Winstanley

Here's the synopsis bit: in the political and social ferment following the English Civil War a pamphlet called The New Law of Righteousness, was published by Gerrard Winstanley advocating a form of Christian Communism. He set up a self-sufficient commune of "Diggers" to claim back common land for the poor and dispossessed. Which didn't please the loutish locals, or the rich landlords, and especially not pious parson Platt. Cue yobbish raids on the peace-abiding commune; the humble diggers frequently beaten up, their simple settlement smashed, their small straw-bale houses burnt down.

The film was made over a period of 6/7 years on a shoe-string with mostly amateur actors picked more on authentic look (i.e bad teeth) than credible acting ability. I've noticed that the best way to direct a non- professional cast seems to be to not give them much dialogue to say or complicated feelings to emote; just get them accentuating how they normally look and ordinarily are – which in this case meant lots of dirty plaintive faces suffering misery-inducing hardship, while wearing dopey hobbit hats.

Winstanley is played by Mike Halliwell – a teacher – who, when sermonising to his illiterate peasant flock, sounded like he was tutoring posh kids at a public school; he's earnest enough (brow is set firmly to furrowed) but not entirely convincing; too nice and polite, too 20th century well-mannered – to cut it as a rough hewn 17th century charismatic visionary.

Another 20th century incursion – altho this one seemed deliberate – was the involvement of real life "diggers": Sid Rawle's bunch of anarchic 70′s squatters recast as 17th century hippy Ranters; they monkey mad- eyed and butt-naked around the camp. Winstanley's sober (True) Levellers seemed by comparison, tame – not free-spirited, but merely meekly subservient – passively yoking themselves to yet another compliant form of pious Bible puritanism.

Considering this film was more or less made for nothing it looks great; the black and white cinematography seems to crisply authenticate all the mud and misery; rain dripped off bare branches, dripping onto blank faces, squalling over sodden pixie hovels (why did they build their dwellings so small i wonder); the sooty smoke and crackle of the campfire so tangible i was warming my hands on the laptop screen.

This film – along with Bill Douglas's Comrades – would agitate any aspiring lefty activists. I felt leftily activated enough to check out Winstanley, Sid Rawle, The Ranters, The Levellers, etc on Google. I didn't go as far as Christian Communism though. That looked a bit too back breakingly dull for me.

With all the fanfare surrounding this low-budget indie, I guess I was expecting a bit more than a series of disjointed scenes and poorly exposed cinematography. The film opens with great promise showing a well-executed battle scene interspersed with text explaining the political landscape of the mid-1600 but then rapidly goes downhill with below average technical production. There's no drama or tension to speak of. I've seen much better historical "documentaries" when I was in grammar school. A valiant effort but it doesn't hold a candle against other indie films of the period. A '4' in my book, and that's being generous.

Today the term "indie film" is a bloated cliché, misapplied to any movie with a budget under $50 million and not too much CGI, regardless of how conventional and hackneyed the film is. To see really independent cinema you have to go back to the 60s and 70s, when revolutions in the technology allowed eccentrics and visionaries, working totally outside the industry and with virtually no money, to make truly unique movies. Folks like Warhol and Waters and Anger in the US, Herzog in Germany, and the team of Brownlow and Mollo in the UK. All very different from one another (and everyone else), which is part of what makes them authentic independents. Starting when they were just 18, Brownlow and Mollo made two extraordinary history-based films. First they spent eight years (and something like 20,000 pounds, minuscule even in 1970s currency) making "It Happened Here," a what-if fantasy about England occupied by the Nazis during World War II that looks so realistic you could be fooled it's a documentary if you're history-challenged. Then, with an equally tiny budget and fierce attention to detail, they made the true-to-history "Winstanley," about the proto-democracy (and proto-Quaker, and proto-hippie) revolt of the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters in 17th-century England. Again it looks so real it's like a documentary somehow shot in the 1640s, but it's also beautiful, poetic and philosophical in a kind of Herzogian way. They're both remarkable little films, unlike anything else, that should be remedial must-see's for anyone who likes or is involved in what's called indie film nowadays.

I first watched this film in an Early Modern European history course and it blew me away. As a film buff it's interesting. It's a lot like a silent film (i.e. Griffith) with all the narrative frames in between each scene. As a socialist I find this film invaluable as a gateway to Winstanley's writings. He was truly a man ahead of his time.

Gerrard Winstanley (1609 – 1676) was an English Protestant religious reformer and political activist during the period after the English Civil Wat under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. He was one of the leaders of a movement which called itself the True Levellers, was known by others as the Diggers, and could be characterised as a form of Christian Communism.

This little-known and well-intentioned film about the radical movement - directed and co-written by Kevin Brownlow - will not be to all tastes. Visually, it reminds one of the best of early cinema such as that of Eisenstein: 4:3 ratio, black and white, distant shots of figures, close up shots of faces, a variety of framed shots. And it is a vivid and authentic reaction of the period. But much of the acting is very amateurish and there is a lack of both characterisation and narrative.