User Reviews

As cinema Winstanley is more interesting than entertaining. The movie was made in conscious imitation of Eisenstein, easy to dismiss for anyone weaned on MTV. But Brownlow is a careful and capable student of the classic silent film, and if you are comfortable with the originals, you will feel right at home here.

The real story is also easy to overlook. Superficially it is about the poor persecuted diggers -- portrayed as post-apocalypse hobbits, their apocalypse having been the enclosure of the commons and the English Civil War.

But the dramatic center of the story, and hence of the movie, is not so much Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers as it is Thomas Fairfax and the New Model Army. Fairfax is a successful revolutionary general, and like every successful revolutionary leader in history he must confront the dilemma of how much revolution is too much.

On this conflict within Fairfax's conscience is based the ongoing dance between him and Winstanley, and the unfolding of the story. It is not a simple 'us versus them,' and both men know it. Both are revolutionaries, yet both see value in some parts of the old order. The difference is that Fairfax has already overturned the parts of the old order that he disliked, while Winstanley still aspires to further revolution -- or perhaps counter-revolution, since like many radicals he idealizes a lost golden age of pastoral simplicity. Winstanley has no power to succeed on his own, so his best hope is to win over Fairfax, both by argument and by a demonstration that his theories can work in practice. Fairfax is at first willing to give him this chance.

Fairfax, having fought successfully and won power, is becoming pragmatic. Winstanley, being poor and powerless, can afford to remain idealistic. And this increasing divergence is what makes Winstanley the movie an interesting story, rather than merely a film class exercise. It does not make it a great movie, or even a very good one, but it does make it worth watching. 6/10.



*** SLIGHT SPOILER ***

Part of the reason to watch this movie is to savor the period props. The arms and armor are mostly the real deal, borrowed from the Tower of London. The buildings and furniture are mostly 17th century, too. Even the livestock are ancient breeds, preserved by hobbyist farmers. But then there is the Diggers' clothing: the cloth looks machine woven, rather than homespun. Not a big deal, I know, but it is inconsistent with the rest of the very careful production.

The DVD also includes a "making of" documentary, which is great fun. Winstanley was a no-budget labor of love for all involved, and Brownlow describes some clever tricks for working with non-professional actors. A must-see for film students.

I rented this DVD for one reason--it was directed by Kevin Brownlow. I love what Brownlow has done--making some brilliant films chronicling the early giants in silent cinema. His films on Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith are simply brilliant--because of their VERY extensive research, watchability and analysis of their craft. He also was responsible for the great mini-series "Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood"--a documentary that was about silents and early talking films. For this body of work, Brownlow received an honorary Oscar in 2011--and I was excited to see him recognized.

In the case of "Winstanley", however, Brownlow directed a film that has nothing whatsoever to do with silent movies. It was a very independently produced tiny film. Because of the very limited budget and resources, the film took eight years to complete, used all non-professional actors and was filmed semi-documentary style in black & white! It certainly is NOT the sort of film that the average person would ever watch, that's for sure!

The story is about a man named Gerrard Winstanley who lived during the 17th century in England. The film begins at the end of the English Civil War. Following this war, Winstanley published pamphlets that called for a Christian form of Communism--based on the way the early church lived in the book of Acts. It's all very idealistic, egalitarian and peaceful--so therefore those not in his group of followers hated them and saw them as a threat to civil order! So, they beat the crap out of the group, scattered them off public lands on which they were squatting and farming crops--and the idea eventually died. This is rather ironic, considering that technically speaking, Winstanley and his followers were being VERY good Christians--following the exact model created by the Apostles! It's also not very surprising that the film would be made, as communes and the like were very much in vogue when the project began in 1968.

