A bold war film with outstanding technical features that desperately needs more emotion and meaning behind it’s gimmick and repetitive plotting.
Hitting screens this weekend for audiences far and wide, is Sam Mendes’ 1917. A simple war story visualized in a long take, with the legendary Roger Deakins behind the camera. Unfortunately, this feels more like a vehicle for showing off, than it does for any emotion or proper visual storytelling. What remains is a movie that starts strong, and quickly fizzles out from a repetitive plot and overly elaborate production, despite many impressive elements.
1917 has been a heavy awards contender in many categories, and deservedly so. Especially in regards to all technical elements that the film has to offer. It’s fundamentals, screenwriting, and directing leave a lot left to be desired. Mendes is someone I’ve been mixed on for a while, and a long take war epic with Deakins seemed like a match made in heaven, for the most part, it is. It’s problems lie in its elaborate scheming. Early on the long take gimmick is quite effective, the sets and extras fill every corner of the frame and the world outside the trenches exist beyond what our eye can see. You can feel the actors exist in the world and participating with it just as much as the camera is. There’s a steady, deliberate momentum it starts with, but it isn’t built for the marathon it wants to run.
You might be asking, “Well, what’s the difference between how Birdman executed it, and this?” Without trying to turn this into a piece comparing and contrasting the two films, the biggest difference is that Birdman doesn’t feel like every detail is being overwatched. 1917 has this very specific eye in its writing and camerawork that makes absolutely sure we are watching a big Hollywood production. In some scenarios, the mysticism and magic of the screen is there, but it’s overly deliberate plot feels far too precise for an event that should be much messier than it is. Every escape route is readily available, the shadowed corners are a perfect fit for the actors, they’re in the exact spot they need to be everytime, and it didn’t feel right.
Great directors for this shooting technique can make that feel more organic and as it would exist properly in the scenes we’re watching, but Sam Mendes doesn’t nail that down. Before the long trek across land, that tighter, more confined setting keeps the tactile nature exciting and pulsing with a vision. Around 30-45 minutes that approach wears incredibly thin from exhaustion. Not because the movie is exuding this feeling of exhaustion, but because it’s gimmick and beats feel tired. Not to mention a lot of these moments are already in the trailer, and they mean as much in context as they do out of. Which is incredibly alarming for a movie that wants to give it’s audience this overwhelming feeling of anxiety and tension. Which, don’t get me wrong, it does do here or there, but as a giant piece, it doesn’t because it lacks the emotions that would otherwise be integral to those scenarios.
Although it may seem that I’m being quite harsh, I have to give credit where it’s due. The production design for this movie is perhaps the most immaculate design of a movie I’ve seen in...years. There are countless instances where I was astounded by the sheer amount of detail and precision that it took to assemble these giant, overwhelming sets. Roger Deakins, at 70+ years-old deserves a lot of praise. This is far from his best work, but the ambition and talent feels like he drank from the fountain of youth. It lacks a lot of meaning and purpose the camera should be probing from the movie, but this is just a reminder that he has a lot of gas left in the tank. It’s action is short-lived, but framed and blocked quite well. It, again, needed more punch.
Despite its awards season journey thus far, and sights set on Best Picture at the upcoming Academy Awards, 1917 is a disappointing, emotionless, and overproduced journey that’ll phase through you just as a ghost would. The time it takes in between it’s big moments are worth about as much as a glance at your watch, and the inabilities it has can’t be overcome by its small handful of well executed traits. It’s long take is occasionally exquisite, but it becomes lost far too soon. There are constant reminders that this is a big Hollywood production, and it’s spontaneity and artistry is lost because of how elaborate the entire production is arranged. This isn’t the Dunkirk-lite people thought it would be, but it definitely lives in the shadow of far superior talent. Especially Thomas Newman’s score. This isn’t quite the film most critics have made it out to be, nor is it the one Film Twitter has feared, it just feels like a vehicle meant to impress and show-off what a lot of money looks like. Maybe that’s too cynical, but in a few months I’d have to imagine we’ll be leaving this as a thing of the past.