Best Pictures #58
2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee
2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee
“Come back to us.”
There are not many films about World War I. The most well-known
ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand
Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On
the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrilling action-war movie. It is also
such an immersive and intense experience that without making any overt
political statement it is firmly an antiwar film. It may be a good, thrilling movie
but it is never exciting in the way an adventure movie is exciting. Even in the
quiet moments 1917 makes you want to be as far away from this war as
possible and hope another one like it never happens.
The plot is simple and very straightforward. Two young
British soldiers are selected to deliver a message to a distant regiment
calling off an attack the next morning. If the attack goes forward 1,600
soldiers, including the brother of one of the messengers, will charge into a
trap. The encounters Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and
Georgy MacKay) have as they make their journey across enemy territory are what
you might expect from a story about soldiers on a mission: attacks from the
enemy, crossing paths with another group of soldiers, finding shelter that is
actually dangerous, even stumbling across a villager trying to care for a
child. 1917 isn’t a total onslaught to the senses for two hours though. There
are respites here and there that allow us to get to know Blake and Schofield. There
are some surprising cameos by well-known British actors along the way too (or
unsurprising if you’ve seen the trailer or the cast list on IMDb). Fortunately,
none of these cameos take you out of the movie (Andrew Scott and Mark Strong
could slip comfortably into just about any movie).
Director Sam Mendes employs long takes and expert, precise
cinematography by Roger Deakins and stealthy editing by Lee Smith to make the
film look and feel as though it exists in one long unbroken shot. This gimmick
works well for the movie when it is not distracting. In its successful moments the
one-shot effect is largely responsible for the film’s frantic, immersive effect.
The climatic sequence of Schofield running like mad across the top of a trench as a battle begins to find the colonel to call
off the attack makes excellent use of the one shot effect; it had me gripping
the armrests of my seat. Also, the nighttime sequence in a bombed-out village where
flairs illuminate the night with a bright, eerie white light and a fire rages
in the distance is surreal and terrifying. Other scenes, however, like when a
group of soldiers (and the camera) climb into the back of a truck, then get out
to push the truck, then climb back in again feel like they are straining to keep
the shot unbroken. Though I think there’s nothing in 1917 that couldn’t
have been achieved with conventional editing, I understand why Mendes chose to
present his film as a single unbroken shot. It puts us right there with the two
soldiers and we are as unsure as they are of what will happen next.
There are two consequences of using the one-shot/single-take
gimmick in a war film. 1) Whether intentional or not, the one-shot effect,
which keeps the camera right behind, or in front of, or over the shoulder of
the characters, along with the nature of the story makes the film feel like a
video game at certain times. This is not really a fault against the film. It is
more likely due to video games being influenced by movies and then filtering
back into the culture, but the comparison comes to mind nonetheless. 2) I think
all of the focus and talk surrounding the one-shot effect actually diverts
attention away from the harrowing experience of the characters in the film. 1917
has already won several awards and praise as a technical achievement (which it
certainly is). I just hope people can get past the film’s style to fully
appreciate and experience the events on screen.
1917 only tangentially touches on the larger scale of
the war. One character makes a background comment on the unimpressive patch of
land they’ve been fighting the Germans over for years. Mendes chose not to
focus on the politics of the war but instead tell the story of the enlisted men
that fought in the trenches and in open fields. This movie is based in part on
the experiences of Lance Corporal Alfred Mendes, Sam Mendes’s grandfather, to whom
the film is dedicated. Mends co-wrote the screenplay, his only writing credit.
For all the unrelenting action in 1917, the final shot makes this an
emotional and affecting movie.
Nominees: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, Callum
McDougall
Director: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty
Wilson-Cairns
Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman
Production Companies: DreamWorks Pictures, Reliance
Entertainment, New Republic Pictures, Mogambo, Neal Street Productions, Amblin
Partners
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Release Date: December 25th, 2019
Total Nominations: 10, including Best Picture
Other Nominations: Director-Sam Mendes; Original Screenplay-
Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns; Cinematography-Roger Deakins; Makeup and
Hairstyling-Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis, Rebecca Cole; Production
Design-Dennis Gassner, Lee Sandales; Original Score-Thomas Newman; Visual
Effects-Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, Dominic Tuohy; Sound Mixing-Mark
Taylor, Stuart Wilson; Sound Editing-Oliver Tarney, Rachael Tate
No comments:
Post a Comment