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.

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.

As cinema Winstanley is more interesting than entertaining. The movie was made in conscious imitation of Eisenstein, easy to dismiss for anyone weaned on MTV. But Brownlow is a careful and capable student of the classic silent film, and if you are comfortable with the originals, you will feel right at home here.

The real story is also easy to overlook. Superficially it is about the poor persecuted diggers -- portrayed as post-apocalypse hobbits, their apocalypse having been the enclosure of the commons and the English Civil War.

But the dramatic center of the story, and hence of the movie, is not so much Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers as it is Thomas Fairfax and the New Model Army. Fairfax is a successful revolutionary general, and like every successful revolutionary leader in history he must confront the dilemma of how much revolution is too much.

On this conflict within Fairfax's conscience is based the ongoing dance between him and Winstanley, and the unfolding of the story. It is not a simple 'us versus them,' and both men know it. Both are revolutionaries, yet both see value in some parts of the old order. The difference is that Fairfax has already overturned the parts of the old order that he disliked, while Winstanley still aspires to further revolution -- or perhaps counter-revolution, since like many radicals he idealizes a lost golden age of pastoral simplicity. Winstanley has no power to succeed on his own, so his best hope is to win over Fairfax, both by argument and by a demonstration that his theories can work in practice. Fairfax is at first willing to give him this chance.

Fairfax, having fought successfully and won power, is becoming pragmatic. Winstanley, being poor and powerless, can afford to remain idealistic. And this increasing divergence is what makes Winstanley the movie an interesting story, rather than merely a film class exercise. It does not make it a great movie, or even a very good one, but it does make it worth watching. 6/10.



*** SLIGHT SPOILER ***

Part of the reason to watch this movie is to savor the period props. The arms and armor are mostly the real deal, borrowed from the Tower of London. The buildings and furniture are mostly 17th century, too. Even the livestock are ancient breeds, preserved by hobbyist farmers. But then there is the Diggers' clothing: the cloth looks machine woven, rather than homespun. Not a big deal, I know, but it is inconsistent with the rest of the very careful production.

The DVD also includes a "making of" documentary, which is great fun. Winstanley was a no-budget labor of love for all involved, and Brownlow describes some clever tricks for working with non-professional actors. A must-see for film students.