Arnaud des Pallières' Age of Uprising could easily make the most ardent of biographers blush. It's rich with historical details and characterizations that feel grounded and real, even more-so than the actual real life tale of Hans Kolhhase. In fact, Michael Kohlhaas as a film almost feels more like a biography than it does anything else... though, a very light and minimalist biography set in 16th century Prussia. The good part is that Mads Mikkelsen turns in a remarkable performance as usual; captivating, resolute, yet vulnerable. It's a complex character to portray, even if he has very little dialogue and not much to do on screen other than looking stern, scared, intense, or confused. In many ways, Age of Uprising is a very minimalist film -- it begs viewers to glom over its wide-sweeping cinematography, albeit with very deliberate low-lit scenarios. The film has a very grimey and melancholy look to it, beckoning viewers to embrace what they might presume to be some kind of foreboding omen lurking around the corner or some sense of dread for the characters waiting to rear its head... only, it never really happens.
The entire film runs just over two hours but can feel longer due to the fact that there isn't much going on most of the time. The story is almost rather straightforward, and the outcome is expected, but it takes a long while to get there, and asks of its viewers great patience while it makes the trek to get to its destination. The problem is that while it attempts to get there, there isn't much for viewers to latch onto. Majority of the film seems to center around characters moving about from one location to the next, seeing cavalcades move from one destination to the next, or characters taking horses from one location to the next. That makes up a large portion of the film's runtime.
The biggest criticism of the film is that almost all of the important bits are hidden off-screen. In fact, practically every single important moment in the film happens off-screen. What little action that does take place happens mostly off-screen, and what dramatic outcomes are rendered from those actions also happens off-screen. There is just so much of the film that begs the attention of its viewers only to then purposely not reward them for said attention. In many ways, it's Pallières indulging in the typical French pretentiousness that many of their films are known for. This isn't to say that the film needs to explicitly explain every single bit of its intentions or foreshadow everything upfront, but the whole film rests on moments that almost never have satisfying payoffs and then you're moved onto the next scene where you have to figure out what just happened in the previous scene all on your own.
So much of the runtime is not only watching a lot of nothing happening, but also piecing together bits of the story that are left unexplained. Now this can work for mystery films or thrillers or films with a twist that have a big payoff at the end, but in this case, this is not one of those films. It does not need to string viewers along for some twist or surprise pop-out from a villain saying "Nay! It was me all along!" A good example of this is that the film just moseys through Kohlhaas amassing a small army at one point; it makes no mention of how or why, just that he does. The only explanation given in the film during this segment is that a character says, "No one has spoken ill of you". So we're to piece together ourselves that because no one speaks ill of Kohlhaas, people will randomly join his cause. The film is rife with moments like this, where outcomes are presented and no explanations are given. We just have to assume what has happened in between the moments that were not shown. Some viewers may like this, others may find it as if it is robbing the viewer of the satisfaction of entertainment or drama (I must admit, I fall into the latter camp).
The movie isn't all bad, though. The costumes are fantastic, the settings look authentic, the sound design is superb (the constant buzzing of flies reminds you of just how filthy those times were), and there is an air of authenticity we typically don't see from many historical films of this kind. In many ways, it feels like you're in the 16th, not unlike how Kubrick made you feel like you were right there living life as a freeloader with Barry Lyndon in a very historically profound Europe during the Seven Years War. The problem is that unlike Barry Lyndon, this film is quite lacking in the depth when it comes to anything beyond presence and staging. The minimalist depiction leaves you wanting more from the film, but all it really has to offer is for viewers to ponder on the meaning of rightful justice, and to what extent a man who is wronged should go to receive such justice? In many ways, that element of the film is played out quite well and to its logical conclusion, but the question remains of whether it really needed two full hours to get there?
