Summary:
Two British soldiers must deliver a message deep in enemy territory that will halt an attack and possibly save the lives of 1,600 of their fellow soldiers.
My Thoughts:
“1917” is more an experience than it is a movie; it’s as if you’re an invisible soldier right there on the battlefield, waking up alongside Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman, “The King”) and Schoefield (George MacKay, “Marrowbone”), before you’re tasked to carry out the mission with them. I say this film is an experience more than a film because it feels like a virtual WWI experience: you follow these soldiers from the moment they get their mission to the moment their mission comes to an end (however that may be), quite literally never breaking away from them.
The film is made to look as if it’s two long unbroken shots, and yes, there are hidden cuts throughout the film, and some of them are more obvious than others, but the length of the shots is probably the main draw of this film. It makes it incredibly unique as far as the intensive technical aspects that needed to be coordinated for every shot, but it also gives the film a whole new perspective that doesn’t focus so much on the action of war, but instead on the desolation it causes to the surrounding countryside (sort of like Elem Klimov’s “Come and See” or Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood”). While the story “1917” might be incredibly simple, it absolutely makes up for it with it’s amazing direction, production design, cinematography, and subtle character development. “1917” is far from my favorite film of the year (2019 was a great year for movies), but it’s still a 5/5 Star film in terms of sheer ambition and execution.
I’m sure the cinematography is what most people will remember about this film, and that’s totally valid. Veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins was behind the camera for this film, and for those that have followed film for a while (and closely), Deakins’ name will mean something. Deakins is revered in the film industry as one of the best cinematographers out there (though he’s only won one Oscar for “Blade Runner 2049”, he was nominated thirteen other times, and he’s never put out a bad looking film). This film might be his magnum opus, because cinematography is not only the centerpiece of this movie; without the lengthy takes, I honestly don’t think this movie would’ve worked nearly as well or have been nearly as emotionally impactful. The reason the lengthy takes work so well is that it gives us time to see the soldiers as they are when they aren’t in a particularly dangerous situation, just as they’re walking about and conversing, telling stories, talking about friends and family. The dialogue feels natural, and we have to learn about the characters based solely on what’s revealed through their interactions with others, and since the two protagonists are friends, they already know a lot about each other and don’t necessarily reveal much information to the viewer; the character development is incredibly subtle, but it is there. But aside from the naturalistic dialogue, the film just allows you to live in the world that these soldiers are experiencing, and that’s where the production design is really allowed to shine.
Even from the opening scene, I could tell that this film was going to be a glorious display of production design, because, again, this film is more about an experience than it is telling a complex story. You walk with these soldiers through rat-infested trenches; crawl with them over rotting corpses and coiled barbed wire; sneak with them through the bombed out husks of towns, now ridden with enemies. The world is hellish; muddy, bloody, diseased, fire-strewn, and rotting. It’s an amazing sight to take in, and I honestly wouldn’t at all be surprised if this film wins best production design. One other cool thing that I noticed about the film was how the beginning and ending of the film take place in lush green fields, and the middle of the film takes place in this hellscape; the beginning and ends of the film take place on opposite ends of the battlefield, where the battle itself has not yet reached. It’s as if Sam Mendes wants us to focus on how horrific the war has been to the landscape and those that are living there; he wants us to realize that it’s not just the soldiers that suffered, but an entire section of the world was ripped apart, and it will take years to rebuild; but, at the same time, he wants to give us hope that on the other side of hell, there might be greenery left in the world.
Verdict:
This is a very good film, and though the story is sort of thin, it more than makes up for it with its amazing technical aspects. From a technical standpoint, I wouldn’t have a hard time saying that this is one of the best films of the year, but from a storytelling standpoint, I didn’t find it nearly as impactful as some of other films I saw this year, like “Parasite”, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, or “The Lighthouse”. I would absolutely recommend seeing this film, and if you can, please see it on the big screen; this is one that deserves to be seen on as big a screen as possible.
2019 was a crazy good year for movies; I never would’ve imagined that I’d see this film, which handles it’s pacing as well as Nolan’s “Dunkirk” and is essentially the “Saving Private Ryan” of WWI movies, and still not even place it in my top ten of the year.
Review Written By: