1917 Review

We're a couple weeks into 2020, which means it's time to wrap up 2019 on this blog. I've got two more reviews to write, this review here in "1917" and "Just Mercy," two movies that recently expanded nationwide after opening around Christmas in limited release, then it's onto my year end movie lists, which is proving to be quite stressful the more I think about it due to the high number of quality films that were released in 2019, especially in the last few months. It's been a phenomenal awards season and roaring onto the scene at last second in said race is "1917." In order to get good awards attention, typically a movie has to be positioned perfectly on the release schedule and campaigned appropriately by the studio. "1917" nearly missed that window as it wasn't released in any of the film festivals due to it not being finished on time. In fact, the movie didn't start filming until April 2019, so they barely got this completed on time. But after an excellent advertising campaign in the last couple of months, which was followed by strong reviews from critics and a best picture win at the Golden Globes, "1917" has made its mark, resulting in a $37 million expansion in its first week of wide release and 10 Oscar nominations on Monday morning.

So yeah, "1917" is making quite the impact at the moment. I'll get to my annual Oscar predictions post here soon given that the ceremony is on February 9 this year, several weeks earlier than it has been in past weeks, but I think it has a solid chance at winning best picture. And if it does, I say that it's well deserved. Because, yes, "1917" is a jaw-dropping spectacle that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. This is a movie that takes place in April of... yes, you guessed it... 1917. During World War I. A war that I honestly don't know a whole ton about. At least not compared to World War II, where I feel a large majority of our war films come from. World War I was just dark, grim and dreary. Not that any war is all rainbows and butterflies, but all the battling in the trenches in World War I I feel made it especially dark and cold. And that is the setting of this movie. Based on a specific event or battle in World War I? Well, perhaps. The credits say it was heavily inspired by stories told to director Sam Mendes from a grandfather of his or something like that. The movie follows two young soldiers who are sent on a mission to deliver a message to another section of the army that they're all about to walk into a big trap, so they should stop the attack.

Is this specific story arc the most unique war story ever told? Does it make it stand out from all the other thousands of war films? Perhaps not. It's a war story. Two soldiers sent on a mission. Then war happens eventually. But the thing that does make this unique is the method that they chose to tell the story. And I'm sure you're well aware of this by now, but the movie uses an editing trick used in "The Rope" or "Birdman" wherein the entire film is shot in a way to give the illusion that it was all filmed in one shot. This is a technique that's not done often, but when it is I'm a complete sucker for it. It's a rather mind-blowing way to film a movie and I don't know how they do it. Of course there's some obvious moments where you know a cut happens, which is also the case in "The Rope" and "Birdman," but for the most part it's pure wizardry. I became mesmerized the whole film while just watching the camera and what it was doing. And in certain sequences where the camera went through the barbed wire fence or over the water whole, I just sat there in disbelief wondering… how? Now perhaps there were some visual effects teamed up with the camera work, but either way, a lot of work went into the technical aspects of this film and it was impressive.

I haven’t seen a whole lot of backlash towards this film. At least not yet. But one thing I could see people saying is that this technique is simply a gimmick used to enhance or cover up an otherwise average war film. This is a sentiment that I would strongly disagree with. While it’s true that this technique is not always 100 percent necessary when it’s used, I would contend that in this case it’s used as a tool to add a unique perspective to this film that I haven’t yet seen in a war film. That perspective is that of me feeling like I was right there in the action. Instead of there being two soldiers that were sent on a mission, requiring them to sneak through enemy territory, I felt like there were three. The two characters in the movie and me. Thus there was in immersive element that added to the intensity of the situation. I wasn’t just worried for the well-being of the two soldiers I was following. I was worried for my own well-being. We’d be walking up a hill and the uncertainty of not knowing what’s at the top of that hill made my heart race. Or we’d be walking down a dark hallway and I’d see that we’re about to turn the corner and I was afraid that an enemy soldier would be waiting for me on the other side. Because of this, I don’t know if there’s a war film that compares.

But that’s not all. This isn’t just a visually pleasing war film with some wizardry camera work. It’s a movie that has a lot of heart and emotion to it. One element that I feel is critical to the success of a war film is a central character or a group of characters to latch onto. I don’t necessarily need to know their whole life history, but I need to care about them and what it is they’re doing. Now I don’t want to turn this review into a review of something else. And I certainly don’t want to dig up old wounds and cause this review to be a discussion of something, but there was another recent war film that I will leave unnamed that I wasn’t able to connect with because there wasn’t a main central character worth caring about. Certain ideas in the movie were interesting, but I had a hard time becoming emotionally invested in the film since there were no main characters to latch onto and thus the final results were underwhelming. The movie felt like a bunch of war sequences strung together that didn’t carry much emotional weight. Thus in contrast to that movie, “1917” felt very refreshing in a way because it gave me that emotional attachment with our lead two characters, Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield, played by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay.

In regards to the cast, there are actually several big names that show up, highlighted by Colin Firth, Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch, but those three get one brief scene each. They’re there to establish an authoritative presence as major leaders in the British army, but Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay are the stars of this movie and the two of them have excellent chemistry as two war buddies going on a mission together. Chapman’s character is very gung-ho and brave while MacKay’s character is the one who gets dragged along without realizing what he’s getting himself into until it’s too late. With this, there are some genuine character arcs between the two of them that I won’t dive into in much detail, but said character arcs were quite beautiful. And even though the movie takes place over the course of 24 hours or less, there’s a lot that we end up learning about these two as they go on this incredible journey into the heart of the enemy without knowing if they’re going to survive the day, but being strongly motivated to make sure they give it their all with everything that’s at stake, learning a lot about themselves and each other along the way. This relationship is the heart and soul of the film that’s garnished by the incredible technical features, making it an all around excellent experience.

When Sam Mendes won the Golden Globe for best film, he mentioned in his speech that he hopes this win means that people will go see this in theaters, because that’s the format that this movie was meant to be seen in. I share the same hopes as Mendes. The strong nationwide expansion that I mentioned earlier is a good indication that this movie has the attention of audiences, which makes me happy. But I hope this continues throughout the course of January and February because this really was a unique experience. I felt immersed into this world with these soldiers almost like I was watching the movie in virtual reality due to the techniques used with the camera work. And that’s extremely effective in a war film as tense and mysterious as this one given that we don’t know what’s around the next corner and oftentimes the camera doesn’t clue us in until the two soldiers themselves know. And the bigger the screen that you can watch this on, the more effective this experience will be. Given the emotional nature of the film that I’ve described, you should enjoy it regardless, but like “Gravity” in 2013, seeing this in theaters will enhance your experience. “1917” was a movie that entered the race late, but it’s one of my favorites of the year and I’m giving it a 10/10.