1917: A One Shot Thrill Ride

Since it's US release in december, it's been the only film that those who are not obsessed with cinema have spoken about. With it's breathtaking portrayal of the battlefield and heart stopping moments that no doubt took place, critics and audiences alike simply cannot get enough of Sam Mendes' unique approach to a war movie. It has even been compared to war movie 'royalty', such as Saving Private Ryan. Really. If I was just going to praise this movie, then there's not much more I can say that hasn't already been said. Luckily however, I do have some issues with this film and hope that some of you reading this will agree with my points or at least understand my point of view. Just to clarify, I like this film and thoroughly recommend watching it, I simply think it could have been better, and I'm going to explain how.

Firstly, the cinematography. Yes, of course I loved it. The announcement of a film made to look like it was shot entirely in one go is enough to make any regular cinema goers mouth salivate, and the execution is nothing short of sublime. Despite the monumental task of executing such large set pieces, no shortcuts were ever taken, creating some truly unique and beautiful camera-work that will no doubt reap the rewards at the oscars. It adds a new layer to the suspense and tension that impressively persists for it's entire 2 hour run time, as you are only gifted the eyeline of the main characters, and therefore only see what they see - as opposed to being an omniscient observer, aware of what the characters are not. This allows us to explore and witness human emotion from an uncut, one angled view, which is a very brave choice from the director. In my humble opinion, whilst it no doubt adds so much to certain scenes, in others I could not help but see it as a hinderance. Perhaps this is just a matter of the execution, but it felt like some of the more personal scenes just needed one or two extra camera angles to give different perspectives and allow for quick retakes of some vital scenes that really needed care an attention to pure emotion. However, I concede that these sudden cuts would have looked out of place in a film so heavy with long takes and retract from the realism the film aims to portray. Ultimately, this is the feature that truly sets 1917 apart from it's competition in the war film category and the quirk that will ensure it is remembered for some time to come. For this reason, it really is hard for me to criticise this aspect when all said and done. Almost a waste of a paragragh really. But i digress...

George Mackay (Pictured above), having already starred in a film set against the backdrop of the first world war (Private Peaceful), excelled in the starring role of the movie. He mastered the level of subtlety and raw emotion required to deliver different moments and was captivating when given the majority of the screen time. As someone who did not wish to glorify war, but understood his duty, he is a character that was much needed in a script purposefully lax on dialogue and action heavy, giving us - the audience, someone to root for. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for his co-star Dean-Charles Chapman. Whilst I would never wish to undermine a professional actor, nor single someone out, I would be lying to myself if I claimed to find his performance at all convincing. SPOILER ALERT. During the second act, his character (Blake) is fatally wounded and we witness him slowly die in the arms of his friend William Schofield (Mackay). It was at this scene, which should have been a sad, emotional scence of panic and realisation at the thought of death, where me and my girlfriend both glanced at each other to realise we were both grinning at how both cringeworthy and poor he was delivering his lines. It completely eradicated the captivation that George Mackay has set in motion and ruined what could have been a real tear-jerker.

The script choice was also strange, as when Blake asks Schofield, "Am I going to die", there is a long pause, before he strangely replies, "yes". If I had been sipping a drink, I am sure I would have spat it out there and then. Having watched his cameo in Netflix's The King, starring Timothee Chalamet, it was of no real surprise to me that his performance fell flat, and left me wondering how a casting choice could go so wrong. It is clear to me that his attributes and line delivery compliment theatre much more, and his record as the longest serving Billy Elliot on stage indicates that this was the wrong role for him. Of course, actors can adapt and challenge themselves, Fionn Whitehead for example, stepped up to the mark in Dunkirk and provided an encapsulatingly low-key performance with even less material than Dean-Charles was provided with. I don't blame him for being miscast of course, this is purely down to the director in my eyes. Thankfully it was Mackay, chosen to fill the boots of Schofield, who would go on to carry the rest of this movie, had it been the other way around, I believe there would have been wider scrutiny of the casting choices and performances.

Overall, this is all that stops me from giving 1917 a perfect 10, and actually causes me to give it an 8. The death of Blake and Schofield's subsequent journey relied on the bond that was created between the two in the opening half an hour, and with the performance of one being subpar, it meant we as the audience did not feel the sense of loss truly needed to make the final set piece - which is rivetting in it's own right - as impactful as it could have been. It left me feeling strangely hollow and unsatisfied at the outcome. The film I would compare this with most closely is Dunkirk, due to the formula of less character moments with main focus on the scenarios that the characters face and subsequently you experience alongside them. Dunkirk excelled at building tension to an epic crescendo and ultimately leaving the audience gasping for air, relieved to have made it to safety. 1917, on the other hand, fell slightly short on this - despite having arguably more character moments and a visual storytelling of the circle of life which added great depth, again I wasn't as interested in how the film finished. Tension had been lost in place of a dramatic triumphant score marring the big final set piece that all the trailers had been teasing, suddenly I no longer felt the sense of danger that in the preceeding hour and a half I had done so well to maintain, as the film sunk into a sense of predictability.

A missed opportunity, yes. A disappointment, yes. A great film, absolutely.