1917

 

There was a lot of media hubbub about how 1917 was shot in one continuous take. In fact that seemed to be the main selling point of the movie even though its not entirely uncommon. When thinking about films made like this most people’s minds go as far back as Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope which, rather than being a single take, was several long takes that have been subtly edited to appear as though its a single take (this is how 1917 was filmed rather than being one take). Even previous films about war have seen long takes make a great impact such as the Dunkirk scene in Atonement and the trench sequences in Stanley Kubrick’s anti-war film Paths of Glory.

The way the film was shot was the main selling point in the film’s marketing and they did somewhat pull a sneaky one on us by claiming the film was done in one continuous take. I actually had read beforehand that this wasn’t the case as it was a series of long takes stitched together to give the impression that the film is a real time thriller that was a single continuous take. Therefore I spent sometime trying to find out where they made these cuts rather than focusing on the story because, as brilliant as the filmmaking craft is, the overarching narrative was lacking and its more of a film made from a series of brilliant set pieces. 

That said I don’t really want to take anything away from cinematographer Roger Deakins and director Sam Mendes who have crafted a film that is breathtaking. The long takes help drive up the tension and bring to light how deadly and brutal the First World War was. Walking through the muddy fields of No Man’s Land was a horrific ordeal with the landscape littered by horse carcasses, bomb craters and dead bodies. Like the Hungarian holocaust drama Son of Saul, the camera follows the central character(s) - not lingering on the horror but more focusing on them as they walk through a hellish landscape where death and suffering is on all sides.

There are certain scenes that are so staggering in their brilliance that its hard not to be in awe of the technical accomplishment. The plane crash and the final charge across No Man’s Land are an incredible feat of meticulous planning and directorial prowess. However, apart from the way the film was done (which has been done before on a slightly smaller scale), the film doesn’t really bring anything new to the table (yet it avoids some cliches like lions led by donkeys - meaning incompetent generals leading brave troops to their deaths). It lacks the emotional intensity of Peter Jackson’s They Shall Not Grow Old and the strong anti-war themes of Paths of Glory and All Quiet on the Western Front. The film certainly isn’t a nationalistic one as it shows the grim realities of war but the Germans are so facelessly depicted that their immoral actions are lazily predictable and feel as they are only there to keep the plot moving.

I won’t deny I wasn’t moved by the film, but I felt its my knowledge and what I brought to the film which made the film's story work. Anyone in my generation or before will know and loved someone who served in either the First or Second World War and will no doubt know of the costly loss of life and devastation both wars caused to many countries in Europe. The film-making, real time narrative doesn’t really give time to build character despite the excellent performance from George McKay who does depict the incredible levels of courage displayed by so many young men who fought and died for their country.