A Field in England
Tags: comedy, avant garde, mystery, murder, allegory, psychedelic, satire, historical, sadist

Plot synopsis:
During a battle of the English Civil War, an alchemist's assistant named Whitehead flees from the strict Commander Trower. Whitehead is saved by a rough soldier named Cutler, who kills Trower before he can apprehend Whitehead. Whitehead then meets two army deserters, the alcoholic Jacob and the witless Friend. The four leave the battleground in search of a promised ale house that Cutler knows of. Cutler instead leads them to a field encircled by mushrooms, where he cooks the mushrooms and forces the others to eat, to make them more obedient; save for Whitehead. There, they haul the Irishman O'Neill seemingly out of the ground from a wooden pike buried in the ground. O'Neill is a rival alchemist for whom Cutler works; and who stole documents from Whitehead's master. He quickly asserts authority over the group and tells them of a treasure hidden somewhere in a nearby field.
The group finds a deserted army camp, where O'Neill tortures Whitehead into a gleeful and hypnotised human divining rod. After using Whitehead to locate the treasure, which is near the camp, O'Neill orders Jacob and Friend to dig for it while he leaves Cutler to supervise, and goes to sleep in a tent. Jacob soon succumbs to the influence of the hallucinogenic mushrooms, and after several hours of digging he attacks Friend. Cutler laughs and urinates on them, and when Jacob attempts to attack him, Cutler accidentally shoots Friend. Whitehead is unable to save him, and Friend dies, telling Jacob to deliver a message to his wife, telling that he hates her. Cutler is forced to finish digging by himself, while Jacob slips away from the camp to deliver Friend's message, and Whitehead deposits Friend's corpse in a thicket.
Cutler eventually nears reaching the treasure, attracting the attention of O'Neill, who discovers Jacob and Whitehead gone. Reaching where Friend's corpse is, O'Neill pursues Whitehead, who ingests a part of the circle of mushrooms, heightening his awareness but suffering a hallucinatory experience, wherein he conjures a violent wind to blow away the camp's tent. Cutler discovers that the "treasure" is just a skull, which he shoots in anger. Jacob comes back to join Whitehead in fighting O'Neill.
Cutler angrily berates O'Neill, blaming him for trusting Whitehead and lying to him about the alehouse, which was to simply entice Jacob and Friend. O'Neill promptly kills him and then pursues Whitehead and Jacob, who scavenge Cutler's weapons and return to the overturned army camp. As they are preparing for an attack, Friend appears alive and reveals their location to O'Neill. As Jacob throws Friend to the ground to stop him, O'Neill shoots Jacob in the gut, but Jacob returns fire and ruins O'Neill's leg. Jacob dies from his injuries, after he and Whitehead surmise that the treasure was the friendship they shared. Friend brandishes Cutler's pike and charges O'Neill, but O'Neill kills him with his last shot. Whitehead takes advantage of the situation to finally kill O'Neill by shooting him in the back of the head.
Whitehead buries his friend's corpses in the hole and leaves the field. Wearing O'Neill's clothes, he gathers his master's stolen documents and returns to the hedgerow where he first met Cutler, Jacob and Friend, from which battle sounds are rising. After he wades through the hedge, he sees Friend, Jacob and himself standing together, implying he is still under the effects of the mushrooms in the field behind him.

Review: While it may look like a psychedelic horror movie, like WITCH FINDER GENERAL, in reality it is a very straightforward film based very directly on the English Civil War itself.O'Neill, the Irish alchemist who tries to enslave Whitehead and his friends, is clearly based on the English monarch Charles I.
His evolution in the film from a meek, submissive cowardly man to a military hero parallels the way the Puritans themselves evolved from a hunted, despised minority to a powerful army of spiritual and political authority, able to recreate England in their own image.What the movie does is not just to imitate history but to reflect on its deeper meaning.
Director Ben Wheatley said that he wanted to transport the viewer into the world of Civil War England with little exposition to explain what was going on.
I'm not entirely convinced by A Field in England at the minute but I feel like unique films of this type should at least be encouraged in the UK so for that reason I am going to cut it some slack..
The staged shots look great, the weird ideas are presented in a way that works (the two main "on a rope" scenes), the music produces a great sense of dread and generally it is a very well shot film.
So when it offers nothing in the narrative sense, it is hard not to think that perhaps it has been focusing on the style all along and that any sense of a plot was merely just to get it where it needed to be so it could unleash stylistically.Don't get me wrong, I liked it from this point of view but even having some structure or some basic narrative flow would have made it a good film, not just one that feels like the director was playing with how it looks and sounds.
Field in England expertly subverts expectations of a trippy and hallucinatory experience by being filmed in stark, gorgeous, black and white cinematography.
OK, it's been 9 hours since I watched this movie so it may be too soon to score as is usually the case with Wheatley's movies.This is a trip, and not a nice trip, Michael Smiley and Reece Shearsmith are exceptional in parts, the photography is simply stunning but the whole film was a let down for me.
