★★★
Two young British soldiers during the First World War are given an impossible mission: deliver a message deep in enemy territory that will stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldiers' brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap.
Classification: 15
Much like how the space-faring epic of Gravity swept up audiences of all kinds in a visual feast of spectacular action, the long camera takes, and singular performances cast into the harsh unknown, 1917 is the wartime equivalent from Sam Mendes. Based on an account from his own grandfather Alfred Mendes, the Academy Award-winning director pays respect to the lost generations of the First World War with a tense ticking clock narrative that sees two young soldiers traverse the desecrated, wartorn fields and trenches of the western front to deliver a message to prevent a devastating ambush. While the script and characterisation follow an obvious plotting and execution, the real trick to the film is in the incredible talents of cinematographer Roger Deakins who crafts the journey between two seamless one-shot takes to try and trap the audience in the bleak terror of the war with no escape.
Although the camera whip pans and edits are easy to spot for the prying eye, Deakins does a tremendous job in making the visuals of 1917 blend into one and stand out as he and production designer Dennis Gassner have every continuous location teem with stagnant death. The two characters, Lance Corporal's Schofield and Blake begin resting as at a tree, as they start moving the camera then follows them through the greenery, into the harsh mud and damp of the trenches, mangled barbed wire and mud, decaying bodies melting into the ground, to the vast ravaged wasteland of No Man's land. Deakins doesn't move the camera like you're a fellow solider in the squalor but it glides through it all, moving between tense close-ups capturing the character's fear and isolation to astonishing wide shots, showing how small Schofield and Blake are to the whole apparatus of war, how exposed they are to attack. Although the way Mendes connects the singular camera work with the predictable character progression and dialogue makes the experience of watching 1917 feel like a videogame walkthrough.
Last year I wrote that the war film Midway presented its history as a video game in how it warped real life into massive action set pieces and it removed audiences from the realities of the tragedy. With1917 it's different as its not the tonal execution that has the audience removed but in how the visuals are executed. As amazing and impressive Deakins work is, the way the story unfolds just feels like a character reaching different "levels" presenting a new set of objectives for the player at each new checkpoint. Lee Smith's editing of all the long takes even subconsciously feels like level presentation, the film achieves its "one-shot" look visually but it doesn't feel like a transition of scenes furthering story but rather facilitating visual style. Videogames are much more 'cinematic' in nature with games such as The Last of Us and Uncharted following protagonists through a compelling narrative of chapters as the gameplay focuses on immersing players in that story by emotional bonding the player to the characters through controlling their actions, 1917 has the opposite effect.
Cinematic videogames present themselves in the third person, some critics would call them "walking simulators" where a character controlled by the player would just have to walk through levels and then the game presents an action sequence which the player needs to survive through. That's what most of 1917 feels like and while many would hail Deakins work in creating an immersive experience it actually has the opposite effect. In 2018 the videogame God of War was released to critical and commercial acclaim and receiving many accolades, one of its most notable features was that it had a no-cut camera. You could play as the fallen God Kratos from his little hut in Norse Midgard throughout his whole journey to the highest mountain of Jotunheim in one shot. Every step, climb, puzzle, a swing of the axe, boss fight and cutscene are presented in one continuous shot, while most players would take breaks every action was yours and it felt like a journey you yourself took rather than one you witnessed. The game's story was predetermined and told you where to go and what to achieve but it was the player's choice on how they would achieve it, every victory of Kratos was because of you, a shared bond between player and character that can't be replicated in film. In1917 we follow Schofield and Blake like we would follow a videogame character but there is no control on our part, it's all Mendes and Deakins and so for most of the film there is an emotional disconnect to everything we see.
There is nothing unique or overtly compelling to Schofield and Blake, they represent the tragic story of thousands who had to face brutal conditions in the trenches. Mendes, Deakins and co do recreate those gnarly conditions for these actors to survive through. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman push themselves to the limit, crawling, running, getting shot at, bombed and you can feel the exhaustion and terror in their body language, tremendous physical performances that complement the ambition of the film's visuals. However, the script is what fails these characters and their performances as Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns give very little believability to their dialogue, everyone just feels like an archetype. Even the most emotional moments feel isolated, unnatural in how it uses basic tropes to give the character's depth, the feel like a film's idea of a soldier rather than an actual solider, Blake's own motivation bears resemblance to Saving Private Ryan. With Mendes' commitment to the visual storytelling, it leaves the actual humanity of the characters threadbare much like Gravity, with the intricate nature of the camerawork of the film, forgoing complex emotional depth in characters means one less thing to worry about to the film's detriment. The film is at its most compelling when just focusing on the action of the characters, the silence of their surroundings or the bloodshed they're trying to escape instead of any expository dialogue to build up personality.
