Rating: R
Runtime: 1 hour, 59 minutes
Director: Sam Mendes
Quick Impressions:
My husband and I saw this on Sunday afternoon with our older son and daughter. Our four-year-old wasn’t invited, which was fine with him until he learned his sister was going. He tried to convince her to stay home with the very persuasive argument, “Movies are stupid,” but we had already bought her ticket.
We’ve all been rabidly excited to see 1917. I don’t know why it didn’t release everywhere on Christmas Day. I personally think that was a mistake. People would have gone over the holiday for sure. We wanted to go. I myself have been dying to see the film since I heard it was using the long take to make the entire movie look like one continuous shot (think Birdman or Rope). How could anyone resist that style paired with that premise (two young British soldiers journeying through trenches and across the front to deliver an urgent, time sensitive message)? Just imagining it, I knew I would be on the edge of my seat for two hours, and I was.
The film isn’t just suspenseful and visually rewarding, though. It also packs quite an emotional punch and had tears streaming down my cheeks on several occasions.
As we left the movie (which our soon-to-be seventeen-year-old immediately deemed “dope”), I said to my family, “I think that’s going to win Best Picture. People will feel good about voting for it. They won’t have reservations or be shamed. Nothing will hold them back.”
Now that I’ve seen the Oscar nominations, I think 1917 still looks pretty strong, certainly a viable Best Picture contender and, awards aside, an excellent film. I like it better than American Beauty and Skyfall, and I thought both of those were very good movies.
The Good:
I saw American Beauty twice in the theater (though that usually is less about what I like and more a matter of whom I can convince to go to the movies). And my favorite part of the Bond franchise since GoldenEye is Judi Dench as M, so, of course I loved the Bond film that focused so heavily on her character. But I do think 1917 is by far the best film I’ve seen from director Sam Mendes.
It’s supposed to be based on his grandfather’s stories from World War I, and it (kind of surprisingly) just got an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay (co-written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) which I think it deserves. Obviously the gimmick of the movie is the one-long-take illusion, and I expect the film to win Best Cinematography (though I’m wrong a lot), but there’s far more to this movie than just daring visuals. The story is well written with plenty of heart and compelling emotional symmetry. The performances from George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman, though not Oscar nominated, are good enough to be (especially MacKay) and likely would have been in a weaker year. And the score by Thomas Newman is moving, sweeping, epic, catchy, perfect. Newman could finally win his Oscar this year. (My kids are sure this will happen, and while I agree it would be a good choice, my money is still on Joker, my personal favorite score of the year at the moment.) (It’s close, though.)
Not only is 1917 one of the very best films of 2019, but it’s also one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen. Now admittedly, I’m not a big war movie buff. I do not have the desire, expectation, or capability to go off to war myself, and I’m often far more verbal than visual, but this film had me from the first frame, and I never lost interest for even one second. It’s a fascinating, moving, exhilarating journey through the trenches of World War I. The closest I’ve ever come to experiencing anything remotely like that is watching the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings movies with my mother. All joking aside, the setting did frequently make me think of Tolkien. It also reminded me of many games my son plays on the PS4, the kind replete with cinematic cut scenes and clear cut (if restrictive and controlling) paths from one objective to the next.
Just last week, this same son was actively considering enlisting in the Navy. He’s always dreamed of a military career, and current events stirred these passions. I kept thinking about that as I watched these two young men wander across the inhospitable front. How different films like this must be if you watch them with the expectation of living them! In the same way that Little Women focuses on real themes in my life, some people watch war movies knowing that they have been or will go to war. I can’t watch as a young man dreaming of glory, but as the mother of a young man (and as an English major), I really appreciated 1917‘s contemplative, philosophical undercurrent.
So frequently, this movie made me ask myself, “Why do we have war? Why do we send our sons to fight and die?” Parents (mothers especially) get so much conflicting advice about how to raise our children correctly. The world gives us the impression that one mistake will screw up our babies’ lives irreparably. And then they become men and we send them off to die, to kill each other.
Eyes glued to the screen, I kept thinking of that wonderful moment in War and Peace when Nikolai Rostov suddenly realizes in the heat of battle that he (his mother’s darling boy) is mortal and that people are about to kill him like he’s nothing. I don’t think we should send our sons to war. As I watched the two young protagonists in the early scenes of this movie journey apprehensively through enemy territory, always fearful of what or whom they would find, I also kept thinking of Wilfred Owen (which seems apt when watching a British film about WWI), particularly the poem “Strange Meeting.” I kept thinking, “I wonder why anyone at the front follows the orders. When an eighteen-year-old from England meets and eighteen-year-old from Germany, why not just put down their guns? Neither wants to die. Who is driving this? Why don’t they all just choose to live instead? And what is accomplished by all of this, aside from thinning out a generation of young men and leaving more resources for remaining members of society? Do these boys understand that they’re the sacrifice being slaughtered to appease the gods of war?”