This film is obviously a very sincere and amazing effort when you think about how it was made. Is it, then, any good? Well, yes and no. I loved how according to an article I read, Brownlow was VERY careful to only include animals in the film that actually existed during the mid-1600s. Newer hybrids and foreign animals found now in the UK were not used! Additionally, the outfits everyone wears are scruffy and many are shoeless--much like peasants would have been dressed at the time. So, historically speaking, I was VERY impressed with the attention to detail. However, I must admit that the film, at times, seemed a bit pathetic. I doubt if the Diggers (as Winstanley's group was nicknamed) consisted of so few people. I think this was done simply because the film had a shoestring budget. It's REALLY obvious, however, when they showed a truly pathetic 'battle' at the beginning of the film. This was supposed to be from the Civil War, but consisted of jerky camera angles, jiggling camera and weird editing to make you think there was a battle....but I honestly think there were only about 8-12 people in this HUGE battle of epic proportions!! It almost reminded me of a skit from "Monty Python"--but in this case it wasn't supposed to be funny. Because of such obvious problems due to a non-existent budget, it would REALLY be great if a big-budgeted version of Winstanley's life and legacy could be made....but I won't hold my breath waiting! Overall, the film is a noble effort but without any sort of momentum. The film consists of repeated efforts of the locals to get rid of the commune but it's all done without much energy or drama. This 'mini climax' actually happened repeatedly and kept the film from having a lot of impact, as I found myself getting a bit bored by the film's style and pace. Interesting and noble, perhaps, but not particularly enjoyable.

By the way, the DVD for this film included a special feature made in 1976 called "It Happened Here Again" and it's a making of film about "Winstanley". It was pretty interesting and tells how the film used great economy to make a 140 minute-long movie that cost about as much, according to this short film, as the opening credits of a James Bond film!! Well worth seeing. By the way, the title of the short was a takeoff on the title of Brownlow's first film "It Happened Here"--though it had absolutely nothing to do with "Winstanley".

Directed by Kevin Brownlow, and based on a true story, "Winstanley" documents the efforts of Gerrard Winstanley (Miles Halliwell), a social reformer who resisted the privatisation of once common land, and tried to establish a self-sufficient farming community in 17th century England. Essentially a small-scale experiment in socialism/communism, Winstanley's project was crushed by the status quo.

If history teaches us anything, it's that any major attempt to redistribute land, share wealth, nationalise resources or cooperate, gets you swiftly killed, couped or invaded by those with power. From pre-Biblical times, right up to the 20th century, and even today, with the countless overt and covert operations of modern neo-Imperialists, anyone who has attempted to implement any egalitarian policy that even remotely cuts into private profit, has been violently crushed. This is a lesson which Gerrard Winstanley learns the hard way, as he attempts to rally farmers and workers in Surrey, England.

The irony of "Winstanley" is that it takes place after a supposedly "progressive" social revolution. Afterall, the first English Civil War had just ended, and King Charles the 1st killed by Parliamentarians. But life for ordinary British men and women didn't get better; the absolute rule of monarchs was simply replaced by the rule of equally cruel landowners, all of whom accelerated Land Enclosure policies. Then the Restoration came, and Kings were back in charge. Feuds between British royalists, parliamentarians, capitalists and workers would then go on throughout the 1700s and 1800s, giving way to many riots (notably the 1830 Swing Riots), reforms and various regressive and progressive policies. These tensions continue to this day.

Director Kevin Brownlow is a renowned film historian and expert in silent cinema. Perhaps because of this, "Winstanley" is impeccably shot, and at times resembles the works of Bill Douglas (particularly "Comrades"), Pontecorvo, Rosselini and Eisenstein. Though shot on a low budget, the film also boasts fine production design. Its acting has been criticised (like Pasolini, Brownlow utilises amateur actors, some real-life political activists), but these raw qualities merely amplify the film's agitprop credentials.

Incidentally, Brownlow directed "It Happened Here" in 1966, a low budget war drama. Stanley Kubrick would donate film stock to that film's production. Kubrick's own period drama, "Barry Lyndon", premiered the same year as "Winstanley".

8.5/10 – Worth one viewing. See "The Wind That Shakes the Barley".