1917 - Review: A Visual Masterpiece, but Not Much Else
Release date (US): December 4th, 2019
Starring: George Mackay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Colin Firth
Starring: George Mackay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Colin Firth
**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any effect on your opinion. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. If there is something you happen to disagree with, I absolutely respect your point of view if you will respect mine. Please keep this in mind.
The Review
A film built on the backs of visual storytelling, it was no secret right out of the gate that there was something different about 1917. From the second it was released, there was immediate buzz surrounding the film for one reason alone. The entire film was made to look like one shot. There were other movies that had done this before, granted. But critics and fans all around the world said there was something different about 1917. Something new, something fresh.
The film centers around two soldiers, played by George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman, who are serving England during the climax of World War I. The two soldiers are tasked by command to deliver a message to soldiers on the front lines; as with most other war films, the message is imperative, and the soldiers are on a race against time to traverse the wasteland and reach their troops.
Right from the very beginning, 1917 grips you by the shoulders and sucks you into this world. You are transported from your seat into the middle of a war. The war is bloody, the war is dark, it's gritty; but it's also real. You're able to see soldiers hanging around, talking to each other about going home and about ending the war. You're able to see the hope and glimmer in some soldiers and the despondence in others. And it's all done through visual storytelling.
Yes, some films have massive amounts of hype and expectation surrounding them. And not many deliver; many fail to succeed. But with 1917 riding on the waves and waves of positive word-of-mouth in terms of its visuals, there was little room for failure. And the movie did not disappoint. Through some ingenious cutting and direction, both director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins are able to craft the camerawork so that there is no broken shot in the entire film, save one intentional cut in the middle of the movie.
And with that tool at their disposal, they're able to take full advantage of it. The beginning of the film follows these two soldiers as they receive their mission from command and begin their journey across the battlefield. And this one tracking shot doesn't let up; you're constantly following these two characters, literally as if you were right behind them. While most films struggle for the entirety of the runtime to immerse an audience member into the story, 1917 is able to do this almost by default. There are shots of the leads simply walking that are so entrancing, it's almost hard to believe what you're seeing in the 21st century because you feel as if you're in World War I.
To Roger Deakins's credit, he's able to turn some very bleak and desolate shots into absolute pieces of art. Deakins has been one of the best cinematographers in the entire industry for many, many years, but this film is truly the peak of his excellence. By very nature, the wastelands and desolate war fields are not pretty to look at. And yet, with each and every shot, and each and every movement of the camera, there is a detail that is captivating and enrapturing. It keeps the audience's attention on something the entire movie, to where the audience member never feels like they're bored.
But despite all of Mendes's best efforts and Deakins's heroic cinematography, I did indeed find myself being bored in this film.
Overshadowed by all of the high praise of technical excellence came something that I had perhaps taken for granted, and was surprised to find it missing: a compelling story. With fils of this high caliber, with many critics claiming this to be the clear-cut best picture winner, I had expected the story itself to have been equally strong, rivaling the spectacular visuals that oozed from every frame. And yet, I found nothing to grasp on to.
To me, story is the crux of a good film. You can strip away nearly every element, but you need to have a good story. And while this film tries its hardest to be as realistic as possible, the did not lend itself to proper cinematic translation.
When translating film from another medium, whether it be real-life events in this case, or perhaps even novels, one has to take artistic liberties in order for it to fit within the scope of a film. If a book such as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix were to be translated into film in its entirety, the film would nearly 10 hours long, and then some. There is a reason that films are shortened and creative liberties are taken. In the context of a historical movie, two things need to be addressed in order to make the movie function outside of the scope of its setting: characters and story.
The two leads of 1917 are likable enough. But the film cannot spend much time developing their characters because it is so busy literally driving the film forward, as the camera is literally pushing the characters or following them to the next scene. It works to the movie's benefit most of the time, but in those moments when Mendes is trying to bring out some humanity from the soldiers, it falls utterly flat. The characters serve their purpose and the movie ends. Simple as that. But in doing so, I didn't feel any connection to them, other than the odd pang of sympathy that simply came with this being a war film. By default, I felt sorry for the characters because they had to endure such horrible circumstances.
That's the problem with 1917. The film wants you to feel like you're literally in this war, literally with these soldiers fighting for their lives. This would be a great documentary, because it showcases what war is really like. But realism does not always equate to cinema. Like I mentioned earlier, just because you have wonderful source material does not mean you can translate it word for word into a different medium.
