1917

Score: B+

Directed by Sam Mendes
Starring George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman
Running time: 119 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  A war now more than one hundred years old gets a technologically up-to-date retelling in 1917.  It's filmed via one loooong, extended shot, and WWI seems the perfect choice for this technique that's been developed in recent years.  Unfortunately, it just doesn't hold up for the length of the film, and things turn not only more generic but ultimately ineffective.  The first third or so is worth it; but then switch to something else.


In the midst of World War I, with both sides literally dug in and fighting a horrifically brutal war of attrition, two British soldiers are called for a special mission.  The Germans have withdrawn their forces from the front line, and some Allied elements are poised to pounce on the apparent opportunity.  Yet this development may in fact be a trap, endangering thousands in a war that has already inflicted appalling casualties on each side.  Thus Lance Corporals Blake (Chapman) and Schofield (MacKay) rush to warn their unwitting comrades of the threat - though they put themselves in grave danger to do so.

1917 essentially has a cast of two, its little-known leads; joining them throughout are much more familiar but fleeting faces.  George MacKay, the older and more experienced actor of the lead pair, does very nice work for much of the film, particularly early on.  Just as he's the veteran actor, MacKay's Schofield has also been on the front longer than Chapman, and he's even already survived perhaps the bloodiest part of the war, the Battle of the Somme.  He's unsurprisingly much more wary of the mission, more cautious, and frankly less inclined to get involved in the first place.  MacKay shows this on his face convincingly, at times hauntingly; at times a blank numbness and at others deeply pained.  Both he and Chapman - to my untrained eyes - also appear to do soldier-y things genuinely, from traversing the trenches to handling their rifles.  Chapman's Blake is clearly a green recruit, providing a nice balance with Schofield.  He speaks of war and their situation sanguinely, if not naively at times.  But there's also an honest good spirit and hopefulness in him that is a needed boost amid the bleak scenery.  Other than passers-by, there are a few small bits played by stars more accustomed to lead roles.  While in some ways it's always nice to see a familiar face, the parts are so brief they're unremarkable.  The lone exception is Andrew Scott's trench lieutenant, who in a few moments conveys just how familiar with the terrain and tactics he is - and just how close he is to a complete mental breakdown.  It's perhaps the most chilling part of the film.

1917 is a very well-produced war film around its central technical premise of a single, extended shot; however, this leads to diminishing returns and some other weak points, too.  The narrative premise is a pretty familiar one in war films: a few soldiers must undertake a risky solo mission to save many lives and/or score a crucial victory.  Of course, the way this story is shown is the main draw: a single take, similar to Birdman and others (also like these, it does "cheat" a few times, but remains visually uninterrupted).  WWI is perhaps the ideal choice for this style, considering its winding, interminable trenches and shorter but shocking stretches of space between front lines - "no man's land".  In fact, the film's presentation of this hellish mini-world is the best part of it, especially the first third or so of the feature.  Our leads pass by countless comrades and fortifications in the trenches; the level of detail is amazing, and I found myself paying more attention to this than to the dialogue.  Their journey through no man's land is unsettling; moon-like in its desolation, it's all mud, rats, razor wire... and the occasional rotting human remain.  A trip through a deserted trench also soon provides the tensest, best set piece of the film.  But, perhaps inevitably, 1917 just can't keep it up.  Around the halfway point, things turn away from the disquieting observation of this particularly horrific war to a more conventional war film style.  Frankly, there are even parts that feel a bit like you're watching a video game being played.  The last half hour is a faster and faster sprint to the finish, with coincidences and unlikelihoods piling up.  Yes, there are still some phenomenal visuals to behold - a devastated city at night lit up spookily by fire, etc. - but the overall effect is just numbing.  You want to rest, like the soldiers on the field, and think back to a better time (for the audience, this being the first part of the movie).

***

1917 is certainly among the better war movies I've seen, but I'm now surprised that it was as close to winning the Best Picture Oscar as it apparently was.  Skimming the critics' reviews, most of them are quite positive, of course, though I did find a handful that seemed to agree with my disappointment with the way the film eventually degenerates.  Not only this, I have to say that the inclusion of the cameo stars seems like a blatant awards push; what other purpose was there?  Still, I tip my cap to the lead actors and to the first part of the film; those elements are good enough to push my overall score for the film decidedly to the positive.  So, while there were nominated films I liked better than Parasite - especially Little Women, Ford v Ferrari, and Marriage Story - I am glad to see that inventive, new-kid-on-the-block entry defeat an overrated war film like 1917.  Stream the first hour or so if you want - and if you're interested in a better WWI film, watch Spielberg's War Horse.





* CC BY 4.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63054993