Movie Review: 1917

Movie Review: 1917

A review of a World War 1 movie.

Drama comes from giving somebody a task then putting obstacles in his/her way. This fundamental aspect of storytelling is understood in ‘1917’ a new movie about the experiences of a soldier in World War 1.

Its April of that year and in a reversal of Saving Private Ryan, a single soldier is sent to rescue a group. A disastrous attack is being planned and the chosen Tommy must cross no-mans-land to deliver a message calling it off. The added incentive, in this case, being that his own brother is among the battalion in danger. He takes another soldier with him and they set out on the mission together. That’s the story.

There is no character development as you might get in other Ur-quest narratives. Here the growth is not internal, it’s simply a matter of geography. In case that is seen as shallow, Director Sam Mendes employs a few techniques to help us empathise. The most obvious one is a pseudo-single take that repeatedly places the camera behind the protagonists at either waist level or shoulder height to give us the feeling of being along with them for the ride. This also works by using the standard horror movie approach of not showing us what the imminent danger is immediately but visually drip-feeding us until we get the big reveal. Likewise, the overbearing soundtrack that shouts out how we are meant to feel, instead of letting us work that out. Another is tracking shots to give an additional sense of propulsion. It is manipulative but only in the sense that any constructed artwork is a manipulation. Since it is well executed, it works to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the scenario.

Mendes has a strong visual sense both in terms of compositions and pallete. He is capable of finding a strange lyricism in the every day (remember the plastic bag in American Beauty?). Here he takes the two leads and pushes them through an abandoned dugout. They overcome literal obstacles following an explosion and come out from the actual underworld and cross over into a figurative styx -like underworld. The obvious and traditional way (the classic example being All Quiet on the Western Front) to go at this point would be to throw a one-sided array of World War1 signifiers at us (rats, mud, rotting corpses, barbed wire, rain) to let us know war is hell. All of those feature but Mendes reaches deeper to a less obvious set of imagery. Without wishing to spoil anything, this includes languid views of cherry blossoms in a deserted farmhouse and later a river, an airplane crash, the blood draining from a soldiers face, a severely bombed-out village at night, a fire, and a soldier singing a gospel song. All of these are exquisitely framed and look beautiful yet the collective result is one that adds a kind of morbid creepiness to the feel of proceedings. The metaphysical implications of the protagonists crossing the suggestively named no-mans-land and then being placed in an often dream-like environment is admittedly hard to quantify but it is there, and is far more effective than the simplistic techniques already mentioned.

The story rolls along to its conclusion with the audience still largely on board. That being the intention, the mission of the film-makers is successful. It is technically well made and acted and to the extent this can be said to honour the memories of those who died, it is also successful. However, you may not necessarily learn much about World War 1 from this movie or why so many workers in uniform went out to kill other workers on behalf of King and Country. Perhaps by keeping the subject of this war in the limelight by existing at all, ‘1917’ might cause a few viewers to take sufficient interest in the topic to use it as a springboard to do just that. Hope so.

Posted By

LAMA
Jan 12 2020 23:57

Share


  • "...you may not necessarily learn much about World War 1 from this movie"

    LAMA/AWSM

Attached files

Comments

syndicalist
Jan 13 2020 03:32

Saw it on Friday with the family. It was mainly dull and boring, in spite of being visually well produced.

R Totale
Jan 13 2020 21:04

But the big question is: are the International Bolshevik Tendency really mad at this film for stealing their name, or are they excited in case it somehow ends up driving some search engine traffic their way? [/nerdy leftist trainspotter joke]

Black Badger
Jan 14 2020 00:09

I didn't find the film dull or boring; the action is relentless. It's a more engaging film than the final Star Wars nonsense, which was also relentlessly action-driven, but the Disney film suffers from too many characters, while 1917 only really has two (and even then, we never know why these two guys are pals). The reason the film doesn't go into the reasons for the war is that the war is merely a backdrop for the quest of getting a message from one place to another. The same way that Mississippi Burning wasn't really about Jim Crow, 1917 isn't really about WWI. A similar film could have been about the Battle of Marathon. The futility of war in general is present in a couple of spots, but you really need to already have that idea in your head, otherwise you might miss it.

syndicalist
Jan 14 2020 02:52
R Totale wrote:
But the big question is: are the International Bolshevik Tendency really mad at this film for stealing their name, or are they excited in case it somehow ends up driving some search engine traffic their way? [/nerdy leftist trainspotter joke]

That’s funny, a Trotskyist FB friend said they weren’t interested cause there was no mention of the Russian Revolution

syndicalist
Jan 14 2020 02:54
Black Badger wrote:
I didn't find the film dull or boring; the action is relentless. It's a more engaging film than the final Star Wars nonsense, which was also relentlessly action-driven, but the Disney film suffers from too many characters, while 1917 only really has two (and even then, we never know why these two guys are pals). The reason the film doesn't go into the reasons for the war is that the war is merely a backdrop for the quest of getting a message from one place to another. The same way that Mississippi Burning wasn't really about Jim Crow, 1917 isn't really about WWI. A similar film could have been about the Battle of Marathon. The futility of war in general is present in a couple of spots, but you really need to already have that idea in your head, otherwise you might miss it.

Too intellectual, we went for the action.

LAMA
Jan 14 2020 09:12

Black Badger gets it right about the lack of depth to the characters likewise the way we hermetically follow these two men isolated from any wider context mean that the whole thing could be set in just about any time and place. Its very much a generic quest narrative in that sense, not dull but not particularly enlightening about WW1 either.

When I first began writing the review I was very tempted to put an IBT reference in there somewhere. One of their main gurus is based here in NZ so that made it particularly tempting. I wonder to what extent the mass audience today would include the Russian Revolution as an association (even by omission) when they see the date '1917' in a movie title?