Paul Greengrass Talks ‘The Uprising,’ Robin Hood and the Timeless Power of Rebellion

Paul Greengrass has long been drawn to ordinary people standing up against forces greater than themselves. It’s a theme that runs through Bloody Sunday, United 93 and Captain Phillips, among others, and one that continues in his newest film, The Uprising.

As a schoolboy in the U.K., the future journalist-turned-filmmaker learned about the Peasants’ Revolt, the 1381 uprising that swept across England. In the aftermath of the devastating Black Death, Wat Tyler, John Ball and other rebel leaders rose up against the excessive taxation imposed by King Richard II and his oligarch-filled council before marching toward London and ultimately into the Tower in the name of a fairer, more dignified life.

Perhaps the actions of England’s peasantry made such a formative impression on young Greengrass that he was unconsciously drawn to other stories with a similar thematic undercurrent. Even Jason Bourne, while far from an everyman, fits that mold in his own way. Across Greengrass’ three Bourne movies, the elite assassin turns against the clandestine institution that created him, determined to escape its grip and bring its covert operations to light.

At any rate, Greengrass finally decided to dramatize the Peasants’ Revolt on the second day of the 2020 pandemic lockdown. But instead of centering his story on real-life players such as Tyler or Ball, he chose a fictional farmer known simply as the Ploughman (Andrew Garfield), allowing both the common folk of the period and the audience to identify with his quest.

But there’s an added wrinkle to all this. The original title of The Uprising was The Hood, a reference to the Ploughman’s transformational arc. He may become a hero, but he also becomes an outlaw — one who comes to resemble the mythic figure known as Robin Hood. The Ploughman moniker carries a connection to William Langland’s 1370s poem Piers Plowman, which predates the Peasants’ Revolt and notably contains the first literary reference to Robin Hood, whose embryonic legend had already begun taking shape in the 13th century.

Greengrass and his film posit that the Great Uprising in the late 14th century helped give rise to the proliferation of Robin Hood stories, most of which were written in the 15th and 16th centuries.

“The legend of Robin Hood began to be [written] widely in the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt. Why? Because people, following the rebellion, loved to [orally] tell stories about an outlaw who stood up against power at that time when they felt powerless,” Greengrass tells The Hollywood Reporter. “So it all made sense to me that I’d end up creating this simple farmer to go on a journey through the rebellion and become an outlaw.”

The historical epic’s marketing campaign unveiled the film’s Robin Hood allusion on Aug. 20, and the reveal was met with a great deal of confusion, partly because it appeared the film had been retitled The Uprising: The Rise of Robin Hood. That was never the case, though; it was merely a tagline. Other folks, including this writer, kvetched about the rug-pull not being saved for in the theater, but it’s another example of the eternal tug-of-war between movie marketing and the optimal moviegoing experience.

“You can’t lay out everything at the start. You want a campaign that builds. So it was [Focus Features’] idea to entice people with the idea that there’s something more than they think, and there is. It’s the ending, but it’s not a trite ending,” Greengrass says. “The last ten minutes are incredibly well-earned and incredibly entertaining. So I think we’ve been a bit unfairly criticized for the marketing. You’ve got to somehow hint, ‘This is where this film’s going to go. Come and see it.’”

The Uprising feels strikingly of the moment. Modern-day oligarchs wield outsized influence over elections and self-enriching policies. Working people, meanwhile, continue to struggle with the rising cost of living, and discontent seems destined to boil over. The parallels to 1381 are readily apparent, and that overlap is why Focus green lit the picture in 2025.

“When Andrew [as Ploughman] sweeps the papers off the tax collector’s table and says, ‘That’s enough,’ that was the moment I remember thinking, This movie is really going to work. It’s how people feel today a lot of the time: we’ve had enough,” Greengrass says.

Below, during a conversation with THR, Greengrass also discusses his contentment with passing the Bourne baton to Edward Berger, as well as where he stands on the much-debated subject of historical accuracy in movies.

As I remarked to Andrew Garfield, I really enjoyed The Uprising. I just wish I could have seen it without knowing about the recent marketing fuss. I crave the element of surprise, and it’s so rarely preserved these days since movies are covered more closely than ever before. Was Uprising’s allusion to the birth of Robin Hood always going to be revealed in the marketing? 

I started writing an original screenplay called The Hood on the second day of [2020’s] lockdown. That’s how long ago it was. I called it that because it had the outlaw ending, so it was always there. 

Focus is doing a wonderful job with the campaign. You can’t lay out everything at the start. You want a campaign that builds. So it was their idea to entice people with the idea that there’s something more than they think, and there is. It’s the ending, but it’s not a trite ending. The last ten minutes are incredibly well-earned and incredibly entertaining.

So I think we’ve been a bit unfairly criticized for the marketing. You’ve got to somehow hint, “This is where this film’s going to go. Come and see it.”

I covered The Death of Robin Hood a couple of months ago, and with The Uprising being partially about the birth of the Robin Hood legend, both films bookend one another rather nicely. Did that film alter your rollout plans at all?

