Skip to main content

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917
(2019)

(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

Because the setting screams that he must surely have been, as does the dedication to granddad. Yet the movie itself feels as if these elements are a cloak of vaguely facile respectability, that Mendes has perversely made 1917 more culpable and irresponsible by invoking the professedly serious-minded backdrop of an actual war, as opposed to any other high-quality action movie, be it a Fury Road or even – since it also evokes historic events, albeit more remote – Apocalypto. 1917 running from A to B narrative really doesn’t have anything to say that would justify the status of a critics’ darling.

It appears the Mendes’ granddad’s story has various mutations according to who you read; Cinemablend has it that he volunteered to deliver a message between various posts at dusk, requiring his traversal of no man’s land. History vs Hollywood bothers enough to quote Alfred H Mendes’ autobiography, in which, contrastingly, he volunteered to venture into no man’s land and locate survivors of an attack, enabling them to be rescued, for which he received a Military Medal.

Now, there’s no undermining the bravery of what Alfred did, but when Mendes refers to “this story or this fragment and obviously I’ve enlarged it significantly” the only thing he’s missing out is swapping “significantly” for “beyond recognition”. The question becomes one of, in doing so, whether Mendes, through gross inflation, rather strays from the point and delivers instead a faux war-is-hell rollercoaster ride. It would be interesting to hear if there was a similar event that would lend support to Mendes’ fanciful plot (Operation Alberich is cited as a similar tactical move by the Germans, but there was no corresponding assault by the British planned).

George MacKay’s Lance Corporal Schofield and Dean-Charles Chapman’s Lance Corporal Blake are ordered to deliver an urgent, vital message to 2nd Battalion, planning to attack the Germans; the battalion is under the illusion that the enemy is in retreat, when in fact they have cunningly devised a trap. If it isn’t called off, it will be a massacre. So Schofield and Blake must traverse no man’s land, the German trenches and various obstacles, both geographical and enemy, to reach their goal.

It’s an entirely spartan structure and one with scant accompanying fleshing out from Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns (who is co-credited on Edgar Wright’s upcoming Last Night in Soho). That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, unless as here, the fact of that structure is constantly foregrounded because there’s no other focus. On the one hand, 1917 avoids the empty platitudes of Saving Private Ryan. On the other, it can’t even boast empty platitudes.

Many reviews have cited the video game aesthetic utilised by Mendes, and as unflattering as that sounds – particularly since, unlike most video game adaptations, Mendes’ approach is highly effective – it isn’t unwarranted. If he isn’t reminding you entirely of the format of games, he’s marrying it to movies you may recall (ones he certainly does).

Almost as soon as Schofield and Chapman (the ill-fated Tommen Baratheon in Game of Thrones) arrive in the German trenches, they decide to go underground on the off chance that it might provide a shortcut: cue tripwires and the need to jump a mineshaft with blinding dust in one’s eyes (Tomb Raider, well, minus the dust). Back in daylight, it isn’t long before they have to get out of the way of an incoming plane (The English Patient). Then surf the rapids (Deliverance), dodge random freaks and aggressors in night-time ruins (Escape from New York), engage in a protracted close-quarters altercation with the enemy (Saving Private Ryan) but in arty silhouette (Skyfall), and race against time as all seems lost (Gallipoli). At one point, Schofield even passes on the milk he collected earlier so as to “move to the next level”. At no point does it feel that Mendes and Wilson-Cairns have disguised the joins, instead hoping that the execution, with its own disguised (edited) joins, will do the job for them.

There are occasional moments where we are offered an “in” to a more authentic version of this reality. The protracted bleed out of Blake, knifed by a dreadful Hun out of shot, a dreadful Hun our brave lads went to the trouble of saving from a plane wreck, is the closest the picture comes to any genuine emotional content (The New Yorker called the colour draining from Blake’s face vulgar, an encapsulation of the picture’s tasteful tastelessness, and while I don’t find myself nearly as indignant, I can certainly see the argument). Later, when Schofield arrives at 2nd Battalion and is searching for Blake’s brother, he stumbles through a tent of the wounded, a lexicon of missing limbs and horrific wounds, and it’s a stark reminder that, in its high-energy propulsion, this was not that war-is-hell film (I suppose Schofield may eventually succumb to tetanus, but that’s for later).

Instead, we’re treated to a succession of amazing camera feats and visuals – the ruins lit by flares at night are particularly striking – underlined by an over-emotive score from Thomas Newman that further dislocates 1917 from the visceral immediacy its one-shot ethic prescribes. Thematically, Mendes is keen on pat contrasts between beauty and destruction, hence rotting corpses relieved by heavenly singing, or the recurring cherry blossom motif (something someone who already ladled petals onto one of his previous pictures ought to have thought twice about), so further emphasising the shallowness of the content. Characters pop up to provide post-its of personality – cynical (Andrew Scott), sage (Mark Strong), vulnerable (Claire Duburcq), stern (Benedict Cumberbatch), empathic (Richard Madden) and, er, nu-Private Walker (Daniel Mays) – and having done so vanish again.

1917 thus takes a very similar stripped-down tack to Dunkirk, also very functional (some might say threadbare) in its writing, which means there’s a similar lack of substance to the characterisation and a similar reliance on recognisable names to pep up the supporting roles. Characters’ capacity for introspection and reflection are at the beck and call of the camera moves, and as a result are entirely limited. Some suggested MacKay might stand a chance of an acting nomination, but really, it would be a reward for athleticism and looking permanently shocked (he’s a champ at both). Revealing that Schofield has a wife and children in the last shot may be Mendes’ way of saying “That’s the point, the hidden depths” but it has the opposite effect, of emphasising that the point is only an immersive technical exercise.

But is 1917 engaging, engrossing and gripping? Absolutely. Moment by moment, it might be the most commanding of the year’s Best Picture Oscar nominees. And such a superficial response could easily result in the big win under a preferential ballot. It’s in the nature of this kind of relentless ride that, despite the myriad issues I have with the film, I found them much easier to put aside for the duration than, say, with Joker. Even though they both come across as facsimiles of the sorts of films they’re attempting to invoke, absent of the thematic content or a lingering resonance that would make them endure. Consequently, if 1917 wins, it will be nothing if not consistent with Academy tradition.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the