Okay, so if it weren’t for my history teacher, I never would have watched Sam Mendes’ 1917. I literally only went because he offered bonus points to anyone who went to go see it. That combined with the fact it’s nominated for Best Picture at the 2020 Academy Awards were the only motivations I had. Otherwise, it was a big no. And it still would be a big no, as I figured out about halfway through that I don’t really like war films. This one’s no exception, really. It’s nothing personal, and from a cinematic standpoint, it’s truly a beautiful film. I just don’t like war movies. Despite this, 1917 was a pretty solid movie, and I’d rate it a three and a half out of five stars.
The story follows two lance corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay), as they are sent to deliver a life-saving message to another battalion that is about to charge into a death trap. Sounds compelling, right? I guess so, if you’re a fan of war films. However, as someone who doesn’t really like war movies, I was pretty bored. I spent the whole movie looking forward to the scene where the plane crashes, and even that wasn’t as interesting as I thought it would be. There was so much exposition that I found myself waiting for something big to happen throughout the entire film, and it never really did. I was constantly on the edge of my seat. Maybe that’s what was supposed to happen, given that the main character was in such a tense environment, but I didn’t find it to be an effective storytelling method. The few action-packed moments, no matter how exciting they were, were short and sparse. I also got spooked really often by loud noises, which I didn’t like, but that’s just a personal thing.
I found the characters bland and poorly written. The only one who held my attention for a period of time was Blake, and unfortunately for me, he was killed off about forty-five minutes in. Then, it was just me, Schofield, and the camera, and I didn’t really like Schofield. It’s nothing personal. MacKay did a fantastic job with the role. I just don’t think he was very well-written, so I didn’t like him. The minor characters, such as MacKenzie and Blake’s older brother (also Blake, so we’re just going to call him Blake Sr) were a lot more interesting than the main two, and I wish we could’ve seen more of them. Shame. Maybe we could get a spinoff about one of them? No? Okay. Not like I’d go see it even if it did exist.
1917 is garnering critical acclaim because it is a technical marvel. The whole movie appears to be one shot. This is a good idea, in theory, and it’s very well executed. However, I feel like the directors were so focused on the technical beauty of this film that they allowed the story and the characters to fall by the wayside, and as someone who often finds those aspects to be the most compelling in a film, it was a bit of a disappointment. Peter Sobcyznski put it better than I ever could over on rogerebert.com. “The problem is that the visual conceit can’t help but draw attention to itself throughout, whether it is due to the increasingly showy camera moves or the sometimes awkward methods that are deployed to camouflage the edits and which begin to stick out more and more.” I found myself more drawn to the way the camera was moving rather than the storyline of the movie, and I was often dizzied by the sweeping, rotating camera angles. It made everything feel slightly out of focus. I’m not sure if my eyes are failing or what, but something just didn’t feel right.
Overall, I was just unable to invest in this film, its plot, or its characters. The only impressive thing was the cinematography, and even then, I wasn’t that big of a fan of it. Still, I’m a firm believer that there is no such thing as a bad movie, just one I am not the right audience for. Clearly, I was not the right audience for 1917. Despite its flaws, however, it was a pretty decent movie from an objective standpoint, and though I do believe there are better candidates, I can understand why it is garnering so much critical acclaim.
Comments