To be absolutely honest, I didn’t even know about it until quite recently, and I did not know that it had already been out in America. I thought it was about to come out in the U.K., and then I was told that it had already come out in America. But you know what? Great. 

Making films is already hard enough, so you’ve got to think about your own film only. I suspect they’re much different films, with much different purposes and much different things to offer people. That’s the beauty of movies, isn’t it? There’s lots of movies, there’s lots of room for lots of movies and people love lots of different movies.

I read that The Uprising’s development was very stop-and-go. And because we’re still living in a time where any form of IP or known commodity rules the day, I did wonder if you had to include the Robin Hood allusion to help loosen the pursestrings for a movie that’s primarily about the Peasants’ Revolt. But as you said, it was built in from the start.

To your point, it did take a long time to get it made, that’s for sure. After I wrote it, I couldn’t get it made. But it started becoming more and more relevant. It felt very strongly contemporary when I wrote it, and it became only more contemporary as the years went by until Focus finally said, “We want to do it.” That was really the decisive moment, but nothing changed. It was not modified in any way.

The Uprising does contain many striking parallels to modern day. I know you grew up with the story of the Peasants’ Revolt, but did you only want to dramatize it once you realized just how much it mirrors the 2020s?

I just wanted to tell a story about an English rebellion. I can’t really remember why. It just interested me. I had a couple stories I was thinking about, but the Peasants’ Revolt was always the favorite. So when lockdown happened, I thought, Okay, I’m going to write the Peasants’ Revolt movie.

Then you ask yourself, Well, what kind of film do you want to make? And I wanted to make a historical epic like Spartacus or Braveheart or Gladiator, because I’d never made one of those kinds of movies. I wanted to make a big movie with a hero’s journey and grand scale and spectacle and intrigue, concerned with the fight for justice and against injustice. Those are the timeless themes of the historical epic, and they speak to the times. Part of how the genre works is that you get to take an audience back to a distant world, but you also get to hold a mirror up to your own times.

Then I thought, Well, who’s my central character going to be? It’s going to be the simple farmer, not Maximus. Now, what was interesting — and was very much in my mind at that time — was that the legend of Robin Hood began to be [written] widely in the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt. Why? Because people, following the rebellion, loved to [orally] tell stories about an outlaw who stood up against power at that time when they felt powerless. So it all made sense to me that I’d end up creating this simple farmer to go on a journey through the rebellion and become an outlaw. He’s revealed to be the hero that will live on. That’s why I initially called it The Hood.

In the lead-up to The Odyssey’s release, certain corners of the internet bellyached endlessly about the creative license Christopher Nolan exercised, much of it under the guise of historical accuracy. How did you approach that balance between historical authenticity and creative license?

Well, I can’t speak for Christopher; his film’s success speaks for itself. I can only speak for my film, and what you have to try and do is create a cinematic experience where people believe that they’re being transported back to medieval England. You have to present a picture that feels believable. As I said, part of the way these historical epics work is they have to also offer a distant mirror to our own time. So you’ve got to build a world and make people feel like they’re in it. 

Making a film in medieval England is much like making a sci-fi movie in a way. It’s an imaginary world, but you’ve got to make it believable. It’s got to have enough of the elements of the medieval world to be true to that world, and then you’ve got to tell your story. I’m not making a documentary. I’m not teaching a class in school. I’m making a movie. It’s going to be an entertainment. So you put all your history books and research away, and you make a movie.

There’s another Bourne film moving its way through development at a snail’s pace. Three films is a hearty meal already, so are you happy to be a spectator going forward?

I’m very happy. I’m really excited to see the new one. Ed Berger is doing it, and it’ll be fantastic. It’s a great franchise with a great character, and I can’t wait to see the next one.

Whenever I talk to action filmmakers, they always break down the different eras of action design, and they inevitably reference how influential the Bourne era was. How much ownership do you feel over that style and trend?

In terms of style, I don’t feel ownership, but I feel ownership of my films, if I can put it like that. You try to make films the best you can and as true to yourself as you can, but you’ve got to keep on doing your own thing. Not every film works, that’s just the nature of it. But you give every single one 110 percent.

The Uprising always felt very special to me as we were making it. Andrew is absolutely magnificent in it, and it’s got great spectacle and scale. If you like the movies I’ve made in the past, you’ll like this one because you can understand why I would’ve made it and why it looks like it does.

From lockdown to the premiere, what day on the set of The Uprising set made the entire experience worthwhile? 

When Andrew sweeps the papers off the tax collector’s table and says, “That’s enough,” that was the moment I remember thinking, This movie is really going to work. Andrew did it incredibly well and dramatically — and it just felt so believable. I remember looking at him through the lens and seeing the feeling of rage brewing up in him. “That’s enough. We’ve given you enough,” just felt like such a human thing to say. And it’s how people feel today a lot of the time: we’ve had enough.

***
The Uprising releases Sept. 10 in movie theaters nationwide.