As a rule, I dislike war movies. Whether it’s All Quiet on the Western Front or Saving Private Ryan, any movie that puts war front and centre tends to have the same themes of unnecessary violence, of the lower class fighting the wars of aristocrats, civilian collateral damage, guilt and rubble.
Don’t get me wrong. The stories they tell need to be heard and heard again, no matter how deaf the ears seem to be. But by now, I guess I am desensitised to watching the tragedies of war unfold on screen when peace can be just as ruthless and war has simply switched forms. More controversially, I am going to posit that there are no more original stories left to tell in the war spectrum.
And 1917 is no different. It tells the World War I story of Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) going behind enemy lines to convey an order that will save 1,600 lives, including that of Blake’s brother to Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch).
The emphasis in 1917 is not on the story itself but rather how it’s told. First off, the main story itself is based on the director’s grandfather’s wartime stories, making it umpteen times cooler. Secondly, it’s told via a number of long takes creatively stitched together to appear as one continuous shot. And third, it’s a visual masterclass when it comes to attention to detail. From prosthetics to the mise en scène, every moment holds the audience’s attention.
But a focus on the storytelling can pull from the story itself. For example, a scene when the two soldiers are making their way across a pool-sized crater is visceral when we see the number of body parts and rats, but Sam Mendes also seems to tell the audience:
“See how difficult that shot would have been? I am a great film-maker because I made it happen.”
And then there’s the continuous edit. To most audiences, it immerses them in the story, keeping it going at a rapid pace. And while I appreciated feeling like the third member of the messenger crew, I was also distracted as I looked for signs of invisible editing – stepping behind trees, momentarily dark rooms, blacking out from being shot.
When I watched Birdman, another continuous shot movie – it was exhilarating and the story was so captivating that I didn’t have time or attention to spare for the edits. But with this, everyone knew how the story would end and I found myself distracted by these details.
That’s not to say 1917 is not a spectacular achievement. Dean-Charles Chapman – yes, the kid who played suicidal little Tommen Baratheon on Game of Thrones – is lovable as the rookie to war. He is star-struck by the medals and stars that soldiers can earn for their bravery, while his compatriot Schofield is the veteran who has traded away his medal of honour for a bottle of grape.
The mise en scène too is stupendous as the rats, dead body parts and swamps create a placebo stench in our minds, giving the audience a taste of the smells of war.
The royalty of British cinema also make memorable cameos – from Andrew Scott playing his familiar borderline insane personality in a fitting WWI trench environment to Benedict Cumberbatch wrapping up the movie with a monologue about the hopelessness of war.
All in all, on a technical level, this is a movie worth study. I can understand why it’s been nominated for 10 Oscars. However, the story simply doesn’t stand out and in the sea of screen violence we see these days, it doesn’t make me want to go back for a re-watch.
Perhaps, that’s exactly how the director intended it to be similar to the real World War I – possibly a technical spectacle but unoriginal in the violent urges of man and definitely not worth re-experiencing.
Rating: 4/5
Pros: Technically highly skilled, Great acting, Memorable world-building (and destroying)
Cons: Same old story, Rewatch-unfriendly
