1917 * * * * ½
I have always admired the work of Sam Mendes, so I was interested to see this film. At the same time, two things really put me off. Firstly, I'm not a fan of the one-shot film, finding most efforts to be gimmicky, irritating and pointless. Secondly, I'm really over just about everything to do with WWI. But that's partly because I'm in Australia where, for the last thirty years, celebrating our involvement in WWI has evolved into something like a new religion for some weird reason.
However, I'm pleased to say this film did meet my expectations of director Sam Mendes and allayed my concerns about it being another war film where the director wants to make the definitive statement by loudly reenacting the sheer horror of it all. Even so, 1917 does not spare us the sight of many corpses.
The one-shot technique works in 1917 because it isn't actually one-shot. It's just made to look like that. On reflection you will remember there was a pronounced fade to black at one stage, but you will also remember you have been sitting in the cinema for two hours and have watched a story that unfolded over ten hours, so there must have been a cut or two somewhere. Further, even though we are physically following two men, for many of the scenes the camera is actually steady (mercifully).
Big name actors in 1917 are given cameo appearances, so the focus is on the two lads who we are not so familiar with. They are well chosen: not only do they give excellent performances, but we are struck by their youthfulness. They barely look twenty.
They play two British soldiers who are instructed to take a message from their battle line to another front. The hand written message from a General is to stop a planned attack or 1600 British forces will be slaughtered as they run into an ambush.
To deliver the message they must cross no-mans land, walk through an enemy camp which is allegedly deserted (they'll find out when they get there), cross open areas, make their way through an occupied village, cross a river and finally to the other front. One of the men is motivated to do it because he knows his brother is one of the 1600 that will die if the attack is not stopped, the other is just unfortunate enough to be selected. And so we travel with them. We only see what they see rather than huge sweeping battle scenes with many perspectives.
Unlike many a war film it doesn't glorify war, it doesn't condemn war (like war needs condemnation), it doesn't strive to be the ultimate war film (yet at times it is quite educational). It does push it a little bit, (at one time showing unlikely survival against the odds), but overall 1917 does not undermine itself with heroics over credibility.
Be it with the enemy, the officers, the two soldiers, or a civilian, all situations are in close quarters. It would not be wrong to regard this film as intimate. If this were another bloated grand sweeping war drama the journey would hold no surprises. This does.
However, I'm pleased to say this film did meet my expectations of director Sam Mendes and allayed my concerns about it being another war film where the director wants to make the definitive statement by loudly reenacting the sheer horror of it all. Even so, 1917 does not spare us the sight of many corpses.
 |
| War! Huh! What is it good for?.... |
Big name actors in 1917 are given cameo appearances, so the focus is on the two lads who we are not so familiar with. They are well chosen: not only do they give excellent performances, but we are struck by their youthfulness. They barely look twenty.
They play two British soldiers who are instructed to take a message from their battle line to another front. The hand written message from a General is to stop a planned attack or 1600 British forces will be slaughtered as they run into an ambush.
To deliver the message they must cross no-mans land, walk through an enemy camp which is allegedly deserted (they'll find out when they get there), cross open areas, make their way through an occupied village, cross a river and finally to the other front. One of the men is motivated to do it because he knows his brother is one of the 1600 that will die if the attack is not stopped, the other is just unfortunate enough to be selected. And so we travel with them. We only see what they see rather than huge sweeping battle scenes with many perspectives.
Unlike many a war film it doesn't glorify war, it doesn't condemn war (like war needs condemnation), it doesn't strive to be the ultimate war film (yet at times it is quite educational). It does push it a little bit, (at one time showing unlikely survival against the odds), but overall 1917 does not undermine itself with heroics over credibility.
Be it with the enemy, the officers, the two soldiers, or a civilian, all situations are in close quarters. It would not be wrong to regard this film as intimate. If this were another bloated grand sweeping war drama the journey would hold no surprises. This does.
Comments
Post a Comment