1917 : Artistic, Stylistic, but Not Universal

Let’s be honest – being nominated for many awards doesn’t mean that everyone is going to enjoy a movie. Sometimes it’s exactly the opposite, because what usually gets a movie nominated for awards is more for critics who understand the facets of film, rather than the casual moviegoer who is generally looking for an enjoyable evening. But I do think that even the movies that focus on artistry, style and technique can have something for casual viewers, if they are willing to have an open mind. And the flip side of the coin is that if you truly want your movie to stand the test of time, you need to find the balance between style and story, to create something that can be both awarded and enjoyed. 1917 sometimes struggles to find that path, because they devote a great deal of their time to creating an atmosphere. While that is a great start, it doesn’t always pay off, because it builds up to a story that never quite reaches the same level of greatness. But does this mean that it’s not a film worth watching? I wouldn’t say so, but that’s up to each person, because style and story preferences make or break the experience.

On the Western front of the war, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) are sent on an urgent mission to into enemy territory. Their front line has been held for months, but their superiors (including Colin Firth as General Erinmore) have aerial photos that prove the Germans have pulled back as a feint, intending to lure an isolated regiment of soldiers into a sense of false security and force them to attack. This regiment has over 1,600 men, including Blake’s older brother (Richard Madden), and if they are not warned in time, the British forces will face a massacre, and they have until dawn to make sure that the attack does not happen. Blake and Schofield are chosen to deliver the message to Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch), and their journey has them walk through hell on Earth, seeing all of the different brutalities of the war from outside the trenches.

It’s easy to see why this movie was nominated for so many Oscars, including Best Cinematography – the camera work in this movie is absolutely beautiful. Through what I’m guessing was some tricky editing, the entire movie was put together in a way that makes it one long continuous take, which is difficult to do, but brings a sophistication when done well. What was really interesting to me about this use of the one take, in this instance, was how it played into the atmosphere of World War I. The first World War was a war of stagnancy; of trench warfare and fighting for every inch of land, and one of the hallmarks of a World War I movie is usually full of those trenches and that feeling of being stuck. While this movie does not stay stuck in those trenches (it’s in the beginning and the end, but there’s a lot of space in the middle), the way it uses the camera still evokes that feeling of claustrophobia and enclosed spaces even after leaving the trenches. It takes wide open fields and still keeps the focus tight on the characters; it follows action and shows the scope of war without trying to go too big. Allowing the camera to tell the story of World War I and evoke that feeling without relying on the usual tropes; that’s what’s going to win awards here. This isn’t to say that some of those tropes aren’t still present – you get plenty of the mud, of the decay, of the disconnect between ranks in the armies – but the camera constant camera movement also helps in that regard as well, because you keep moving through all of these tropes, rather than just lingering on them. You see a lot without ever losing that feeling of being boxed in that the film works so hard to achieve, as well as keeping the viewers tense all throughout. Roger Deakins should get a lot of the credit for making this movie what it is, because a big part of its magic is in that unbroken shot and creating the feeling of the war without staying in the same places that World War I movies usually stay.

One of the reviews I read after seeing 1917 compared it to watching someone else play a video game instead of watching a movie. This was an interesting take, but not one that’s entirely without merit, partially because of the decisions made with the camera work and the lack of character development throughout. This isn’t a movie like Saving Private Ryan where even the more minor characters are given a chance to shine; we have our two main leads, who we can learn about through their discussions with each other, but all other people pop up throughout the story as they are needed to further the quest. We walk through the different stages of the war like walking through different sequences in a game; there is one overarching goal and it seems in many cases like we are following the path to finishing the mission whether or not we should get there. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure how we do get to the end of the movie, because there are definitely two or three moments where our leads should have been shot dead and still keep going. Schofield takes what seems to be either a head or gut shot at point blank range and blacks out (giving us our one “real” cut of the movie), but at no point does he act as though he’s taken a bullet, despite it seeming impossible for him to have dodged. Between explosions, fires, near-drownings, and gunfights with enemy soldiers, it seems as though there are obstacles, but not enough to truly keep you from getting to the end of the game (if you know how to play). One of the most “video game” moments, however, was something I noticed right away in the theater – in one scene our characters stumble upon an abandoned farm where a bucket of milk was recently left behind, and it goes into a canteen because they haven’t had fresh milk in a long time. Then, later on in their quest, they run into a young woman with a baby who is starving because she can ONLY drink milk. It’s a moment when you think “oh, how convenient that I picked up some milk earlier in this journey,” which is very much a quality that you feel in video games (I was reminded of Silent Hill, picking up items like a bent needle or a piece of hair to use in a puzzle later).  Between this and the rising and falling of the story so rhythmically – first a quite scene, a rise of tension, an explosion of action, and then a moment of quiet again – it’s surprising how video-game like this story can seem. Honestly, it’s not even a bad thing; it’s just not the usual kind of war movie that you would expect. 

Watching 1917 took me back to another war film where the artistry was just as (if not more-so) important than the storytelling – Dunkirk. Coincidentally, it was also another film that I saw with a war movie-buff, and another film that he dubbed a “snoozefest.” And, after walking out of the theater, you can’t exactly ignore his point – the story of 1917 wasn’t as involved or as character driven as many other movies are, in the war genre or not, and sometimes no level of artistry can make up for the fact that you’re sitting in a dark room for two hours, and you want to be told a story. I’m not saying that you can’t get a story from 1917, but for those who want a straightforward movie-going experience, this may not be the place to find it, or you have to find other meaning in it. During the story I was taken back to a Greek myth from my school days – a messenger named Pheidippides was ordered to run to the city of Athens after the Athenian army defeated the Persians and announce the victory to the city. Due to the heat and the distance, he collapsed and died as soon as he delivered the message to his people. I was reminded of that during the mission, and it was easy to ignore some of the faults – the lack of wounds, the minimal characters, the storyline without a great deal of plot – because I could imagine that this was a retelling of that myth, that the soldiers had to survive until they delivered their message. Whether that was the intention or not behind 1917 isn’t really the point; it’s the fact that I can find some meaning from it and still acknowledge the fact that this film is not for everyone. That’s all we really need to do in the end.

4 / 5 for film lovers

2.5 / 5 for casual viewers

I feel like I should be annoyed that Mark Strong was (once again) barely used, but I can’t deny that he killed during the time he was there.