1917 (2024)

1917

Cinema undergoes a new breakthrough in technology every few months; hence it’s quite strange that film lovers can still be thrilled by one long shot movie. True, this is not a novel concept, but the notion of an extended single shot, either running for the whole movie or serving as the highlight of any flashy scene, brings excitement to viewers in some way.

iSam Mendes’ latest film, “1917,” adopts this approach and its technical competence is unquestionable. However, the movie is so much preoccupied with its unique technique that other features which we look for in movies are squeezed out: like a great story, interesting characters or something else apart from being technically daring. It feels like watching somebody playing video games for two hours and yet it’s not even a convincing one.

This point is proven by “1917” which as indicated by its name occurs during World War I and takes place in north France’s “no man’s land” which separated the British and German troops there. After what seemed like just some minutes of sleep James wakes up one day only to be sent on another errand. A different group situated miles away including Blake’s own brother has planned an attack scheduled to start after few hours aimed at pushing back Germans who had earlier on retreated further.

However recent intelligence indicates that this withdrawal is a diversion that will lead them into an ambush resulting into thousands of dead Britons. Without radio connection lines Blake and Schofield are ordered to go ahead of foot for reaching that company before time for starting off attacks thus having to trudge through enemy territory all along their journey yet they have been assured that where they will be crossing is safe enough up until the tension begins to surface within soldiers whom they get close towards the front line at least since these soldiers went over top most recently as carnage there shows (lines 18-21). Nevertheless, it does not begin to describe what awaits them at one point, one of them accidentally puts a hand that was recently lacerated by barbed wire into the festering wound of a dead body, and that is one of the least painful things on their way.

“1917” is essentially looking out to do for World War I what “Saving Private Ryan” did for World War II and “Platoon” did for Vietnam – to give an immediate, vivid representation of the horrors of fighting in this war that will be understandable to people who know nothing else about these conflicts except their historical records or other movies they have seen. It isn’t a bad film idea but it doesn’t quite live up to Mendes’s expectations and much of that is because of how he has used language to tell his story.

However, I dig such long takes that only serve as platforms for directors’ technical prowess; if I were tasked with ranking the best one-shot sequences, those ones whose brilliance you can’t notice at first until you realize that they were filmed in one shot would be my top picks. Like consider the opening sequence in Orson Welles’ “Touch of Evil.” Yes, it was a technical marvel. But at the same time, while collaborating with cinematographer Russell Metty on this trick Welles was also preparing the way for us into the narrative and introducing some of its principal characters quickly and succinctly. When he finally did cut though it was a genuine surprise.

On contrast there are hardly any single moments in “1917”, where Mendes does not shout look at all this brilliant stuff going on here technically. By every standard that only counts however, the movie impressively stands out Roger Deakins remains one of history’s greatest cinematographers and even his performance on what must have been an extremely difficult shoot is as good as anything he ever made before this one.

However throughout there is no missing its visual gimmick whether through more elaborate camera movements or increasingly clumsy ways of concealing edits which start becoming more evident by each passing moment (Strangely enough, probably most obvious way in which cut is concealed one character momentarily knocked senseless is actually by far most dramatically effective of the bunch). Instead of gradually fading into the background in order to make room for elements of a more dramatic or emotional nature, the distracting technique remains front and center.

Granted, one reason why its visuals take over everything is because there isn’t much that could distract the viewer’s attention. Unfortunately, the storyline of Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns is sometimes reminiscent of other war movies like “The Big Parade,” “All Quiet on the Western Front” and “Paths of Glory.” In a few places, the plot grinds to a halt as Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong turn up in self explanatory scenes reminiscent of cut scenes from video games placed between game levels.

“1917” is not wholly uninteresting. This was obviously a very complicated production to mount and stage; there are some (like a particularly tense set piece installed inside a seemingly abandoned bunker which has some nasty surprises) that totally deliver. But it has almost no emotional connection or tension between viewers and characters despite all its technical proficiency. Finally, “1917” is largely a novelty film. Admittedly, if you’re okay with that sort of thing then you can have your admiration for what this movie does achieve. For me though, I wanted something more.

Watch 1917 For Free On Gomovies.