1917: A Momentary War Epic
Coming off his mainstream success with the James Bond franchise, director Sam Mendes steps into the writer’s seat (along with co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns) for the very first time to craft a “one-shot” World War I epic. 1917 takes the viewer on a treacherous journey through the trenches, beyond no-man’s land, and across the French countryside in a race against time. It’s technical artistry can’t be denied, but is the film anything more than a one-trick pony?
April 6th 1917. As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two young British soldiers, Schofield (Captain Fantastic's George MacKay) and Blake (Game of Thrones' Dean-Charles Chapman), are assigned to deliver a message that will stop 1,600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap.
With 1917, Mendes’ main mission is to provide a visceral WWI experience that drags the viewer through the death-soaked horrors of war, but his decision to arrange the entire film into a technical one-shot walks a fine line between brilliance and overindulgence. There are moments where the one-shot direction really works and puts us right there with the characters, amplifying the suspense and ratcheting tension; however, more than anything, it draws too much attention to itself and is used in place of story as its active mode of captivation. The end result is still pretty stunning — particularly when you factor in the logistical nightmare behind the film’s many technical hurdles — albeit for the wrong reasons. Its many impressive maneuvers, which gracefully traverse trenches, muddy terrain, water, and French countryside, are somewhat undercut by the fact that its showiness isn’t in total service of the story.
The film definitely would have benefitted from a more traditional approach, granting the editing some executive authority over Mendes direction to give it more oomph and reserving the one-shot direction for the intense scenes and parts of the journey where we really need to be close to the characters. As noble and ambitious as Mendes’ vision may be, it often feels more like a live-action video game than a film. It’s not too dissimilar to Hardcore Henry in what it sets out to do, only it feels less like you’re playing the game and more like you’re watching someone else do it. This becomes frustrating at times because there’s a handful of very foolish character decisions that could have been easily avoided with a little audience control.
Luckily, thanks to the phenomenal cinematography from Roger Deakins, 1917 never bordered on the tedium or gimmickry of Hardcore Henry, but it never reached the heights of Iñárritu’s Birdman. That said, the work Deakins puts in here is as stunning and mind-boggling as anything he’s ever done (the nighttime scene, soaked in firelight and ominously streaked with shadows being a clear standout), but then again, there’s very little surprise there, given that he’s one of the all-time greatest cinematographers. He had quite a challenge on his hands, and he made it all look easy. Mendes knows how to assemble the right team to leverage their assets — and that includes Deakins — and he really leans on him to elevate the film out from under it’s shtick.
Mendes’ direction is a pretty tight and focused ballet that is often mind-meltingly good; however, due to the rigid design of his one-shot vision, scenes are forced to be covered in the same way (from behind circling to face characters and to change perspective, with a lot of emphasis on hands and feet), which becomes cumbersome and rote, creating moments that drag their feet when editing could easily give it a punch. There’s some segments that give off a Tarkovskian vibe (a la Ivan’s Childhood), and there’s some definite nods to Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (which is pretty hard to avoid, considering its cornered the market on the “in the trenches” WWI shot coverage). It has a similar feel to Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, only 1917 presents a straightforward narrative, and a nearly identical story to Saving Private Ryan.
The film has deep, personal roots for Mendes — it was based in part on an account told to him by his paternal grandfather, Alfred Mendes, who, just like the film’s characters, also carried messages through the perilous territory of no-man's land — which is most likely why he selected this particular project to climb into the writer’s seat, but it never really reaches a point where it crawls out from under the shadows of other, more effective war films and steps into its own. It’s a film that succeeds in taking you on a journey, but it’s not a journey that lingers much past the present. It wrestles to really probe below the surface and fails to really say anything substantial or unique.
That said, 1917 is an easy journey to hop aboard, and it’s one that requires very little thinking. Even if it has nothing new to say, Deakins’ splendid visuals and Mendes’ calculated direction make it into quite the dazzling experience. It may not sizzle with the same intensity as other war epics, but it cracks with emotionality, and it’s a clear cut above the gimmick; it just can’t seem to get out from underneath its novelty.
Recommendation: The technical artistry definitely merits a one-time watch (which may be enough for some), and that’s best suited for the largest possible theater if you can swing it.
Rating: 3.5 trips through the trenches outta 5.
What do you think? We want to know. Share your thoughts and feelings in the comments section below, and as always, remember to viddy well!