The critics will love it, but I feel this is the movie some directors make as if to say "I'm hot, I'll do what I like'.It's pretentious and very self indulgent, but i must say THAT TENT SCENE...WOW, the use of soundtrack (Blanck Mass, Chernobyl, Shearsmith's screams, the slow motion, 4 minutes of cinema which blew me away, unfortunately the other 80 odd minutes didn't.
'A Field in England' is exactly the film it tells you it's going to be: set entirely within said field, it tells the story of a group of soldiers from the English Civil War going mad from a combination of (the 17th century version of) shell-shock, their own religious beliefs, and an unhealthy dose of magic mushrooms.
It's a massive disappointment and pity, because Ben Wheatley's previous films as director (DOWN TERRACE and KILL LIST) have showed real promise, hinting at greatness to come.
I want to make a film like that!' with this as the ungodly result.The problem is that VALHALLA RISING was a great little movie, with a strong narrative to sustain the artier scenes, and it also had something to say.
A Field in EnglandI have never reviewed a film before this short offering, but following, to the bitter end this film, I was moved to write a very brief review.A sad gratuitous romp in monochrome through a few fields portraying men as reprehensible animals discussing disjointed themes under the guise of English Civil war survivors.If the aim of this film was engender depression and a deep sense of sadness, then this film was probably successful In essence, life is simply far too short to waste time by watching this film.
The amount of thrills and laughs in this movie totally subverts the idea that art house cinema is often "boring." This film is so alive and free and refuses to surrender to most cinematic norms, and yet it still follows a coherent narrative with memorable and enjoyable characters and genuine suspense; it nearly reaches the heights of a David Lynch masterpiece in terms of its ability to mix radical experimentation and surrealism with an engaging and cohesive story.
I watched this after seeing a partial review of it on the BBC news channel.I thought it was hard to comprehend the exact meaning of the film.For what it is worth I thought the field represents some sort of parallel universe between the carnage of the battlefield and death.
I absolutely loved Kill List and proclaimed it as the best British horror film since Eden Lake (which I love) and when I saw the trailer for A Field in England I thought that it looked right up my street.
I just watched this film, and like many other commenters, I'm not quite sure exactly how I feel about it just yet; however, I wanted to write a review to reflect my initial reaction.
From the director of the even more disturbing "Kill List", we should expect no less; I have yet to catch Ben Wheatley's "Sightseers" but will be doing so forthwith.Set against the backdrop of the English Civil War in the mid 17th Century, the plot sees Reece Shearsmith (whom you may know from "The League of Gentlemen") on fine form as befuddled emissary Whitehead, sent to track down and arrest Michael Smiley's utterly bonkers O'Neil, perceived perpetrator of crimes against Whitehead's alchemist master.
O'Neil declares that there is treasure buried in the field, and what ensues is best (cheaply) described as a battle of wills between O'Neil, the Royalist Whitehead, and the naive Roundhead soldiers also fleeing the battle, albeit set against the suitably hallucinogenic experience of an unfortunate trip on some dodgy mushroom stew consumed by the starving protagonists as they escape from a battlefield early on in the film, in search of the comfort of the nearest Ale House.
All I could make out of this film is that, it's about drugs, war, and based in the 1700's with 5 men running around a field high on magic mushrooms looking for treasure when they should be at war.In some aspects, the film is quiet good as it is the first British film to be distributed on all platforms.
And it's still did quite good.Overall, I believe 'A Field In England' is a boring, confusing waste of time and I would not watch this again.
So, if you've only watched this once or twice, and are still feeling a little confused, just read the following -(excerpt from my)- essay, which I've written to help provide some understanding on how to interpret the film's use of the cinematic language.This is a-(n excerpt from my)- non-chronological explanatory reading of Ben Wheatley's totally twisted $300,000 gnostic folk horror masterpiece, A Field In England.Anyone who says that this film has no plot- or that the plot is weak- merely lacks the willingness or capability to unravel an incredibly elaborate and complex work that requires you to pay extremely close attention to every small detail, while pondering on their relationship with each other.First and foremost, there is ONLY one person in the film.
I couldn't make it through the first half of the film.Even after 30 minutes I was wondering whether it was worth carrying on towards the end.With most movies, I'll watch until the end credits roll, even when the film is bad or average, just so I can form a full opinion.With "A Field In England", however, the novelty and enjoyment wears off quite quickly due to the very slow pace and it's hard to see the kind of direction this film wanted to go in.
Having turned off the movie halfway through and watched , I had to look up the plot summary to see what I had missed, which, in the end was just a very ambiguous finale.I'm glad I didn't force myself to sit through the whole runtime but also disappointed that I couldn't seem to pluck anymore enjoyment from the film and didn't have reason to watch to the very end.Sure, "A Field In England" may have a hidden subtext or meaning, but it's way too buried for anyone to see and extrapolate how it would come to fruition in a way that's purposeful and makes sense..
