1917 (2019) - Film Review

Starring: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong & Colin Firth

Screenplay: Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Directed By: Sam Mendes

Certificate: 15

'1917' quickly became one of my most anticipated films of the latter half of 2019. The trailers looked fantastic, it had a great director attached to it with Sam Mendes, and a strong hook in the film's marketing was the fact that the film appears to take place as one continuous shot. However sometimes this can produce a marmite effect. One film from a couple of years ago attempted something similar - inspired by first-person video games, 'Hardcore Henry' and its one-shot style was dismissed by many critics as gimmicky. So although '1917' is obviously a very different film, is that one-shot appearance a gimmick or does it manage to bolster the film instead? 

The 6th April 1917, in the midst of the WWI front, German forces have recently made a strategic withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line. Mistakenly believing their forces are retreating and they have the upper hand, the Second Battalion of the British Devonshire Regiment are planning an attack, unaware that the Germans are waiting to overwhelm them. With the phone lines cut, two young Lance Corporals are tasked with delivering a message to the Second Battalion's commanding officer to stop the attack. They have until dawn the following day to reach him, and time is very much of the essence to prevent the massacre of over 1,600 men.

The technical aspects are understandably the big talking point of '1917' so allow me to be the eight-billionth person to tell you that it is a staggeringly good production. Everything is firing on all cylinders here - the score, cinematography, costumes, set design - I can't fault any of it. With the commitment to the look of one continuous take, I'm sure some people might say that they're taken out of the experience when they see where the cuts have been hidden, but honestly it doesn't remotely bother me. For any hidden cut that might inadvertently stand out, there's a million other things to admire. When you watch closely, there are countless moments that leave you wondering how they were achieved. One tiny example comes early on when our two leads, Schofield and Blake make their way through a crater in no man's land, which has gathered a large pool of muddy water. The camera follows them in a panning wide shot as they go around the water, but whereas before it appeared to be a Steadicam shot, it seamlessly appears to shift to a crane shot as not a single ripple is to be seen in the water. Somehow you're left wandering how moments like this could be pulled off, but at the same time the flow of the film never becomes obstructed. You get so drawn into the characters' journey that it's actually easy to forget the single shot aspect and the insane work that the production team are putting in behind the camera.

Its technical aspects aren't just a gimmick, as while it may sound perhaps cliché or even obvious to state, the constant third person camera puts you with these two soldiers and the lack of cuts are a massive component in keeping you so on edge throughout. There's no cutting away to avoid any gruesome injuries like a hand caught on barbed wire, and that hand being accidentally plunged into an open corpse. The film makes great use of abject imagery like this, and is seen again when at one point Schofield has to swim through another pile of corpses. There's no escaping especially tense moments either. Whenever Schofield finds himself surrounded and being fired upon by snipers, there's no cutting away to the sniper's perspective - they could be anywhere and neither you or he have much clue about where is safe. The danger only increases as the film goes on, and the film is excellent at convincing you that Schofield could be killed at any second. (Major Spoiler Warning!) From an underground tripwire explosion that leaves you thinking for a moment that he might've died, to the actual death of Blake, it rarely pulls its punches. 

'1917' further does a really impressive job handling both its pace and tone. While the film is obviously a war film above all else, it allows itself moments to slow down and feature some sequences which read as more akin to a horror film. Schofield and Blake's exploration of a dark, abandoned German barracks with its dim lighting and uneasy score is a great example of this. And of course, when the time comes to ramp things up with more action-oriented scenes, it doesn't disappoint. Towards the end of the film the shot of Schofield running across a battlefield as hundreds of infantry soldiers charge and go above the trenches around him is the unquestionable money shot. The scale of it, the sheer number of extras it involved, the practical explosions and the crane-operated camera make it so. You may think that the film would demand a strict obedience to hyperrealism to accurately depict the barbaric conditions of the WWI front, and while '1917' does stick to that staunch realism for the most part, it would do it a disservice to not mention that it also leaves room for some more stylized moments. The scenes at night set among the ruins of a town come to mind here, mainly thanks to the lighting. Schofield running through the ruined buildings, illuminated only by the light of raging fires of the light from overhead flares is breath-taking, and a great example of exaggerated style benefitting an otherwise brutal aesthetic. 

Perhaps the area where '1917' might incur the bulk of criticism is characterization. It's very easy to dismiss the film as being style over substance, but it's a reading I'd disagree with. With the film moving at such a pace, fleshing out the lead characters is a challenge, but it's not as if attempts at character building are absent altogether. You get just enough for it to be effective, with subtle differences between Schofield and Blake established through the dialogue. Schofield reads as somewhat pessimistic, seeing no value in medals and trading his with a French soldier in exchange for a bottle of wine. He's also incredibly skeptical of their chances of actually reaching the Second Battalion. Blake meanwhile is at least somewhat more of an optimist, berating Schofield for giving away his medal and when the two rescue a German pilot from a crashed, burning plane, he opts to help him unlike Schofield who wants to put the man out of his misery. (Skip ahead to the next paragraph to avoid spoilers!) It's that good nature that tragically leads to Blake being killed, and f*ck me his death hit me like a ton of bricks. Happening just forty minutes in, it raises the precedent for danger as I've mentioned, but it's also what prompts Schofield to continue their mission by fulfilling his comrade's last request to save his brother. Blake's death hit me on first viewing, but with re-watches it passed the ultimate test and brought me to tears - a high mark for any film to pass.

A big part of me hopes that the legacy of '1917' isn't solely the "one-shot war movie" or that film where a soldier makes his way through a WWI battlefield and meets famous British actors like Colin Firth, Andrew Scott or Benedict Cumberbatch at each checkpoint. I also certainly hope that it won't be remembered as the movie that annoyed dickheads like Laurence Fox, who have the audacity to complain that one extremely minor supporting character being played by a Sikh is "forced diversity", in a film where literally every other cast member is white, and with just one single woman in the cast too. I sincerely hope that time remains kind to '1917' because it thoroughly deserves it. As far as high-profile British war movies are concerned, there have been a few in the last couple of years which haven't fully clicked with me. Plenty of people loved 'Dunkirk' for instance, whereas I came away from it thinking that it was fine but nothing extraordinary. Worse still, there was 'Darkest Hour', which despite a fantastic lead performance from Gary Oldman, reframed and revised historical events to the point of risky irresponsibility. While '1917' is no bastion of historical accuracy either, it's not jingoistic or out to inflate a misguided sense of national pride. In fact I'd argue the film is staunchly anti-war, and does anything but glorify it. There's a bleakness to '1917', even ending with the underlying implication that at best all Schofield might've done is postpone the deaths of several hundred men. I feel like I've finally had my 'Dunkirk' moment, because this is such an incredible film and it absolutely would've taken home Best Picture at the Oscars if it had been up to me (although I was still very happy to see 'Parasite' take the prize). The best war film that we've had in more than twenty years.

1917

10/10