Making a film is a difficult process, and making said film appear to be in one cohesive shot is another animal entirely. Director Sam Mendes does so in “1917.” The technique used to create the film, with much credit to legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins, is masterful. These aspects, along with a mostly compelling but imperfect story, create a film that is a fully enjoyable and emotionally engaging ride.

Based on stories Mendes’ grandfather told him, “1917” follows two British corporals, Will Schofield and Tom Blake, who are assigned to a crucial mission. They need to deliver a message to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment to call off an attack on the retreating German front. If Schofield and Blake do not make it in time, more than 1,000 soldiers will die. One of those soldiers is Blake’s older brother, adding personal stakes to the mission.

This film is no exception to Deakins’ long portfolio of excellent multi-award-winning cinematography. With Deakins at the helm, the natural lighting and smoothly flowing camera are mesmerizing. Deakins and Mendes know exactly when to get tight on the characters to build intensity and when to zoom out to go wide, with everything flowing smoothly and naturally. This, along with great effects, makes the war scenes especially thrilling and nerve-wracking. Also, the usage of fires and bombs to illuminate nighttime battles is a gorgeous addition.

Aside from the technical marvel that “1917” is, the film is inconsistent in its storytelling. On the other hand, the protagonists are decent characters, with Schofield serving as the colder, less emotional figure to Blake’s character, whose emotions get the best of him at times. Also, the movie provides Scholfield and Blake with a sizable supporting cast. In doing so, it enables the duo to share their feelings and nerves going into their mission.

However, “1917” suffers because of lulls in the action and generic pauses. Developing characters is important, but the film’s strength lies in building tension. The characters are working under a strict time constraint, and the camera is always moving to constantly follow them on this journey. So, consistently stopping the action for the characters to either make jokes or talk about their feelings takes away from the mounting tension.

That does not mean that all the emotional scenes and side characters are bad. There were just too many moments where the stakes did not feel as heightened as they could be.

Also, in terms of morals, “1917” has nothing new to add to such discussions. Essentially, it praises heroism and points out that war is evil and results in large death tolls. Not that these are bad messages, but they are not groundbreaking in the slightest.

That being said, “1917” is still an incredibly enjoyable and harrowing film. The cinematography and grand score by Thomas Newman alone were strong enough to make it worth watching on the big screen. There are several fantastic moments and side characters to provide emotional investment in the story. For me, there were just several storytelling issues that hold the film back from being one of the best films of the year, even though it was nominated for just that on Jan. 13.

Published on January 13, 2020 at 10:43 pm

Contact Patrick: pagunn@syr.edu