Paul Greengrass’s new historical drama, set during the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt in London, draws a deliberate parallel to contemporary political events, particularly Brexit. The film centers on the uprising led by key figures such as the priest John Ball (Jamie Bell), former soldier Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), and the ploughman known simply as Ploughman (Andrew Garfield). The narrative portrays a turbulent London riot where rebels engage in violent acts against authorities and marginalized groups, notably targeting Flemish immigrants amid accusations that they are “taking our jobs.”

Greengrass has openly described the film as a Brexit-inspired project, reflecting on England’s enduring history of rebellion in regions that were prominent during the 2016 referendum, including Essex, Kent, Suffolk, and Lincolnshire. The film uses these historical events to explore themes of economic frustration and national identity, mirroring the sentiments that fueled real-world political upheaval a century later. The characters of Ploughman, Wat Tyler, and John Ball have been interpreted as symbolic stand-ins for prominent Brexit-era figures Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Nigel Farage, while the reigning king, Richard II, portrayed by Woody Norman, parallels then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

Garfield’s performance as Ploughman highlights the struggles of working-class individuals grappling with economic hardship and societal neglect, embodying a figure transformed from a grieving farmer—whose family has been lost to the plague—into a determined revolutionary. The film employs Greengrass’s signature kinetic “shaky camera” style, lending a sense of immediacy and urgency to the depiction of the uprising. Supporting cast members, including Tom Hollander as the treasurer Robert Hales, contribute to a portrayal of ruling authorities that is often unflattering.

Critical response to the film has been divided. While some praise the thrilling pacing and compelling performances, others express discomfort with its intense depiction of English nationalism. The film’s raw and sometimes unsettling portrayal of unfettered rebellion and xenophobia has sparked debate, with some viewers applauding its unflinching examination of historical and modern tensions, and others wary of its potential to romanticize divisive sentiments. This division echoes broader societal splits on issues of identity and belonging, reflected in votes and protests from the past decade.

Overall, the film offers a layered interpretation of a historical event through the lens of present-day political dynamics, providing both a historical drama and a contemporary allegory that prompts reflection on the roots and repercussions of social unrest. It opened in cinemas with a reception marked by both admiration and controversy.