Movie Review #03
Cast
George Mackay as
Lance Corporal Schofield
Dean- Charles chapman as Lance Corporal Blake
Benedict Cumberbatch as Lieutenant Joseph Blake
Richard Madden
as Colonel Mackenzie
Colin Firth as General Erinmore
Mark Strong as Captain Smith
Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie
Claire Duburcq as Lauri
Daniel Mays as Sergent Sanders
Nabhaan Rizwan as Sepoy Jondalar
Chris Walley as Private Bullen
Robert Maaser as Pilot
Adrian Scarborough as Major Hepburn
Gerran Howell
as Private Parry and more………….
Story
On April 6th, 1917, British Lance Corporal soldiers
Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are summoned to the
camp of General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Pulled out of slumber in northern part
of France to receive their orders, Blake and Schofield are shockingly stunned
to learn of a German trap to ambush a battalion of 1,600 allied men, Blake’s brother
(Richard Madden) included, with no way to immediately warn them of the
impending doom. Tasked with delivering a message to alert General Mackenzie
(Benedict Cumberbatch) of the attack, Blake and Schofield begin their mission;
crossing dangerous terrain in a days’ time; working their way through a series
of empty trenches, tunnels, and bombed-out towns, with no one but each other to
rely on. With time of the essence, the pair of soldiers soon realized that the
journey of reaching General Mackenzie is a perilous one, with dangers appearing
in regularity formation, pitting Blake and Schofield against dangers on their
harrowing journey and racing against time to advert a colossal disaster,
including saving Blake’s brother’s life.
Review
The countless tales of WWII have definitely been told
threw a cinematic lens and have indeed been on full display for moviegoers
through the years. Thus, it’s a bit strange that WWI stories haven’t quite made
their way to big-screen as much as WWII ones. In comparison, I can personally
see the differences as to why WWII tales get more attention (i.e. war raging on
two different fronts, the ruthless dictatorship of Hitler and his Nazi party,
the genocide of those of the Jewish faith, and varying decisive battles on both
Europe and Pacific theaters of war). However, that doesn’t mean WWI didn’t have
its fair share of horrors and diverse conflict within its trench warfare and
prolonged battle lines (i.e. No Man’s Land) within the war’s duration. Thus,
its kind of nice to see Hollywood take an interest in WWI; incorporating “the
Great War” into their narratives. Personally, my favorite WWI movies would have
to War Horses and Tolkien for various reasons (War Horse for its depiction of a
boy and his horse’s journey and Tolkien for its showcase of the famed fantasy
author participation during that time and how his imagination drew upon the
hellish battlefield), but I do appreciate the efforts in all of the WWI
features out there for showcasing the hellish/ less mechanical times of war on
the battlefield.All in all, while tales of WWII seem to be more of the
fashionable “trend” of Hollywood films, stories and the utilization of WWI’s
backdrop setting will slowly come to light; offering up more narratives into
the first “Great War” of human history.
1917, a 2019 epic war film that seems to be poised to
be the new Dunkirk of WWI. I did remember hearing about this movie for quite
some time, especially when it was announced that director Sam Mendes was going
to attached to the project (as director); forgoing another opportunity at the
next James Bond entry (i.e. No Time to Die). Very little was publicly announced
after that until the studio released the film’s movie trailers, which
definitely got my attention quickly. There
been plenty of WWII movies out there, but not enough of WWI endeavors of late.
So, it was definitely keen on seeing this war flick, especially since I heard
that it was going to be another cinematic experience in a similar fashion to
2018’s Dunkirk. After it released nationwide on 17th January I kept on hearing great things about 1917,
with many praising the movie as the film of the year, including win two Golden
Globes in Best Director (Sam Mendes) and Best Motion Picture – Drama. Winning
awards like that, I was super curious and excited to finally see 1917 and to
see if all the inherit hype about this WWI epic drama was worth. So….what did I
think of it? Well, I have to agree with all the hype that this movie has been
receiving. Despite a few minor complaints, 1917 is masterful cinematic experience;
capturing the harrowing intense journey of two soldiers on a mission. Like
2018’s Dunkirk, the movie isn’t about a well-rounded character build feature or
blazing glory war action, but of the personal and imitate experience that
follows. 1917 is directed by Sam Mendes, whose previous directorial works
includes such film like Skyfall, Revolutionary Road, and American Beauty.
Giving his background in a variety of movie genres of theatrical storytelling,
the idea of Mendes tackling a war feature is a bit of an ambitious project; one
that definitely succeeds with the director approaching the material with a
sense of cinematic flourishes that both work in the film’s entertainment and
storytelling narration. Taking cues from Nolan’s Dunkirk, Mendes shapes the
narrative of 1917 to be more of a journey centerpiece rather than a
character-based drama.
What do I mean? Well, the feature is primarily about
the mission that Blake and Schofield are set upon and how they must journey
across the war-torn land to reach their destination. Thus, Mendes, along with
the film’s script (of which he penned along with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, shape
the feature around the journey that the soldiers undergo and not so much on the
drama of character interactions and side narrative threads of other
individuals. In short, the immersive nature of the film’s story of following
Blake and Schofield is quite palpable and compelling, with Mendes capturing a
thrilling journey that’s worth the viewing experience.
What Mendes does to make the movie stand is to present
the feature to act like a complete one-shot presentation, with the camera never
leaving Blake or Schofield for one single scene. Of course, the whole
“one-shot” take has been certainly done in the past, including the opening
scene of Spectre (of which Mendes was the director for), but the ambition to
tackle a WWI project of this caliber is high and the execution of one-shot look
is quite creative to see. Of course, there are a times when you could tell that
where one scene ends and begins (i.e. through a series of blockages and areas
where characters pass through), but the effectiveness and aspirations to make
1917’s presentation to be in a one-shot aesthetics is highly commendable. Some
might see it as a “gimmick”, but I personally loved it and definitely made the
feature quite cinematic with that alone, especially since it’s done and
executed in the right way. A large chunk of the second half of the feature is
filled with sparse dialogue moments, with Mendes displaying the feature with a
visual appetite of cinematic storytelling and creating an immersive feature
that works on a grand scale as well as a private / smaller personal journey.
