Tag Archives: historical horror

Horror Film Review: A Field in England (dir. by Ben Wheatley)

Posted on by Arleigh

“It does not surprise me that the Devil is an Irishman. Though I thought perhaps he might be a bit taller.” — Friend

There is something deeply unsettling about a horror film that takes place almost entirely in broad daylight, and A Field in England uses that unease to devastating effect. Ben Wheatley’s 2014 release is a black-and-white nightmare about deserters, mushrooms, occult power, buried treasure, and men slowly losing whatever grip they had on reality. It is cryptic, abrasive, occasionally funny, deliberately repetitive, and sometimes so visually and sonically intense that it feels less like watching a film than being trapped inside a bad trip with several deeply unpleasant Englishmen.

Set during the English Civil War, A Field in England begins with Whitehead, played by Reece Shearsmith, fleeing an unseen battle. He is an educated man and an apprentice to an alchemist, although he is not particularly brave, heroic, or prepared for the chaos around him. Whitehead soon falls in with a small group of deserters: the blunt Cutler, the nervous Friend, and the worldly Trower. Their immediate goal is basic survival. They want food, ale, somewhere safe to rest, and preferably no more involvement in the war. Naturally, things do not work out that way.

The group crosses an enormous field and encounters O’Neill, played with unnerving authority by Michael Smiley. O’Neill is an alchemist, a manipulator, and possibly something more supernatural. He claims there is treasure buried in the field and forces the men into helping him dig for it. From there, the story gets progressively stranger, particularly after the men consume mushrooms that may or may not be supernatural in origin. The film’s central question is never simply whether the characters are hallucinating. Wheatley keeps pushing the viewer toward a more uncomfortable possibility: what if the hallucinations are revealing something real?

That ambiguity is the movie’s greatest strength and its biggest obstacle. A Field in England gives the audience fragments rather than firm answers. There are references to stolen papers, alchemical knowledge, magical control, a rival master, buried riches, and rituals that may have been going on long before these men stumbled into the field. But Wheatley and screenwriter Amy Jump never stop to explain the rules. The field seems both ordinary and impossible. It is a place where history, warfare, class resentment, religious anxiety, superstition, and psychedelic terror all collapse into one ugly patch of grass.

The setting is especially impressive because it is so limited. Much of the film takes place in one open field, but Wheatley makes that restriction feel like a trap rather than a budgetary compromise. The wide, empty landscape should offer freedom, yet it becomes increasingly claustrophobic. There is nowhere to hide, no landmark to guide anyone out, and no real sense that walking away would accomplish anything. The field becomes a purgatory, a prison, and an altered state of mind all at once. The characters are technically outdoors the whole time, but they might as well be locked in a dungeon.

Laurie Rose’s black-and-white cinematography is essential to that effect. The movie is beautiful in a harsh, unfriendly way. The high-contrast images turn grass, clouds, trees, faces, and dirt into something almost mythic. Instead of giving the Civil War setting a polished historical-drama look, the monochrome photography makes it feel ancient and unstable, like a series of damaged photographs or illustrations pulled from a cursed old book. The lack of color also helps detach the film from realism. Blood, mud, sweat, and the field itself lose their normal visual identity, making everything feel one step removed from the world the audience recognizes.

The film’s most famous stylistic choices arrive during its hallucinatory stretches. Wheatley uses strobing images, freeze frames, abrupt flashes, distorted sound, overlapping dialogue, and violently fractured editing to turn the characters’ mushroom-induced breakdowns into sensory assaults. These sequences are not designed to be pleasant or even easily readable. At times, they are exhausting. That is clearly the point. The men are losing control of time, memory, language, and physical space, and the film wants the viewer to feel that disorientation rather than observe it safely from a distance.

This can make A Field in England a demanding watch. There are stretches where the characters repeat themselves, argue in circles, dig holes, pull ropes, or speak in riddles that do not immediately add up. Some viewers will probably find this fascinating, while others will feel that Wheatley is testing their patience for the sake of being weird. Both reactions are fair. The film occasionally comes close to mistaking opacity for depth. Not every bizarre image carries the same force, and the narrative sometimes feels like it is daring the audience to keep watching rather than drawing them in naturally.

Still, the performances keep the movie from floating completely away into abstraction. Shearsmith is especially good as Whitehead, whose intelligence does not save him from terror or humiliation. He plays the character as someone who desperately wants to understand the occult forces surrounding him but may be too frightened and compromised to confront them. There is something deeply sad about Whitehead’s weakness. He is not a clean-cut innocent, but he is also clearly outmatched by O’Neill.