At the end of the day, the spectacular visuals and stunning concept will be enough to fulfill any film fan. I would go so far to say that if you are studying film or love the art of cinema in any capacity, this is a must-see movie based on the visual prowess alone. But hidden underneath that glimmer is a story that doesn't hold up and will not stand the test of time.
The film centers around two soldiers, played by George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman, who are serving England during the climax of World War I. The two soldiers are tasked by command to deliver a message to soldiers on the front lines; as with most other war films, the message is imperative, and the soldiers are on a race against time to traverse the wasteland and reach their troops.
Right from the very beginning, 1917 grips you by the shoulders and sucks you into this world. You are transported from your seat into the middle of a war. The war is bloody, the war is dark, it's gritty; but it's also real. You're able to see soldiers hanging around, talking to each other about going home and about ending the war. You're able to see the hope and glimmer in some soldiers and the despondence in others. And it's all done through visual storytelling.
Yes, some films have massive amounts of hype and expectation surrounding them. And not many deliver; many fail to succeed. But with 1917 riding on the waves and waves of positive word-of-mouth in terms of its visuals, there was little room for failure. And the movie did not disappoint. Through some ingenious cutting and direction, both director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins are able to craft the camerawork so that there is no broken shot in the entire film, save one intentional cut in the middle of the movie.
And with that tool at their disposal, they're able to take full advantage of it. The beginning of the film follows these two soldiers as they receive their mission from command and begin their journey across the battlefield. And this one tracking shot doesn't let up; you're constantly following these two characters, literally as if you were right behind them. While most films struggle for the entirety of the runtime to immerse an audience member into the story, 1917 is able to do this almost by default. There are shots of the leads simply walking that are so entrancing, it's almost hard to believe what you're seeing in the 21st century because you feel as if you're in World War I.
To Roger Deakins's credit, he's able to turn some very bleak and desolate shots into absolute pieces of art. Deakins has been one of the best cinematographers in the entire industry for many, many years, but this film is truly the peak of his excellence. By very nature, the wastelands and desolate war fields are not pretty to look at. And yet, with each and every shot, and each and every movement of the camera, there is a detail that is captivating and enrapturing. It keeps the audience's attention on something the entire movie, to where the audience member never feels like they're bored.
But despite all of Mendes's best efforts and Deakins's heroic cinematography, I did indeed find myself being bored in this film.
Overshadowed by all of the high praise of technical excellence came something that I had perhaps taken for granted, and was surprised to find it missing: a compelling story. With fils of this high caliber, with many critics claiming this to be the clear-cut best picture winner, I had expected the story itself to have been equally strong, rivaling the spectacular visuals that oozed from every frame. And yet, I found nothing to grasp on to.
To me, story is the crux of a good film. You can strip away nearly every element, but you need to have a good story. And while this film tries its hardest to be as realistic as possible, the did not lend itself to proper cinematic translation.
When translating film from another medium, whether it be real-life events in this case, or perhaps even novels, one has to take artistic liberties in order for it to fit within the scope of a film. If a book such as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix were to be translated into film in its entirety, the film would nearly 10 hours long, and then some. There is a reason that films are shortened and creative liberties are taken. In the context of a historical movie, two things need to be addressed in order to make the movie function outside of the scope of its setting: characters and story.
The two leads of 1917 are likable enough. But the film cannot spend much time developing their characters because it is so busy literally driving the film forward, as the camera is literally pushing the characters or following them to the next scene. It works to the movie's benefit most of the time, but in those moments when Mendes is trying to bring out some humanity from the soldiers, it falls utterly flat. The characters serve their purpose and the movie ends. Simple as that. But in doing so, I didn't feel any connection to them, other than the odd pang of sympathy that simply came with this being a war film. By default, I felt sorry for the characters because they had to endure such horrible circumstances.
That's the problem with 1917. The film wants you to feel like you're literally in this war, literally with these soldiers fighting for their lives. This would be a great documentary, because it showcases what war is really like. But realism does not always equate to cinema. Like I mentioned earlier, just because you have wonderful source material does not mean you can translate it word for word into a different medium.
At the end of the day, the spectacular visuals and stunning concept will be enough to fulfill any film fan. I would go so far to say that if you are studying film or love the art of cinema in any capacity, this is a must-see movie based on the visual prowess alone. But hidden underneath that glimmer is a story that doesn't hold up and will not stand the test of time.
