1917
3.5/4
Starring: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman
Rated R for Violence, Some Disturbing Images, and Language
I've always found it rather shocking that World War 1 has been left out of the movies, at least compared to its successor. There's certainly no reason why a gifted filmmaker can't make a great movie out of, say, trench warfare or dogfighting. It hasn't been completely forgotten, but the number of movies that concentrate on the conflict between 1939 and 1945 greatly outweigh those set between 1914 and 1918. Fortunately, that seems to be changing. With films such as "War Horse," "Joyeux Noel," and "They Shall Not Grow Old," more and more filmmakers are looking back farther to tell the stories from that tumultuous period of history.
The set-up is simple. The Germans are on the retreat, and the British Army is going to keep pushing them back. But it's a trap, and two battalions are walking into a slaughter. Two soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) are sent to the front lines with orders to halt the next morning's attack. If they fail, 1600 men will lose their lives, including Blake's older brother.
The most striking thing about "1917" is how director Sam Mendes chooses to tell this story. "1917" was filmed to appear it was done in one continuous take (it wasn't, for obvious reasons, but the effect is convincing). It's a ballsy move. For one thing, it's very foreign to how we process images on a screen. A film is cut numerous times, which gives the audience an instantaneous "break" in emotion and thought. "1917" offers no such quarter. There is also a danger of it being ostentatious or gimmicky, which is what happened with the grossly overrated "Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance." But Mendes is too smart for that. After seeing this film, I can honestly say that it's hard to imagine telling this story any other way. It could be filmed in a "traditional" sort of way, but it wouldn't have the same impact. By not cutting the film, Mendes gives "1917" a sense of relentless momentum. Even during the lulls in the action, there is a sense that it is always moving forward. And by not playing by the traditional "rules" of the film narrative, the sense of unpredictability permeates every frame of this movie. I was in a constant state of suspense, asking myself, "what's beyond the edge of the screen? What's going to happen next?" It's a thrilling sensation.
For his cast, Mendes has chosen two up-and-coming British character actors. Dean-Charles Chapman had a supporting role on "Game of Thrones," while George MacKay has been steadily raising his profile since his debut role in the 2003 version of "Peter Pan." Both give strong performances, but by design, they're not flashy and neither actor is a hunk. They are the everyman, which makes it easier to identify with them. All that is required is that they can command the camera's attention and get us to care about their characters. Depth and "acting" are not on Mendes's agenda. "1917" isn't devoid of starpower, as Colin Firth (who is curiously flat), Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch and Richard Madden make appearances, but they aren't on screen for more than a minute each. This is not an actor's movie, and it's especially not a movie for the stars.
"1917" will leave you thrilled and drained. It's not as wrenching as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Dunkirk," but there are times when it comes close. Mendes's filming strategy does not allow him to cut away from the action when things get graphic or intense. This is not a movie for kids. But it isn't a movie I will soon forget, particularly when I compile my Top 10 list at the end of the year.
Starring: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman
Rated R for Violence, Some Disturbing Images, and Language
I've always found it rather shocking that World War 1 has been left out of the movies, at least compared to its successor. There's certainly no reason why a gifted filmmaker can't make a great movie out of, say, trench warfare or dogfighting. It hasn't been completely forgotten, but the number of movies that concentrate on the conflict between 1939 and 1945 greatly outweigh those set between 1914 and 1918. Fortunately, that seems to be changing. With films such as "War Horse," "Joyeux Noel," and "They Shall Not Grow Old," more and more filmmakers are looking back farther to tell the stories from that tumultuous period of history.
The set-up is simple. The Germans are on the retreat, and the British Army is going to keep pushing them back. But it's a trap, and two battalions are walking into a slaughter. Two soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) are sent to the front lines with orders to halt the next morning's attack. If they fail, 1600 men will lose their lives, including Blake's older brother.
The most striking thing about "1917" is how director Sam Mendes chooses to tell this story. "1917" was filmed to appear it was done in one continuous take (it wasn't, for obvious reasons, but the effect is convincing). It's a ballsy move. For one thing, it's very foreign to how we process images on a screen. A film is cut numerous times, which gives the audience an instantaneous "break" in emotion and thought. "1917" offers no such quarter. There is also a danger of it being ostentatious or gimmicky, which is what happened with the grossly overrated "Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance." But Mendes is too smart for that. After seeing this film, I can honestly say that it's hard to imagine telling this story any other way. It could be filmed in a "traditional" sort of way, but it wouldn't have the same impact. By not cutting the film, Mendes gives "1917" a sense of relentless momentum. Even during the lulls in the action, there is a sense that it is always moving forward. And by not playing by the traditional "rules" of the film narrative, the sense of unpredictability permeates every frame of this movie. I was in a constant state of suspense, asking myself, "what's beyond the edge of the screen? What's going to happen next?" It's a thrilling sensation.
For his cast, Mendes has chosen two up-and-coming British character actors. Dean-Charles Chapman had a supporting role on "Game of Thrones," while George MacKay has been steadily raising his profile since his debut role in the 2003 version of "Peter Pan." Both give strong performances, but by design, they're not flashy and neither actor is a hunk. They are the everyman, which makes it easier to identify with them. All that is required is that they can command the camera's attention and get us to care about their characters. Depth and "acting" are not on Mendes's agenda. "1917" isn't devoid of starpower, as Colin Firth (who is curiously flat), Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch and Richard Madden make appearances, but they aren't on screen for more than a minute each. This is not an actor's movie, and it's especially not a movie for the stars.
"1917" will leave you thrilled and drained. It's not as wrenching as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Dunkirk," but there are times when it comes close. Mendes's filming strategy does not allow him to cut away from the action when things get graphic or intense. This is not a movie for kids. But it isn't a movie I will soon forget, particularly when I compile my Top 10 list at the end of the year.
Comments
Post a Comment