My wife and I finally watched 1917 last weekend and I can't stop thinking about it.
If not already apparent I like writing about under-appreciated films. I've done a few movie-related posts like that and I'll do more in the future. This may mean a critical or popular failure, though today it's not really either. 1917 was actually considered a critical and commercial success, winning 3 Oscars and making decent money, but with a release at the beginning of 2020 and the onset of a global pandemic it was likely seen by fewer people than it would've otherwise. I'm writing this in case you also initially missed it.
1917 takes place during The Great War, which we now call World War 1, on the western front with its notorious trench warfare. It's remarkable how relatively few prominent WWI movies (compared to WWII) exist today, but it's probably in large explained by the incomprehensible butchery and limited mobility of the trenches and the occurrence of a larger war 20 years later. Hollywood and movie-making in general had also barely gotten started during WWI and was a large industry during WWII. If after this you are interested in other films about WWI, make sure to check out All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), a book turned film from the German perspective in the trenches, and/or Paths of Glory (1957), an anti-war early Kubrick film about French soldiers who refuse to go over the top and get massacred. Or you could just go watch Wonder Woman (2017) and I'd approve.
Developed from his grandfathers stories, Sam Mendes (Skyfall) wrote, directed and produced 1917. While not overly historically accurate (e.g. none of the characters are real and the timeline is wrong), the film is based on Operation Alberich where the German army strategically retreated from long-held lines and briefly created a miles-wide vacuum. The story we see focuses, literally, on two message-running soldiers in the British Expeditionary Force. In less than a day they need to cross the old no-man's land and find an over-eager regimental commander to stop a suicidal attack on the new German position. That one of our characters has a brother amongst the attackers considerably adds to the drama. The overall plot is an ideal story to tell, straightforward and simplistic in the best way, considering the limiting conditions of the war's western front and everything else happening on screen.
A big part of what makes this film distinctive and unique is the immersive format. With one exception the entire movie appears to be one unbroken tracking shot. We meet our subjects sleeping behind the lines where they're awoken and sent out. We follow as they walk into the trenches, past fellow soldiers, and into their commander's hovel to receive orders. They leave to carry them out, walking closer to the front lines, finding where they need to cross and jumping up into no-mans land. This goes on without our characters ever leaving our view. It's not actually all continuous, of course, as they were able to cut in certain dark areas and when the camera ducks behind rocks or trees or whatever. But in using long shot after long shot, a difficult process for everyone involved, you really feel like you're right there in the more or less real-time action, and it's engrossing.
"Down to Gehenna or up to the Throne, He travels the fastest who travels alone."
- Rudyard Kiping
I wouldn't want to watch this on anything but the largest screen possible and I'm a little disappointed I didn't see it in theaters. Even on the TV at home I teetered on the edge of my seat throughout and was simultaneously thrilled and wracked with nervousness. Luckily a few built-in lulls allow a chance to breathe before something reminds both our characters and the viewer of the urgent mission and need to press on.
Maybe I'm just a sucker for artsy films, and this certainly is one beyond the long shots. I loved the flare coming down over the trenches. A large building (a church?) on fire near the end provided yet another nerve-inducing backdrop. The soldier singing to his compatriots before the big assault was hypnotic. And that final mad-dash sprint is simply incredible.
But it's not just style, for this movie does so many things well through dialogue and setting. There's no initial narration or information besides a date. You don't know the characters, obviously, before the film starts and yet very quickly know them intimately. LCpl Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman, who you may know as 'Tommen') is a young and still idealistic soldier. LCpl Schofield (George MacKay) is a little more experienced and weary yet capable and crafty. We learn these things through their opening conversation alone. More and more I appreciate subtlety in story-telling and this movie has it in spades. It does the little things in such a way that the emotional moments, and there are a few, are wholeheartedly earned. (I quite liked this article comparing Dunkirk with 1917 and talking about earned emotion.) Then you add in the perfectly utilized scenery taking us from war to peace and back again, with all the impact that has on the soldiers traversing it, and I can't help but be thoroughly impressed by the design and execution of absolutely everything.
Maybe this is a weird comparison but to some extent this felt like The Walking Dead in its heyday, back when I watched and loved it. I was constantly on edge, waiting and expecting something to jump out and cause harm to a character I didn't want to lose. It even at times suffered from the same frustrations, of actions taken that seemed stupid and inexplicable in the moment. Thinking about it later I can understand these men were primarily message runners, not front-line infantry, though they certainly could and should have been better prepared for what they met. It was also extremely tough at times to watch, as they're completely desperate and surrounded by death (though surprisingly little gore).
To put it plainly, I can't recommend 1917 enough. It's not something that'll be watched repeatedly but it is a profoundly special and beautiful movie.
Comments