The framing of the story and minimalist depiction of events reminds me a little bit of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising, but that's not a film for everyone. And by proxy, if you're not really in the mood for a film that has a destination but seems to meander on some of the less important elements to get there -- making the trek far less interesting than it needs to be -- then you're likely not going to like Age of Uprising. In that regard, would suggest you check out Black 47, which is another historical film based on real events, but does a much better job of staging its worldbuilding and characters and following a more entertaining path to its destination. If, however, you're a fan of Mads, love historical pictures based on North-Eastern European culture, and have a penchant for slow plodding films, then Michael Kohlhaas may not be a bad way to spend two hours during the weekend.
The entire film runs just over two hours but can feel longer due to the fact that there isn't much going on most of the time. The story is almost rather straightforward, and the outcome is expected, but it takes a long while to get there, and asks of its viewers great patience while it makes the trek to get to its destination. The problem is that while it attempts to get there, there isn't much for viewers to latch onto. Majority of the film seems to center around characters moving about from one location to the next, seeing cavalcades move from one destination to the next, or characters taking horses from one location to the next. That makes up a large portion of the film's runtime.
The biggest criticism of the film is that almost all of the important bits are hidden off-screen. In fact, practically every single important moment in the film happens off-screen. What little action that does take place happens mostly off-screen, and what dramatic outcomes are rendered from those actions also happens off-screen. There is just so much of the film that begs the attention of its viewers only to then purposely not reward them for said attention. In many ways, it's Pallières indulging in the typical French pretentiousness that many of their films are known for. This isn't to say that the film needs to explicitly explain every single bit of its intentions or foreshadow everything upfront, but the whole film rests on moments that almost never have satisfying payoffs and then you're moved onto the next scene where you have to figure out what just happened in the previous scene all on your own.
So much of the runtime is not only watching a lot of nothing happening, but also piecing together bits of the story that are left unexplained. Now this can work for mystery films or thrillers or films with a twist that have a big payoff at the end, but in this case, this is not one of those films. It does not need to string viewers along for some twist or surprise pop-out from a villain saying "Nay! It was me all along!" A good example of this is that the film just moseys through Kohlhaas amassing a small army at one point; it makes no mention of how or why, just that he does. The only explanation given in the film during this segment is that a character says, "No one has spoken ill of you". So we're to piece together ourselves that because no one speaks ill of Kohlhaas, people will randomly join his cause. The film is rife with moments like this, where outcomes are presented and no explanations are given. We just have to assume what has happened in between the moments that were not shown. Some viewers may like this, others may find it as if it is robbing the viewer of the satisfaction of entertainment or drama (I must admit, I fall into the latter camp).
The movie isn't all bad, though. The costumes are fantastic, the settings look authentic, the sound design is superb (the constant buzzing of flies reminds you of just how filthy those times were), and there is an air of authenticity we typically don't see from many historical films of this kind. In many ways, it feels like you're in the 16th, not unlike how Kubrick made you feel like you were right there living life as a freeloader with Barry Lyndon in a very historically profound Europe during the Seven Years War. The problem is that unlike Barry Lyndon, this film is quite lacking in the depth when it comes to anything beyond presence and staging. The minimalist depiction leaves you wanting more from the film, but all it really has to offer is for viewers to ponder on the meaning of rightful justice, and to what extent a man who is wronged should go to receive such justice? In many ways, that element of the film is played out quite well and to its logical conclusion, but the question remains of whether it really needed two full hours to get there?
The framing of the story and minimalist depiction of events reminds me a little bit of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising, but that's not a film for everyone. And by proxy, if you're not really in the mood for a film that has a destination but seems to meander on some of the less important elements to get there -- making the trek far less interesting than it needs to be -- then you're likely not going to like Age of Uprising. In that regard, would suggest you check out Black 47, which is another historical film based on real events, but does a much better job of staging its worldbuilding and characters and following a more entertaining path to its destination. If, however, you're a fan of Mads, love historical pictures based on North-Eastern European culture, and have a penchant for slow plodding films, then Michael Kohlhaas may not be a bad way to spend two hours during the weekend.