Director:
Ben WheatleyCámara:
Laurie RoseMúsica:
Jim WilliamsReparto:
Reece Shearsmith, Michael Smiley, Peter Ferdinando, Richard Glover, Ryan Pope, Julian Barratt, Sara DeeSinopsis(1)
During the Civil War in 17th-Century England, a small group of deserters flee from a raging battle through an overgrown field. They are captured by an alchemist (Michael Smiley), who forces the group to aid him in his search to find a hidden treasure that he believes is buried in the field. Crossing a vast mushroom circle, which provides their first meal, the group quickly descend into a chaos of arguments, fighting and paranoia, and, as it becomes clear that the treasure might be something other than gold, they slowly become victim to the terrifying energies trapped inside the field. (Drafthouse Films)
(más)Reseñas (6)
Wheatley y sus amigos cogieron trajes históricos y un gran ventilador, fueron al campo, se comieron algunas setas alucinógenas y rodaron una película independiente en blanco y negro. Pregunta de noventa minutos: «¿Estoy loco yo o esta película?». La pregunta fue respondida en aproximadamente dos tercios del metraje.
()
Like experimental films, it’s not possible to properly assess A Field in England (experimental both in form and in the manner of its release – simultaneously in cinemas and on television, VoD, DVD and Blu-ray) based only on its story and the way it is told. The time, place and genre do not matter, and it’s not important whether the characters are fighting for parliament or for the king (or for neither). Instead of what the characters care about, what happens to them carries a certain weight. As the characters become detached from themselves in some way, the film also frees itself not only from narrative formulas, but from the patterns that we use to grasp reality and shape it into a form that makes sense to us. In playing around with the reference value of images, Wheatley does something similar with the visual aspect as Strickland did with sound in Berberian Sound Studio. Again, this is not a matter of manneristic provocation. The point-of-view shots, extreme close-ups and the impossibility of basic orientation in time and space in the ever more confusing editing correspond to the delving into the mind of a person undergoing a transformation of perception based on marginal life experience. From the chaotic opening scene, we can find our bearings in the film preferably by using the soundtrack, though its “messages” are not clear due to the confusing mix of electronic music, medieval drums and folk songs. A Field in England is very imaginative and suggestive, though it presents a world turned upside down in a way that many will find unbearable. In particular, it is unique because it not only shows us a distorted reality, but also lets us experience the process of distortion. 80%
()
I don’t know. I’m still thinking about this film and I can’t find any reasonable outcomes. It’s an interesting and peculiar experiment with excellent atmosphere and visuals, even funny sometimes… The first impression was positive, but after some time I’m starting to wonder whether we aren’t making of this film more than it deserves. As a movie trip for a couple of pounds, it’s alright, but I’m not giving Wheathey a higher rating until he makes something that can be described other than just “weird”. (KVIFF 48)
()
The perfect rape of the audience's expectations. I've never seen so many spectators leave a theater as I did during A Field in England. However, I don't deny that it's probably not possible to decipher it in any reasonable way.
()
A parallel to Refn's journey through hell, Valhalla Rising, is on point. But the Dane's film is much more consistent because it respects at least some order (the order of images) and clearly separates reality and hallucinations, i.e., it has a clear perspective. At the same time, Refn works much better with the classical style. When compared to it, A Field in England really look like a trip of a party of wrinkled swordsmen to a neighbor's field, but filmed by a talented cameraman. The screenplay by Ben's wife may have had an interesting idea, but otherwise it's remarkable rubbish on the edge between a pubescent attempt at an extravagant story with a historical theme and a fencing performance. As a long-time author of castle performances, I respect the principle of "when the characters have been talking archaically for a long time, put words in there such as dick, venereal diseases, shit, beer, women or a kick in the ass", and Amy Jump is very good at it. It really has decent jokes. But otherwise it is a non-committal bet on the denial of all meaning and order, which may seem "eccentric" to some, whereas it seems pubertal to me. Even the most forgettable historical sketch by Monty Python goes much deeper. A Field in England is sometimes amateurishly clumsy, and for my taste the film has few stroboscopic scenes (the one with the rope fest is stupid, the one with the grandfather is quite good), the theme of the lord is always pissed on by some self-serving non-submission, and some of the actors would be good in my famous performance Bloody Feast or the End of the Confessors. Otherwise, it’s paradoxically quite decent crap, from the “fucking" directing to the exodus of spectators from the hall. Anyway, stay away from this type of thing, Ben, and film something truly radical. Keep this infantile crap for psychotropic parties with your wife.
()
The British movie A Field in England is an experimental movie that is primarily aimed at festival fans, so it is perhaps not surprising that the movie was screened at the 48th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival. It has to be said that it is certainly not downright bad. It is quite impressive, although I am not sure you could use the word enjoyable. You could probably think about this movie for a while without drawing any real conclusions.
()