1917 - Review

Release Date:  December 25, 2019​​​​​​​​​​​​​

War, War Never Changes

I think everyone was a bit startled when 1917 won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. Even the director, Sam Mendes, was awestruck as he went up to accept the award. It seemed like he knew most people didn't care about his film, going as far to state that he hoped the win would drive interest and that people would see it in the theater. I was definitely surprised as I had not heard much about the picture before the awards show. So at that point, I had to find out what the Hollywood Foreign Press Association saw in 1917 and how it could be declared the best of the year.

I learned of 1917's signature gimmick very recently. I think most don't know about it, but I'm forced to address it, or the readability of the review will go out the window. The trick I am talking about is the entire movie is made to look like it was filmed in one shot. Everyone else will tell you that it works exceptionally well, and other than one evident giant cut which immensely bothered me, they are correct. The undertaking to achieve this effect is not lost on me as I understand the production work required for it to be successful. 

While it might have been Mendes' idea to make the movie in this way, it was Roger Deakins who actually achieved it. 1917 has Deakin's fingerprints all over it as his signature style is on display in every image. His choice to film with natural light sources leads to mesmerizing sequences that have been spoiled in the trailer. If you decide to watch this in the theater, it will be to see his work on a big screen. I say that because other than the incredibly high production value, there isn't much else to look forward to.

1917 fails to capture the human element of war. It does a great job keeping the audience on their toes as the one-shot presentation keeps the tension high. There are moments of fear, exhaustion, and hope, all of which blend thematically with the setting, but none give you the anchor into its characters. I need more than just a goal and a coherent plot to keep me interested. When I said it had tension and all those other things, I lied. It only had those elements for some of the time, as it mostly fell flat for me. 

The driving force of the story is for two soldiers to deliver an order that would save many lives. The importance of their mission is blatant but seems to fall on deaf ears as almost everyone they meet doesn't care. That message of indifference seeped through and became the stance I took. While the script tries to give these characters humanizing moments, not much of it stuck. This disconnect comes down to how they were delivered. I could see the gears turning in the background as scenes of tension would be invalidated moments later. When plot points were being set up and then never referenced again, it felt like they were just cheap tricks.

​It all comes down to what you appreciate about the art form. I like movies because they tell interesting stories about engaging characters. 1917 doesn't have that but instead offers a project that excels in production. The fancy camera sweeps, tracking shots, and set pieces offer visually stunning sequences that are enviable. While I didn't enjoy the film that much, I can recognize great work when I see it.

6.5/10
​Without Roger Deakins, the movie would have been nothing special