Michael Smiley, meanwhile, is fantastic as O’Neill. He does not play the role as a standard screaming madman. That would be too easy. Instead, he is controlled, smug, and almost conversational, which makes him much more threatening. O’Neill treats cruelty like an intellectual exercise. He speaks as though he is always several steps ahead, and his certainty becomes frightening because nobody else in the film can confidently say whether he is a fraud, a sorcerer, or a man who has simply learned how to exploit frightened people. Smiley gives the character the exact kind of ugly charisma needed for a villain who may be entirely human but feels almost demonic.

The supporting cast also deserves credit. Peter Ferdinando, Richard Glover, and Ryan Pope give the film its rougher, more grounded energy. Their banter provides an odd kind of dark humor, especially early on, before the nightmare fully takes over. Wheatley has always had a talent for making people sound casually vicious and absurd at the same time, and A Field in England contains that familiar bite. These are not noble historical figures delivering grand speeches. They are exhausted, hungry, crude men trying to survive a war they barely understand.

What makes the movie linger is how it turns that survival instinct into something ugly. The field strips away the characters’ supposed identities. Religion, social rank, education, loyalty, and military allegiance all become flimsy protections. Whitehead may be literate and knowledgeable; O’Neill may possess real occult power; Cutler may be physically capable; Trower may seem more practical than the others. None of it guarantees safety. Everyone is vulnerable to fear, manipulation, and the possibility that they have walked into a place where ordinary rules no longer apply.

As horror, A Field in England is less interested in jump scares than spiritual contamination. It is about the horror of not knowing whether you are seeing reality, madness, divine punishment, or the Devil at work. Wheatley uses the English countryside not as a comforting pastoral image, but as something ancient, indifferent, and possibly hostile. The movie shares some DNA with folk horror, but it is rougher and less traditionally structured than something like The Wicker Man. It also has the psychedelic aggression of a 1960s or 1970s experimental film, filtered through Wheatley’s mean streak and dark sense of humor.

Ultimately, A Field in England is not an easy movie to love, but it is difficult to dismiss. It is too committed to its mood, too visually striking, and too full of uneasy ideas to be written off as empty weirdness. Wheatley makes the viewer work, and sometimes he pushes that demand to the point of frustration. But when the film locks into its nightmare rhythm, it is genuinely haunting. The sound design rattles around in your head, the images feel burned into your memory, and the field itself starts to seem like the kind of place you would never want to wander into alone.

For viewers who want a straightforward historical horror movie, A Field in England may feel like a punishing experience. For anyone willing to follow Ben Wheatley into a muddy, surreal, pitch-black vision of war, magic, and madness, it is one of the strangest British horror films of its era. It does not explain itself, it does not comfort the audience, and it definitely does not care whether everyone comes out of it satisfied. That stubbornness is exactly what makes it memorable.

Review: Black Death (dir. by Christopher Smith)

Posted on by Arleigh

“I believe hunting necromancers and demons serves men more than it serves God.” — Osmund

British filmmaker Christopher Smith has always been something of an under-the-radar presence, steadily putting out films that show flashes of talent without quite breaking into the mainstream. By the time Black Death arrived in 2011 (after its 2010 UK debut), Smith had already built a modest body of work that hinted at a filmmaker sharpening his voice. Looking back now, though, Black Death feels less like a stepping stone and more like a high-water mark—arguably the point where his growth as a director peaked before his later efforts settled into something more pedestrian or simply passable.

Set in 1348 England during the height of the plague, the film follows Osmund, a young monk caught between his religious vows and his love for a woman named Avrill. It’s a familiar internal conflict, but one that Black Death treats with a surprising amount of weight. Osmund’s indecision isn’t just romantic hesitation—it’s a crisis of identity, faith, and fear in a world that feels like it’s actively collapsing. When Avrill gives him a week to choose, that ticking clock hangs over everything that follows, even as the narrative shifts into something darker.

Enter Ulric (Sean Bean), a hardened knight tasked with investigating a remote village rumored to be untouched by the plague—and possibly harboring a necromancer. Osmund volunteers to guide Ulric and his men through the marshes, seeing the journey as both an escape and a test. What follows is less a traditional quest and more a gradual stripping away of certainty, as each step toward the village drags the characters deeper into moral ambiguity.

The journey itself is marked by violence, disease, and small but telling moments of cruelty. One of the film’s most effective scenes involves a woman accused of witchcraft. Ulric appears, at first, to intervene with compassion, only to execute her himself in the name of expediency. It’s a cold, efficient act that encapsulates the film’s worldview—belief, in any form, can justify brutality when it’s held too tightly.

Once the group reaches the village, Black Death shifts gears into something more unsettling. The horror here isn’t loud or overt; it’s quiet, controlled, and deeply psychological. The village’s apparent immunity to the plague raises more questions than it answers, and Smith resists the urge to provide easy explanations. Instead, the film leans into ambiguity, letting tension build through implication rather than spectacle.