1917 assumes because of the "gimmick" of the one-shot that audiences will be immediately drawn in and captivating from beginning to end on that reason alone. Other "one-shot" works like God of War, Birdman, or Rope make their long takes so immersive in the combination of the emotional and the technical but the former always taking the initiative of the latter. Birdman doesn't work if the audience isn't invested in the psychological breakdown of Riggan Thompson and the fact the one-shot represents the inability to escape from his anxieties, his traumas and how he is preparing to debut on the theatre stage, an uninterrupted dramatic medium. With 1917 it's technical first, emotion second as you follow the story as a passive observer, you have empathy for the characters but it's not a strong connection. The one-shot is intended to represent a ticking clock and sequences of the film do succeed at this, the triumphant 'flare sequence' where Deakins again proves himself as lighting God and in the intense, heart-pumping finale as Thomas Newman's heroic score erupts against the explosions. 1917 does have its incredible moments but it feels like a film where Mendes crafted a script to fill time in his one take war film rather than a visual technique used to enhance a compelling story.
The few moments where the script does shine is in its commentary on war and how it addressed the concept of glory. 1917 on a technical level is glorious, masterful camerawork from Deakins in how it builds tension and spectacle, along with Newman's score, Gassner's production design, David Crossman and Jacqueline Durran's costume design all lend themselves to the capturing the atmosphere of war and its devastation. However, the idea that war is glorious is not the sentiment of the film, World War One is not met with the same romanticism as World War Two and Mendes shows the disconnect between soldiers and what they're fighting for. It's bleak, pointless carnage all in the name of interests of men they don't know, characters remark on how the fields and structures men are dying for aren't particularly noteworthy and that the massacre Schofield and Blake seek to stop only means those men won't die that day but that doesn't mean they won't die in the next. The best scenes of dialogue are where Schofield and Blake encounter older characters played by seasoned Britsh thespians, Firth, Strong, Cumberbatch but its Andrew Scott as a beleaguered trench lieutenant who stands out as he just laments the reality they are all trapped in. It speaks to how despite all the star power to the men in charge, their interactions to the actual soldiers who fought and died were so limited, all caught in the stalemate at different points with no discernable hope or lasting reprieve.
The motif of medals is also prevalent in 1917, how bravery and valour are rewarded and how hollow the sentiment can be. Schofield a veteran of the Battle of the Somme is said to have a medal which he refers to as "just a piece of tin, with a ribbon". Scott's character sarcastically refers to how they are used to comfort widows and then Blake and Schofield's own conversations on if they'll receive commendations when they complete their mission. Mendes uses these little moments to speak to the cynicism of how the war is viewed, like its a game in itself, complete the mission and get a prize. Schofield and Blake are sent to stop 1600 men from being slaughtered but when the total death toll of the war was 40 million people, in the end, it feels like any victory would be in vain. The death that is seen in the film is pitiful and unceremonious, there is no grandeur to any of this just pain and suffering and while Deakins and Newman's efforts do honour the bravery and sacrifice of men who did fight for their country, Mendes has the camera reflect how slow it can take for someone to die.
Technically astounding on every front, visually captivating from the first frame to the last but lacking in an equally resonate and emotional script, Mendes' war film has something to offer audiences but only on the surface level. There is a disconnect that doesn't make its themes and characters as powerful as they could have been but there is still respect to the reality of what inspired the film. However, without the signature cinematography from Deakins, there is not much of 1917 that would stand out from the crowd, yes filmmaking is a visual medium and Mendes and his team make the film a cinematic treat but eventually, it just feels like the only thing on offer.
Director: #SamMendes
Cast: #GeorgeMacKay, #DeanCharlesChapman, #MarkStrong, #AndrewScott, #RichardMadden, #ClaireDuburcq, #DanielMays, #ColinFirth, #BenedictCumberbatch
Release Date: January 10th 2020
Trailer:
Written review copyright ©CoreyBullochReviews
Images and Synopsis from the Internet Movie Database
Comments