I think the screenplay raises all of these questions and invites us to think about them with refreshing subtlety. I don’t like heavy-handed, message driven movies, but 1917 never falls into that trap. (It also illustrates rather clearly why soldiers might not simply choose to put down their guns and show kindness to enemy combatants.)
I also loved the immersive realism of the film. Watching war movies makes me think about reading books, but some people know the smells and sensations of the battlefield. I think all high school students studying World War I should watch this movie in class. I realize that it is rated R, but it would be helpful viewing before studying the war or reading, say, A Farewell to Arms. Students would get a more complete picture of what World War I was actually like. The clear look we get at the trenches, the front, the wounded is so enlightening for those of us who are challenged at visualizing how real spaces work. (I can’t even imagine and visualize how all the parts of the area where I live connect together, so this walk through the war zone really helped me to understand the experience.)
And when you’re reading literature about war, there are certain realities that never cross your mind. I think, “Is war necessary? Is the experience meaningful? Does it build character or tear you down psychologically?” Or sometimes I wonder, “In this particular battle, were these tactics wise, and how did this military plan work into a greater diplomatic strategy?” But I never think stuff like, “What if I put my hand down and accidentally punch through an old corpse, plunging my injured flesh into rotting guts?” That’s a dimension of the battlefield normally inaccessible to bookish non-combatants like me.
As I said, the score is fantastic, and the film’s lone eerie hymn is also perfect. The visual symbolism with the cherry blossoms is not only a nice artistic move but genuinely moving in an almost spiritual way. George MacKay deserved an Oscar nomination, but honestly I like co-star Dean-Charles Chapman’s less nuanced but more emotionally resonant turn even better. (Chapman has not fared well in wars this year, but at least his Lance Corporal Tom Blake has far more screentime than his Thomas, Hal’s brother in Netflix’s dismal The King.) (I really like Chapman as an actor, but why does he always play characters named Tom? For what it’s worth, if the Lannisters had had the good sense to murder Joffrey quietly themselves in the beginning, I’ll bet Tommen could have remained securely on the Iron Throne with his grandfather ruling in his name. But mistakes were made.)
I expected the experience of watching 1917 to be intense, suspenseful, and to a degree it was. But the film was also far more emotional than I anticipated. I got quite attached to the Blake family, and I would gladly watch a sequel about what happens to both families in the aftermath of the Great War. I also admired the film’s method of slowly revealing more and more about MacKay’s character’s backstory and motivations to us, excellent storytelling, definitely deserving of that nomination.
Best Scene Visually:
Probably the strongest and most distinctive scene in the film, the one destined to become iconic, is the one with all the flares in the burning city. To borrow convenient slang from my kids, it looks fire. Surely Roger Deakins will win the Oscar for Best Cinematography. This scene is gorgeous, unique, haunting, and also surreal in a way that reflects the protagonist’s addled interior state.
Best Action Sequence:
I found a key moment when one man struggles to help another to his feet so gripping. It contrasts meaningfully with a parallel moment earlier.
Best Scene:
I absolutely loved the cherry blossoms in the river. The following scene featuring the eerie hymn was also powerful, and it was weirdly uncanny, too. (For a split second, I found myself wondering, “Hold on. Is this the afterlife?”)
The Negatives:
“Cows don’t milk themselves,” I whispered to my daughter during the movie, and this detail still worries me. It seems too conspicuous to be an oversight. I keep thinking of a rat we see early on, and wondering about the wholesomeness of that milk, and fretting over where it ends up.
I also find the scene with the airplane weirdly contrived. It seems so random, of all the things that could happen. Of course, that’s kind of the point. I do think the Blake character is meant to make us question why fighting is necessary, and this moment is intended to give us a partial answer to that question. It all just unfolds in such an odd way, though.
I also kept wondering where the guys in the convoy of vehicles were going that was so important. Wouldn’t those cars be useful in getting such an urgent message to someone quickly? Given adjustments that had to be made to the original mission, couldn’t even further adjustments have been made in the name of practicality? Admittedly, I do not have experience with any of these things. I do not understand how war works at all. Thank God I am not in charge of national defense.
After the movie, my husband talked at length about how the film had cleverly compressed time to show the duration of the eight hour journey within the two hour runtime. I never noticed that because I am always lost in time and space, but he must be right. With one exception, the messengers never stopped moving, but the movie was nowhere near eight hours long. I mention this as a negative only because some people might not like the fact that the “long-take for the entire journey” thing is an illusion so easily shattered.
Overall:
1917 is one of the best films of 2019, and it should appeal to a broad audience. I think everyone should go see it in the theater as soon as possible. It could win Best Picture, Best Director, or any number of other Oscars, and you don’t want to wait for streaming or disc this time. To get the most out of the experience, you must see this film on the big screen with the best sound possible. What more can I say?