1917
- An amazing piece of technical filmmaking with a simple, but moving story at its core.
Full Disclosure: War movies are as common as narcissistic Instagram celebrities. There’s a good reason for that (war movies, I mean, not Instagram celebrities). War is the most prominent expression of human conflict, a necessary element of any movie. Many war movies are quite good, but they can also become repetitive unless they have something new to say (other than “war is hell”), or tell the story in a unique way. I was curious to see if 1917 would rise to this level. Also, while World War I movies are relatively less common, there seems to be a bit of a renaissance for them lately, with the documentary They Shall Not Grow Old and the war’s prominence in Wonder Woman, both coming in recent years.
Review
The story of 1917 is relatively straight forward. It’s about two British soldiers, Lance Corporals Blake (played by Game of Thrones veteran Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are given orders to carry a message across dangerous terrain during World War I in order to stop a British brigade from marching into a trap laid by the Germans. The task is given emotional urgency due to the fact that Blake’s older brother is one of the soldiers in the brigade that will be wiped out in the ambush.
The first thing that stands out about 1917 is how technically brilliant the film is, and in that regard it’s certainly a masterpiece. The story is essentially told in real time, and almost entirely without visible cuts. With one brief exception, the film looks like it’s almost 119 minutes of one continuous shot. It’s filmed in that way to make the viewer feel as though they’ve been sent on this dangerous mission along with Blake and Schofield, and it’s incredibly effective.
As a technical piece of filmmaking, it’s one of the most stunning achievements in recent years. With probably equal thanks to the director, cinematographer, and editor, the transitions that must exist between shots (apparently the longest single take was actually about 9 minutes) are seamless.
None of this would matter, though, if it were just gimmicky bullshit. You still have to tell a story, and the choices that Director Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins made in terms of camera placement throughout these long shots helped do that. One example: at the beginning of the movie, right after the pair have received their orders and are weaving their way through the trenches, sometimes the camera is a bit in front of one or both of the characters, but sometimes it lags behind as Blake races ahead. This not only speaks to the urgency of their mission, it also tells us a bit about Blake as well – how desperate he is to get to his brother lets us know the importance of family in his life.
Blake and Schofield taking their first harrowing steps across No Man’s Land.
What the single-shot approach also does is reinforce the almost claustrophobic nature of World War I, and the difficulty of understanding what was going on even a few hundred yards away, in a time without effective battlefield wireless communication, and with minimal aerial surveillance technology. The reason why the movie is often as tense as it is - for instance when Blake and Schofield first attempt to cross No Man’s Land, after being told that the Germans pulled back from their position – is that, like the soldiers, we have no idea if what they’re being told is true until they make the treacherous walk across to the German trenches.
The movie does have a weakness, and that’s that the story is pretty simple. In contrast to the geographic twists and turns the characters have to take in order to reach their destination, there are no twists and turns in the plot, just one unforeseen obstacle after another.
There is also very little in the way of character development. However, the lack of development of the main characters is offset by the way in which each of the other characters that cross paths with Blake and Schofield seems to speak to the different ways that people react to the horrors of war. There’s a soldier paralyzed with fear and emotion, a man always eager for action, a de-sensitized cynic who deals with everything with caustic humour, an overbearing and entitled officer who takes out his impotence and frustrations on everyone else, etc. These characters give some colour to an otherwise ho-hum movie for character evolution.
Spoilers Ahead
One of the many haunting images of destruction in this movie, a reminder that these battles took place where people lived.
It was obvious that at least one of the two main characters wasn’t going to make it to their final destination, but I still wasn’t quite prepared for the death of King Tommen, First of His Name, to happen at around the midpoint of the movie. In retrospect, it makes sense that the somewhat naïve, inherently kind character would be the one to die. The incident also takes place as the camera was following Schofield, which was an interesting choice. I guess it’s meant to underline the randomness of war – you turn your head for a minute, and your friend could die.
From that point on, the story is carried by Schofield, as he seeks to fulfill his orders, but almost more importantly, complete his friend’s quest to find his brother. Some of the scenery that follows in the second half of the story, once we’re well past the original trenches, speaks to another important message – the destructive effects of war. From burning villages, destroyed by shelling, to collapsed bridges, to scarred fields and soiled rivers, the movie effectively illustrates the point that these horrific battles took place where people lived.
We’ve probably heard the phrase “they fought over every inch of ground”, a statement which is certainly true of World War I. That Mendes decided to take us on the journey over every bit of that dirt, rather than sit back and tell a broader story, is what makes this one of the best movies of the year.
Mark Strong, one of many famous actors in small roles in this film who help to fill in the character gaps of the blank canvas main players.
5 Quick Hits
One incredible sequence that makes powerful use of the juxtaposition of beauty and horror is when Schofield is floating down a river, surrounded by cherry blossoms falling from the sky. It’s genuinely beautiful, until he reaches a point in the river where a tree has fallen, creating a logjam of bloated and rotting corpses that Schofield has to scramble over to climb out of the river. Horrible and effective.
Could anyone else but Roger Deakins have been the Director of Photography on this film? Probably not. The universally-acknowledged greatest living cinematographer was finally recognized with his first Oscar for Blade Runner, 2049 (after coming up empty in 13 previous nominations!). He essentially has to BE the short list for the Oscar this year for his work on this film.
Andrew Scott, most recently seen being thanked by just about everyone at the Golden Globes for his role in Fleabag, was fantastic in a brief appearance as a jaded officer, who sends the two off to what he assumes will be their deaths because he’s accepted the absurdity of war. One of the great minor roles for famous actors in this movie.
Rats. Yes, there are rats. These disease carrying vermin are always mentioned in any history of the disgusting living conditions in the WWI trenches. In this movie, they’re not just creepy window dressing. One actually has an impact.
Apparently, Sam Mendes really began giving serious consideration to a movie like this after an extended, continuous shot at the beginning of Spectre. I love stuff like this, when filmmakers build off of things they’ve done before to try to break new ground and continually improve their craft.
