1917 is directed by Sam Mendes and follows two British soldiers as they are tasked with delivering a message across the war-torn landscape of World War I. A regiment down the way is walking into a German trap, and if the boys don’t reach them in time, the British Army will lose over 1600 soldiers, including the brother of one of the boys.
No matter how many times I see war in television or film, nothing prepares me for how horrific it must have been – it’s probably good to be reminded once and while of the putrid conditions to reaffirm how we never want to repeat a world-wide conflict ever again. I am blown away by the amazing realism shown in 1917. Although we barely see any battles, the movie encapsulates the brutal essence of war masterfully, depicting rats, mud, death and decay, blindingly tired soldiers, frustrations following orders from superiors with mere hours more intelligence than the soldiers, the constant threat of death, the fear, injury and hunger. Move over The Walking Dead, and the next best thing, because 1917 now has the most realistic dead bodies I’ve ever seen, and our young soldiers never bat an eye. I literally chipped a nail before going into see this movie and it hurt like a bitch; fifteen minutes into this movie I was apologising to my forefathers for being a little bitch. I thought the movie was setting up one of our two main soldiers to die over the course of the film when he cuts his hand on barbed wire, before plunging the open wound into a rotting carcass, but I was deceived. He trudges on, with dust in his eyes, and gunshots at his back to follow. 1917 seriously makes you thank your lucky stars that it’s not our generation that has to fight for the freedoms we take for granted today.
The movie presents itself as if it was one shot, meaning the camera seemingly never cuts away and moves with the action to show the movie’s events in real time. There are places where the movie can ‘cheat’ and connect two different takes together (like if the camera goes behind a large inanimate object, or if the camera whirls around too fast for our eyes to track it), but there are also long stretches where there the one take is legitimate – it must take immense organisation and choreography, to achieve subjects coming in and out of frame at the right time, with extensive sets big enough for our characters to wander through. The first stage of the mission sees our soldiers move through a muddy no-man’s land, which is huge; I understand the real war fields took decades to recover and I panicked wondering if this movie didn’t destroy another field just to make this movie, but I bet they were smart about it. The movie is able to accomplish some gorgeous feats in cinematography, and impeccable shots that will hopefully all fit on the Oscars reel – where the soldier is running adjacent to the action in the final scene is the best of it, but there’s so many more along the way. The use of lighting to illuminate a chase sequence through a war-torn city almost makes it look beautiful, and probably further illustrates the tragedy that our soldier character is running for his life from enemy gunfire.
I would say the terrain of war is definitely the main spectacle in this movie, but the movie brings with it investing stakes through the soldier’s objective. The technical decision to show 1917 in real time certainly amps up the intensity of the mission whereby you are aware of the precious seconds ticking by. For me, the urgency of the mission wore off after a certain point and the adrenaline-fueled rush this movie first initiated went away, perhaps akin to our lead soldier becoming exhausted. The final moments, had me wide-eyed and white-knuckled again, and I’d say that is when the real-time journey ultimately pays off. The movie is immersive, but it always felt cinematic above all else – I think a lot of reviews of 1917 will say that “it feels like you’re there” but it really doesn’t; the camera swirls in between our two main characters as if trying to show us both their perspectives at once, and sometimes even allowing us to peak over a ridge to know of presenting dangers ahead of the soldiers before they do. The use of an epic and booming score further caters to create a sense of distance, and scenes involving the French girl give us subtitles that the British soldier does not have. 1917 is still an immersive movie but I never felt like I was standing there with them, almost thankfully.
1917 has a few well-known British actor cameos along the way, but our main stayers are George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman who are excellent at making this tale feel authentic. It’s a real toss-up between 1917 and Band of Brothers, when I think about the best representation of war I’ve ever experienced. 1917 is going to be hard to beat in 2020, for the most mesmerising film to look at.
5.0
P.S. 1917’s objective aside, to lay out the entire movie’s events in real time, I actually think the opening scene, where our soldiers are first given their orders from the General, works as good evidence for the case of conventional editing, whereby two people entering a room to have a simple conversation is usually more expedient and engaging with cuts. It’s not a slight on the movie, but more a good chance to observe the effects of the opposite of editing; the opposite of what usually happens in most movies. As soon the soldiers’ mission starts though, about two minutes later, I’m all in, baby – one-shot film-making all the way.
Leave a Reply