent in Britain that still pervades the country and it's culture to this very day. Ultimately it's about that. It's also a biting satire of Mccarthyism.

[close]

[Zetetic]

I don't see there's much in the film that requires subscribing to the existence of witchcraft in the world shown(, with the possible exception of taking the very last shot as somehow literal.) It felt to me that it was as much about belief (or 'folklore' if you want) as anything else. Half the time it seems that people are being made to go through the motions - the rope most obviously, perhaps whatever goes on in that tent - regardless of whether there's anything more real behind them than the acts themselves.

Perhaps this is my stifling scepticism at work, but given that everyone's either off their tits or a fairly firm subscriber to the occult it seemed generally simpler to me that it was about the people rather than any obscure mechanics.

I don't think it was particularly inaccessible, certainly not if you were prepared to let it wash over you. And I found Sightseers interminable[nb]By which I mean that I had to bring to a conclusion rather than suffering it plodding through its motions.[/nb].

Context-setting would have been fun and interesting, but difficult to pull off successfully without a great deal of running time I suspect. (No idea if it would have been the right thing to do either.) Culloden (which, to be clear, Wheatley etc. have mentioned).

[clingfilm portent]

Well I'm pleased to see I'm not alone in failing to be convinced by Ben Wheatley, even if I'm in an overwhelming minority.

This film was the last chance I was willing to give him to prove me that there was actually something to see. I'm willing to stick my neck out and say there just isn't. Horrible, uninvolving characters portrayed woodenly with lashings of insipid dialogue. The sense of dread Wheatley hamfistedly creates here acts as little more than a smokescreen to hide the lack of substance of any kind. And here the bizarre choice to go grayscale gave me the impression that I was watching a sixth form film project. Poor.

[Zetetic]

I didn't make it clear, but I enjoyed this quite a lot. Much more than Sightseers ; which I didn't hate, it didn't make me feel uncomfortable or anything, but it just utterly failed to hold me at all.

And here the bizarre choice to go grayscale gave me the impression that I was watching a sixth form film project.

I don't think it's that bizarre and, as I've said, they specifically cited Peter Watkins' work as something they tried to learn from even if it wasn't an initial inspiration and I think there's a clear link in at least some of what it was meant to achieve.

[Cerys]

If they'd filmed it in colour that field would have looked a damn sight more idyllic - which really wouldn't have fit the tone of the film.

[Bad Ambassador]

The characters' names were Whitehead, O'Neil, Trewer, Cutler, Jacob and Friend.

[Sam]

First Wheatley film I've seen. It managed to be both incredibly interesting and incredibly frustrating at the same time. I agree with a lot of criticisms made so far, namely that the low budget was too obvious in relation to the events of the film, that the dialogue was a bit naff, that the fast editing effects felt a bit like a student's reel rather than serving the film, that the weird stuff felt weird for its own sake instead of being organic to the film.

Lots of marvels of photography, sound design and editing, but just bits of that strung together. I like the concept, the tone, the direction, and I don't mind lack of exposition, but I wonder if with a bit more money and a better script it could have been even better. 

The 'frozen paitings' things where the cast just stand felt very reminiscent of Herzog, especially in Heart of Glass, which surely must be an influence on this film (specific period, people acting strangely and hypnotically, the pastoral and the apocalyptic intserecting with black humour).

The insect closeups have been done by  Lynch (Blue Velvet) and Malick (Days of Heaven), the strange rippling corn was out of The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser.

The part where Shearsmith first comes out of the tent felt a bit like Harmony Korine, even down to the music (the skydiving nuns in Mr Lonely?) whereas the bit where he was bound up and they manically chased him round the field could have been out of Jam.

In fact, the over-edited 'look at my editing kit, ma' is quite similar in general to Jam.

The guys got bags of technique and doing bold and audacious things with no money in the right spirit, so bravo for that. Not sure if there's much except the surface, though. I need to see his earlier stuff now, and he's clearly someone who could come up with a masterpiece one day.

[Noodle Lizard]

I finally got round to watching it last night.  It's eh ... not very good, I don't think. 

A lot of it felt very AmDram, especially early on, and then when it got psychedelic it just felt like your typical art film student fucking around having watched one too many Maya Derens.  Those "painting" shots were fucking embarrassing - it would take a lot more than what the film had to offer to pull that off.

As far as the story and the characters go, again, pretty AmDram and pretty inconsistent.  It gives the impression that there's some great meaning behind it all, and I'm sure there is, but I couldn't give a fuck what - nothing about the film or its creators intrigues me enough to think that they have anything profound to tell us.

That all being said, there are some nice standalone shots and the sound design was often pretty good[nb]though the dialogue seemed poorly-recorded, maybe just the version I have from iTunes[/nb], occasionally Reece Shearsmith and Michael Smiley would perform well, and I did like some of the fast-edited sequence, although almost as soon as they had a good thing going they'd drop it in favour of a terrible PhotoBooth Mirror effect.

Overall, though, it felt very much like someone with almost no arthouse sensibilities trying to make an arthouse film.  I like 'Kill List' (though I feel it's humourously overrated), didn't mind 'Sightseers' either, and I think that's probably the kind of area Ben Wheatley should remain in.  This felt less like something its creator genuinely needed to make than someone just "giving it a go" for their reputation.

I hope it's been successful enough to encourage further use of this release method, though.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I thought it was pretty good for a low budget arthouse film. Very, very weird, and the tripping scene was bonkers. I can understand a lot of people hating it though, it definitely straddled the line for me but I think I was in just the right mood to enjoy it.