Set during the 17th century English civil war four world weary deserters come across an alchemist (played with menacing gusto by Michael Smiley) who's looking for buried treasure in a field that may or may not have supernatural powers.
It's a film that allows you to take any explanation you want based on the experience you have with the film.A Field in England is a provocative surrealist masterpiece, that solidifies Wheatley as one of the most impressive, creatively bold directors working in cinema today!.
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).
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.
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....
It was the kind of movie where I thought there was a decent amount under the surface, in terms of things like symbolism and themes hidden in subtext, but not being British, knowledgeable about the English Civil War, or maybe just being a little bit stupid in general meant that I'm pretty certain a good part of the film went over my head.Thankfully, it had a ton of atmosphere, a good deal of suitably creepy moments, and some really impressive shots and sequences that I can see sticking with me.
I just watched and it was a lot better than I expected - the acting was generally good from actors perhaps best known for comedy roles who were perfect when the few comedic moments happened Not everyone will get it - it may take two or three viewings to fully enjoy it although it did leave a few questions unanswered I think filming in black and white(are we still allowed to call it that?
I loved this film - three deserters from a battle in the English civil war escape across a field and are taken prisoner by a nobleman attempting to find treasure by divination.
The film has a central theme but it doesn't use these strange sequences to expand on it, they just make the movie weirder and make it feel more pretentious (plus there are a lot of these scenes in the movie so it makes it a bigger problem), also some of the dialogue at the end of the movie is kind of meaningless and just sounds philosophical for no reason.Overall, the movie is a strange and unique experience, but it could've used its strangeness the further its themes 6/10.
likewise, this Ben Wheatley movie (my first) promises much and delivers several brilliant one liners, the occasional black humour, beautiful camera and editing work and characters that seem much larger than they are, but overall its a let down that fails to deliver any real substance except the visual tomfoolery of the much advertised mushroom-induced psychedelic trip.The story however is pointless and direction-less abandon.
Like watching the TV series "Lost", the point of this film is not the resolution, but the way the story is told, however, the abrupt end and character arcs and the ultra confusing meaning behind it all will be a point of debate for months if not years to come.Watch with an open mind but don't expect any great revelations or satisfactory resolution.
Four men head to the alehouse after deserting a Civil War battle,on their way they come across mushrooms and a rope,there the plot ends and total insanity sets in, both in the movie and the directors chair.
The acting is fine, and the general production for such a low budget piece is decent, but this really is nothing more than an overly experimental art film project that wouldn't be out of place in any film studies class, with its total disregard to follow any sort of plot (maybe because there isn't any) and with 50% of its run time devoted to the characters freaking out, singing, fighting each other (without reason) and long sequences of slow-mo weirdness that go on more often than not without any real outcome.
And like so many films in the last decade or so it is very well shot and acted, with some good dialogue, innovative camera work, editing, sfx, etc., but it makes no sense whatsoever.
The amazing screenplay (form Amy Jump), the great acting, costumes, the simple but effective set-up, photography, sound design, editing and surely Wheatley's film direction gave us an awesome movie.The limited budged did not diminish any production values and the black and white film backs up the beautiful images.
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.
A Field in England, a low-budget, black-and-white journey into psychedelia from the exciting British director Ben Wheatley, marked the first time a film had been simultaneously released in cinemas, on home media, On Demand, and on free TV.
When they come across O'Neil, the group are forced to look for buried treasure in the field, where madness and mushrooms ensue.I won't even try and explain any meaning behind the film, if they are indeed any at all.
Set during the English Civil War and filmed in black and white this is as far removed from the likes of "Cromwell" or such stately Oscar-grabbers as "A Man for all Seasons" or "Anne of the 1000 Days" as it's possible to get.
The low-budget A Field in England became an event of film in the UK due to it being directed by critics favourite Ben Wheatley and being a multi-platform releases, being released in cinemas, on DVD, video on demand and shown on TV all on the same day.
But on their journey they meet a mysterious Irishman, O'Neill (Michael Smiley) who wants to find treasure and demanded to use the men on his mission.Ben Wheatley is a highly praised director and critics in the UK were wetting themselves in excitement over A Field in England.
But audiences have been more hostile to Wheatley with films like Kill List and A Field in England having low IMDb scores as well as on other audience based votes, such as Lovefilm.
At times the film does not even have much of a flow despite its thin premise.Like Kill List, A Field in England suffers from a third act collapse: but A Field in England's is even worst as all the characters goes nut and start to kill each other and as the last two men are high on mushrooms.
It really just looked like two student filmmakers trying to impress and if this was film made by an unknown/first time filmmaker critics would have said he/she was trying too hard.A Field in England is a film about nothing.
Now, here's what I think.I remember watching this and much like any of Ben Wheatley's films, was memerised by the surrealism and boundary pushing style he seems to have a knack for.
Well, judging by the incredible acting from Reece Shearsmith in one scene alone, I'd say yes.Shot in black-and-white and financed by Film4, this was released on that television channel at the same time as its cinema release.