‘1917’: Very Pretty, but Nothing Else
1917, Sam Mendes’ new World War I feature, had its wide release this past weekend. Movie-goers went running to see this new epic war movie shot by the great Roger Deakins and inspired by real horrors Mendes’ grandfather had to endure.
Just to get it out of the way: this is a technical masterpiece.
There is absolutely no denying that 1917 is one of the most masterfully shot films of all time. One shots have been gaining popularity in recent years and many inspired filmmakers have been taking advantage of the new trend, but no one quite to this extent. There hasn’t been a war movie, ever, that’s not only one shot, but edited as a single shot.
It’s abolutely brilliant. The film looks stunning, not a minute goes by where the viewer doesn’t feast on amazing moving pictures. Roger Deakins went above & beyond on this one and he truly deserves everything coming to him.
But that’s it.
1917 is beautiful cinematography and that’s exactly its problem – it’s cinematography. The story lacks a lot and is unapologetically accustomed to its single shot – something that is fundamentally wrong and blatantly arrogant in filmmaking. The always story comes first; thus, the cinematography, editing, and any technical aspect of the movie is accustomed to the story, not the other way around.
1917, probably, initially came as a single shot movie idea. Sam Mendes, probably, wanted to tell a story of a two-hour adventure in a single shot. So, he accustomed the story, tweaked it, built it even, to fit this technical idea – something that’s annoyingly evident throughout 1917.
The film feels like a D&D game. Mendes is constantly changing location, going from one color to another, to entertain the viewer and give them something to hold on to. Because a two-hour war story can get quite dull, he tries to find different ways to keep things exciting.
But it feels painfully forced.
The location changes feel like a necessity on screen. They don’t come naturally – they are pushed upon us to accustom the cinematography. The entire movie feels like a big checklist. They have a concept and a relative plot and they try to fill it up with everything ‘necessary’ for your run-in-the-mill three act structure.
Action? Check. Locations? Check. Friends? Check. Woman? Check. Quiet moments? Check. Fast moments? Check. Benedict Cumberbatch? Check.
Everything is forced. It doesn’t come, it’s pushed through, and you can tell.
Besides, there is not real character development, or, to be honest, existence. We know almost nothing about the people on screen, yes, their pain and struggle is definitely evident, but that’s about it.
1917 does have its moments. There are times when you do care; times when you feel the pain; times that you feel the raw truth of the war. And the cinematography is stunning. But it’s not enough. 1917 lacks in plot and manipulates its story to fit other ideas. It’s forced and evident and, quite frankly, almost makes the film not worth it.
______________________________________________________________________________
Enjoyed this article? Share it! We would really appreciate it. You can also tweet us, like our Facebook page, or better yet – subscribe to our email list so you never miss a thing. Or hey, just comment below whatever thoughts you may have – we love reading them and we always respond.
— Pouty Boy