At its core, the film is less about the plague itself and more about how people interpret it. Is it divine punishment? A test of faith? Or something else entirely? Smith, working from Dario Poloni’s script, explores how both religious and secular authorities manipulate these interpretations to maintain control. The result is a world where truth becomes secondary to belief—and where belief itself becomes a weapon.

Osmund stands at the center of this conflict, pulled between Ulric’s rigid, punitive worldview and the village’s more enigmatic philosophy. Eddie Redmayne plays him with a quiet restraint that borders on opacity in the first half, but that pays off once the story reaches its turning point. As Osmund begins to unravel, Redmayne lets more complexity seep in, turning what initially feels like a passive character into something far more unstable and unpredictable.

Sean Bean, as expected, delivers a commanding performance. His Ulric is not a cartoonish zealot, but a man whose certainty makes him dangerous. He believes completely in what he’s doing, and that conviction gives his actions a disturbing legitimacy. It’s one of those performances where the lack of doubt is what makes the character so unsettling.

Visually, Black Death commits fully to its bleakness. The mud-soaked landscapes, the gray skies, the ever-present sense of decay—it all reinforces the film’s oppressive tone. Smith’s direction here is notably controlled, favoring atmosphere and tension over flashy technique. The violence, rendered with practical effects, is harsh and immediate without feeling gratuitous, adding to the film’s grounded realism.

There’s an unmistakable echo of Witchfinder General in how the film approaches its themes, particularly in its refusal to draw clean moral lines. Like that earlier classic, Black Death presents a world where righteousness and cruelty often occupy the same space, and where faith can be both a source of strength and a tool of destruction.

What makes Black Death stand out within Smith’s filmography—especially in hindsight—is how confidently it balances all of these elements. The thematic ambition, the performances, the atmosphere, the restraint in its storytelling—it all comes together in a way that his later films haven’t quite matched. Where Black Death feels deliberate and probing, much of his subsequent work has leaned more toward the functional, lacking the same sense of purpose or depth.

That’s not to say Smith lost his technical ability, but the edge—the sense that he was really digging into something uncomfortable and meaningful—feels dulled in comparison. Black Death captures a moment where everything aligned: a strong script, a committed cast, and a director pushing himself beyond straightforward genre conventions.

The result is a film that works on multiple levels. It’s a grim historical horror piece, a character study, and a meditation on faith and control, all wrapped in a stark, unforgiving atmosphere. More importantly, it stands as a reminder of what Christopher Smith was capable of at his peak—even if that peak, in retrospect, came earlier than expected.

Review: The Devils (dir. by Ken Russell)

Posted on by Arleigh

“I have been a man. I have loved women. I have enjoyed power.” — Father Urbain Grandier

Ken Russell’s The Devils (1971) stands as one of the most provocative and polarizing films in cinema history, a visceral plunge into the hysteria of religious fanaticism and political intrigue set against the backdrop of 17th-century France. Adapted loosely from Aldous Huxley’s historical account The Devils of Loudun and John Whiting’s play The Devils, the film dramatizes the real-life case of Father Urbain Grandier, a charismatic priest accused of witchcraft amid a scandal of supposed demonic possessions at a Loudun convent. Directed with unbridled fervor by Russell, who infuses every frame with operatic excess, the movie challenges viewers to confront the grotesque intersections of faith, sexuality, power, and repression. While its boldness earns admiration for unflinching social commentary, its stylistic indulgences can overwhelm, making it a work that demands both endurance and reflection.

The story unfolds in the walled city of Loudun, a Protestant stronghold under threat from Catholic forces led by the cunning Cardinal Richelieu. Oliver Reed delivers a towering performance as Grandier, portraying him not as a saintly martyr but as a flawed, hedonistic figure—a womanizer who preaches liberty while bedding Madeleine (Gemma Jones), a young Protestant whose quiet devotion contrasts sharply with the surrounding debauchery. Grandier’s defiance of Richelieu’s edict to demolish the city’s walls marks him as a target, but his downfall accelerates through the hysterical claims of Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave), the hunchbacked prioress of the Ursuline convent. Twisted by unrequited lust for Grandier, Jeanne accuses him of sorcery, sparking a wave of mass possession among the nuns that spirals into public spectacle. Russell draws from historical records to depict these events, emphasizing how personal pathologies fueled institutional corruption.