The marriage of grandeur and personal definitely reflects upon the journey that
Blake and Schofield undertake, with Mendes capturing the duality of 1917’s
aesthetics with sheer awe and impactful precision.What’s definitely the true
hallmark of the film is in its technical presentation is finding 1917 to be a
solid theatrical motion picture that plenty of visual flair throughout its
story. As to be expected with a movie set in WWI, 1917’s presentation does
showcase the war trenches and the barbed-wire battlefields that are customary
with each representation of these war films. However, the backdrop setting goes
beyond those classic setting war tropes, with plenty of various background
scenes and locations set in serene green fields, a ruined and abandoned farm
houses, and bombed out labyrinth-like French villages full of dangers. The
rustic beauty of the European countryside is juxtaposed against the violent
consequences of war; littering the land with scorched earth, blown out
machinery, and mangled deceased bodies. It’s a sort of the beauty and ugly
picturesque landscape that 1917 traverses and it simply is a vivid tour de
force of cinematics. Thus, the entire “behind the scenes” filmmaking members,
including Dennis Gassner (production design), Lee Sandales (set decorations),
and David Crossman and Jacqueline Durran (costume designs) are quite top-notch
and definitely aid in the film’s positive highlights, with background and
overall presentation of 1917 being a celebrated one. There
wasn’t a whole lot that I didn’t like about 1917, with only a few minor points
of criticism that I have to make. As I mentioned several times, the movie
undoubtedly shares a similar cinematic style and narrative construct to that of
2018’s Dunkirk, with director Christopher Nolan interweaving three different
and distinct narratives (each having a different length of time) into one
cinematic endeavor that’s more of an movie level experience than fleshing out
certain characters and events. As it stands, 1917 is quite similar in that
regard. Of course, the film only has one linear narrative to follow, but it is
still presented a cinematic level of storytelling that feels immersive into
tale and not so much in getting to know its cast of characters and bolstered by
grandiose war-torn action level of events. Thus, those expecting to see a
bombardment of WWI action in a “blaze of glory” from start to finish are going
to be disappointed with the feature.
There’re also a few moments where the film lingers a
little bit too long as Mendes’s tries to overindulge on various background
nuances to help absorb the feeling of Blake and Schofield’s incredible journey
across the land. I do understand it is to help enrich the atmospheric
environment of the film’s world, but a few times that I noticed that the movie
could’ve been edited down (just a bit). Even with its runtime which is almost two hours
1917 probably could’ve been edited down a good ten or so minutes and
probably still kept the same type of cinematic presentation integrity that it hyped
for. many will automatically see Mendes’s 1917 as a sort of “copycat” to
Nolan’s Dunkirk, mimicking familiar beats of experience war journey, but
changing the war and placement. It personally didn’t bother me as much as I had a feeling it was gonna be like that.
So, I don’t consider it as a “copycat” feature to Nolan’s film, but rather a
spiritual successor of sorts. All in all, these were just some minor critical
points that I had with movie, but rest assured that they were minor ones and
didn’t really take away from the film’s presentation and overall my enjoyment I
had with the movie.
The cast of 1917 is relatively small, with a few
recognizable talents involved on the project, but their overall presence in the
movie is highly commendable. Like Dunkirk, the movie, given its structure and
narrative progression, the movie sort of restricts the limitation of the script
and by means of creating to create well-rounded and dynamic characters
throughout. However, the cast is definitely up to the task given to them;
creating memorable characters (no matter how big or small) in their respective
roles. Who definitely fits this description are the film’s two main characters
of Lance Corporal William Schofield and Lance Corporal Tom Blake, who are
played by actors George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. Both MacKay, known for
his roles in Captain Fantastic, Pride, and How I Live Now, and Chapman, known
for his roles in Game of Thrones, Before I Go to Sleep, and The King, certainly
play their respective characters with grounded realm of performances;
projecting the right amount of realistic humanity and theatrical believability.
They are not special individuals or gifted with endowed skillsets, but rather
the “everyman” soldiers that’s fighting in a war, which makes the characters of
Blake and Schofield relatable. Of course, the movie doesn’t flesh these two
particular individuals fully due to Mendes’s structure of the film and Mendes /
Wilson Cairns script, but MacKay and Chapman are completely devoted into their
respective roles; showcasing more of physical performance of the characters
being “in the moment” rather than heavy exposition dumps of their backstories.
There are a few moments where the pair trade stories with each other, which
does offer insight into Blake and Schofield, but that’s pretty much it.
However, I expected that. Still, both actors display the right amount of
emotion expression. Thus, MacKay and Chapman’s characters in 1917 won’t be
remembered as well-rounded constructs, but rather great physical depiction of
the feature’s main protagonist; expressing a vivid depiction of their journey
throughout the movie.
So lastly my recommendation for the movie is hands
down “highly recommended” one as it showcases artistic nuances and creative
filmmaking at its best of the 2020 movie releases. In
the end, while Hollywood will continue to produce theatrical wartime features,
1917 stands as a memorable triumph of a cinematic endeavor; showcasing unique
storytelling presentation through a dangerous and gruesome time period /
setting that encompasses an incredible journey of two soldiers and the unbridled
determination of humanity’s perseverance through such trying times.
Rating: 4.8 out of 5
Comments
Post a Comment