1917 (2019)

5 April 2020

As my road through the Academy Award nominees of 2019 continue, I got to watch Sam Mendes' 1917, which is in some way the spiritual successor to Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity (2013) and his 17-minute continuous shot at the beginning. When I heard about 1917 being set up as nearly one continuous shot, I was intrigued and very worried. The continuous shot in film is something I found intriguing technically, but really hated in application. It became a distraction in Gravity, and really the only extended sequences I've really enjoyed have been monologues in film, be they climactic speeches like in The Great Dictator (1940), or extensions of theatre like Lawrence Olivier's Richard III (1955) -- and I don't think they ever clocked over 10 minutes.

So that was my concern coming in, and I have to admit this did better than I expected. Although the beginning concerned me and sometimes the transition cheats distracted me (scenes were switched together - though it's a continuous shot it wasn't filmed all at once, that would be madness), it had enough other things going on that kept the film from getting technically distracting (and this alone, I think, makes it a very good film). I think it was able to get away with this in a few ways: it constantly changed settings, it kept the suspense and/or action going pretty much the entire film, and although it is almost one continuous film it does figure out ways to offer a few moments pause for the viewer. For what it wanted to do, it did a very good job.

As for the film, there's a lot to like in this. First, the stars of the film really carry it in terms of being believable and in the midst of war. There are also really good scenes with supporting actors: Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, and Mark Strong have great supporting scenes, though I think Andrew Scott stands out the most (for sharp eyes he was also in the british TV Series Sherlock). The story... it's a war film. While I agree that it is a solid film, it didn't quite do it for me in the war genre, as something like Paths of Glory (1957) or The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) have done over 50 years ago. I think for me a war story has the inner turmoil or despair that sets a tone, and that's driven by the character interaction and personality. I didn't feel like it had that: instead the continuous shot dominated the film as "this is how much life can change in 2 hours". It's not a common message, but it's also not one that fits my expectation of what a war movie is telling. I would compare it quite strongly to Dunkirk (2017) with the environment setting the tone, although I think where Dunkirk succeeded is that you could hold onto the ensemble of characters in the story, rather than just the main ones.

I think at this point 1917 holds my number 2 spot for best film of 2019 (below Parasite). What it loses as a war movie it makes up for in its craft, and it's a beautifully developed film. It deserved its Academy Award wins for Cinematography, Visual Effects, and Sound Mixing. 8/10