During World War I, two British soldiers -- Lance Cpl. Schofield and Lance Cpl. Blake -- receive seemingly impossible orders. In a race against time, they must cross over into enemy territory to deliver a message that could potentially save 1,600 of their fellow comrades -- including Blake's own brother.
The hype machine is in full throttle for Sam Mendes latest piece, 1917. With award nominations and award wins, 1917 has an Avatar-size expectation attributed to it, and one can’t help but think that comes to the detriment of the film.
The specific style in which the film is shot is reasonably well-executed, but the amount of marketing down bringing awareness to the audience has really had the opposite effect in many cases, with members of the audience specifically looking for the points in the film that have been edited to create the style that Mendes wanted. The unnecessary drawing of attention to it ends up taking the audience out of the story, looking for evidence of cuts, rather than focusing on the story itself. I can put my hand up and say that yes I definitely spent a fair bit of time, initially, counting obstructions and lighting changes.
The direction in which the cinematography takes is the most noteworthy feature of the film but is in no way flawless. There are times in which you feel like a third character in the story, following our main two protagonists, following behind them, pulling ahead and looking back, sitting opposite them and looking around, and it is a very visceral experience. This is not a consistent method though, with the camera suddenly pulling away to provide some more categorical cinematography shots, sweeping over mountains and waterfalls, or hovering over waterbodies. All of a sudden it looks gorgeous, but you no longer feel like you are a part of the experience.
The general shooting style that 1917 goes for also brings its fair share of completely average shots with subpar framing; something that is surprising to get from cinematographer Roger Deakins (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There, Sicario, Blade Runner 2049, No Country For Old Men, Skyfall). Getting scenes with the protagonists’ heads chopped off by the framing gives the impression of a cinematographer that is being overly restricted by the direction.
There are several scenes that are absolutely exceptional. One of the scenes that was shown in the trailer is one of the best and shows how well coordinated the team can be, with an indomitable score that gives the audience goosebumps. The milk scene plays with perspective beautifully, and the city-run is well choreographed and haunting in its visual flair. These scenes do not justify using that one gimmick for the entire film, however, and one can’t help but feel that some of the potential narrative potentials were lost, purely for the sake of committing to the style.
From a narrative standpoint, 1917 is rather lacking. Our protagonists have very little in the way of backstory; one has a brother, and the other does have some ties revealed later in an off-handed manner. With the mission to go from point A to B in X amount of time, there is not a lot to encourage engagement from the audience. It is another aspect that the film’s direction affects, with the strict chronological linearity preventing a lot of development of the characters. The camerawork following the protagonists combined with the brilliant set designs and attention-to-detail of the costuming does help immerse the audience in the environment, but without character development, the audience does not care about the plight and safety of the protagonist as much as they should.
What the film does do really well, is build tension. With better development it would have been even stronger, but as it stands, the audience can’t help but feel like the protagonists are constantly in peril. A great visual example of Murphy’s Law, if something could go wrong, it will go wrong, and it does effectively keep the audience on the edge of their seat. This isn’t a huge action-packed thriller. There are quiet moments, there are tense times, and there is plenty of silent contemplation. It is a character study, of strangers thrown into a situation they would rather avoid, but stepping up to the plate anyway.
The film has some big names making cameo appearances; from Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Strange), to Dean-Charles Capman and Richard Madden (Game of Thrones), Colin Firth (Love Actually, The Kingsman), and many more. In all honest, while their acting was fine, it would have been more immersive to have more unknown actors in the roles. Their presence added nothing to narrative.
Overall, it was an enjoyable flick. It works well to create that sense of danger and tension, but falls short when it comes to character depth. It has a gimmick, which creates some magical scenes, but also leads to many less than engaging moments along the journey. While I would consider it a good film, I can see how a couple of the scenes would convince others that this was a great film.