Visually, The Devils is a tour de force of baroque horror, with production designer Derek Jarman crafting sets that evoke a pristine white monastery defiled by filth and frenzy. Cinematographer David Watkin employs distorted wide-angle lenses and frenetic camera movements to mirror the characters’ unraveling psyches, turning sacred spaces into nightmarish arenas. The infamous “nunsploitation” sequences—where possessed sisters writhe in orgiastic fits, desecrate crucifixes, and simulate blasphemous acts—remain shocking even today, not merely for their explicitness but for their raw psychological intensity. These scenes serve Russell’s thesis: repressed desires, when twisted by authority figures like the witch-hunting Father Barre and Father Mignon, erupt into collective madness. Fairly assessed, these choices underscore Russell’s intent: to expose how power structures weaponize female hysteria, a theme resonant in historical witch hunts and modern reckonings with abuse.

Russell’s direction amplifies this through rhythmic editing and a pounding score by Peter Maxwell Davies, which blends liturgical chants with dissonant percussion to evoke a descent into hell. The film’s opening, with its ritualistic execution of a wise woman amid fireworks and folk rituals, sets a tone of pagan vitality clashing against ecclesiastical oppression. Midway, hallucinatory visions plague Grandier, blurring reality and delusion in a style reminiscent of Russell’s later explorations of ecstatic breakdown. The film unflinchingly depicts torture scenes—a burning at the stake, an afternoon in the rack, headscrews, a douche with boiling water—highlighting its raw confrontation with human cruelty. However, this excess risks tipping into self-parody; moments like the nuns’ simulated levitations or Jeanne’s contortions can strain credulity, prompting questions of balance between provocation and restraint.

Performances anchor the chaos, with Reed’s Grandier embodying defiant charisma undercut by hubris. His courtroom defiance and final quartering—nailed alive to a burning cross—culminate in a crucifixion scene of harrowing power, rivaling traditional passion narratives in emotional weight. Redgrave’s Jeanne is a revelation, her physical deformity symbolizing inner torment; she veers from pitiable to monstrous without caricature. Supporting turns shine too: Dudley Sutton as the impish Baron de Laubardemont, scheming for Richelieu; Max Adrian as the syphilitic priest whose decaying face mirrors moral rot; and Christopher Logue as the predatory Cardinal, whose urbane cruelty chills. The ensemble’s conviction elevates the material, ensuring characters feel flesh-and-blood rather than allegorical pawns.

Thematically, The Devils indicts institutional religion not as anti-faith but as a critique of its perversion by human ambition. Russell draws parallels to scandals where church power intertwines with politics, arguing that true devilry lies in hypocrisy. The film posits sexuality as a battleground: Grandier’s libertinism versus Jeanne’s repression, with the church exploiting both for control. This aligns with Huxley’s original thesis, expanded by Russell into a broader assault on authoritarianism. Politically, it skewers absolutism; Richelieu’s agents manipulate “possessions” for territorial gain, much as witchfinders historically profited from purges. Balanced against this, the film acknowledges Grandier’s flaws—he fathers a child out of wedlock and mocks piety—preventing hagiography. Upon release, it faced cuts in various countries, its controversial rating reflecting discomfort with its uncompromised vision.

Stylistically, Russell risks the “ridiculous” for the sublime. The white-tiled convent, pristine yet prone to vomit and excrement, symbolizes false purity; smashing it in the finale cathartically liberates Loudun from fanaticism. Influences from montage masters appear in crowd scenes, synthesized into a singular fever dream. Pacing falters in the trial’s verbosity, and some anachronistic flourishes—like Louis XIII’s cross-dressing ballet—inject campy levity, diluting gravity at times. Yet these quirks humanize the director’s bombast, reminding us of cinema’s power to provoke laughter amid horror. Compared to Russell’s Women in Love or Tommy, The Devils stands as his most structurally coherent assault on repression.

Historically contextualized, the Loudun possessions of 1634 involved Urbain Grandier, executed for allegedly bewitching Ursuline nuns via a pact with Satan. Huxley documented the hysteria, linking it to political machinations under Richelieu, who sought to crush Huguenot resistance. Russell amplifies the carnality for dramatic effect, prioritizing emotional truth over literalism. Restored versions reveal its full ferocity, influencing not just cinema but broader media, including comics like Argentinian artist Ignacio Noé’s The Convent of Hell, which echoes its themes of convent-based depravity and demonic intrigue in vivid, explicit sequential art.

Ultimately, The Devils endures as a lightning rod: a moral film cloaked in immorality, pro-religion by exposing its distortions. Its ugliness—filth-smeared faces, ruptured bodies—serves illumination, urging viewers toward wisdom. For every viewer repulsed by its excesses, another finds genius in its candor. Russell’s gamble pays off; in risking the absurd, he achieves a sublime confrontation with our shadowed souls. At around 109 minutes in its uncut form, it repays multiple viewings, rewarding the brave with insights into faith’s fragility and power’s perils. Not flawless—its hysteria occasionally exhausts—yet undeniably vital, The Devils remains essential cinema, a shattered lens on humanity’s eternal dance with darkness.