Screenplay Written by Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Directed by Sam Mendes
**** (four stars)
RATED R
A masterpiece. An absolute masterpiece.
Sam Mendes' "1917" is far and away the finest motion picture of his career to date. No small feat whatsoever as his filmography already includes his masterful debut feature "American Beauty" (1999), the devastating melodrama "Revolutionary Road" (2008) and for me, the finest James Bond feature I have ever seen in "Skyfall" (2012).
But "1917" is a different beast altogether. It is a titanic achievement. A film that is marvelous to behold in its muscular execution and majestic cinematic storytelling. It is the very kind of movie making that is of such a grand rarity these days as we are constantly bombarded (and some would even offer, bludgeoned) by all manner of the cinematic calamity and cataclysm that is now commonplace and designed to solely be consumed and forgotten as we await the next cinematic calamity to come crashing through our theater walls to numbing effect.
"1917," by superior contrast, is the kind of movie going experience where you can fully lose yourself in the experience while simultaneously wondering the entire time,'"How did they do this???" It is the ecstatic, euphoric glory of the magic of the movies that Sam Mendes has delivered at the absolute peak of his powers making it not only my #1 favorite film of 2019, but also it stands exceedingly tall as one of the best films I have seen within the decade of 2010-2019.
The plot of "1917" is perfectly simple in its conceit. Set on April 6, 1917, during World War I, two young British soldiers--Lance Corporal Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay)--are given an especially perilous and seemingly impossible mission.
Blake and Schofield are instructed to hand deliver a message to the Second Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment warning them to not carry out their planned attack the following morning as they are unwittingly being set up for a trap, leading to a potential massacre by the Germans. If Blake and Schofield fail, the lives of 1600 of their fellow soldiers will be lost...including Blake's older brother, who is a member of the Battalion.
This is the plot of Sam Mendes' "1917," and that is all you need as the execution of the story fully encapsulates the epic and the intimate, the mammoth and the minuscule, the personal and the universal in a tale of war, courage, determination, dedication, devastating loss and miraculous survival.
Now certainly, "1917" is not the first war film that you and I have ever experienced and therefore, if you have not yet seen this film, I would not be surprised if you are wondering just what the fuss is all about from my end. Yes, Mendes' film conceptually is essentially a hybrid of past war films including Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) and Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" (2017), to note two relatively recent and superlative examples.
Yet, what makes "1917" is not specifically the story itself but precisely how the story is told and with this film, Sam Mendes, working in astonishing collaboration with his full cast and crew, including the clear MVP in the legendary Cinematographer Roger Deakins (who deserves to win every single award in which he is nominated for during this awards season), we are given a film experience that is immersive to a multi-layered degree as the entirely unfolds in reportedly one or two gorgeously fluid, unbroken sequences and the effect is staggering to say the least.
Yes indeed, "1917" is the war film that reveals itself completely in real time and without any edits. Now, my logical mind tells me that there must have been some editing throughout the film and yet, aside from one obvious point, I was unable to detect any moments where any cuts could have occurred. And the more I looked, and the more I honestly could not see anything regarding traditional film editing, the more my mouth dropped open in amazement and awe as we follow Blake and Schofield on their treacherous journey for every single step with Mendes' film making eye revealing every sight at the moment the two soldiers experience them for themselves. This technique made for a film in which I was as enthralled as I was firmly riveted to my theater seat, at times in breathless rapture, while at other times, I felt as shell shocked as our protagonists.
And still, there has been some criticism that Sam Mendes' "1917" is all technique and no substance, while some even referring to the film as being nothing more than a World War I themed first person video game and to those detractors, I passionately disagree as I found the film's technique and the inner working of the story to being richly intertwined and powerfully inseparable, with each aspect informing the other, sometimes in synergy and others, in full juxtaposition.
From a purely aesthetic level, and for a film that is housed in carnage, death and destruction, "1917," as a film experience, is overflowing with enormous vitality and life, with superior flow and movement that is bountiful in its cinematic tapestry. Just think of what it takes to even stage a film of this sort in order for it to progress in unedited sequences. If even one element is out of place, if an actor flubs a line, if one person misses their mark at the precisely right time, then then entire process falls apart like a house of cards and has to be staged from the beginning all over again.
We have indeed seen this technique before from filmmakers and works such as Alfonso Cuaron's "Children Of Men" (2006) and "Gravity" (2013) as well as Alejandro G. Inarritu's brilliant "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)" (2014), situations where both filmmakers (and friends) felt to be in a healthy competition with each other, seeing how the technique could be utilized creatively and successfully. It was as if each film was a building block for the subsequent film.
With "1917," Mendes takes up the mantle of this creative challenge and runs with it from beginning to end with towering confidence, inventiveness, skill and artistry. Again, there are sections where I found myself awestruck with the technique for its gorgeously flabbergasting choreography and how the technique played into the actual storytelling and our connection to Blake and Schofield's odyssey.
Returning to Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" for a moment, I loved how that film utilized war as a more philosophical tool while also remaining blisteringly visceral as it depicted the Dunkirk evacuation from three differing perspectives of land, sea and air and all within three different time frames of one hour, one day and one week. In that film, Nolan eschewed character development and rather played with the concept of time itself--one of his primary themes within his filmography--showing us what war most likely feels like, especially when submerged in conflict.
With "1917," Sam Mendes's single, long take aesthetic does Nolan one better. For me, Mendes ensures his film works as an existential statement about the randomness of war regarding life, death and all manner of wartime circumstances--itself juxtaposed with Mendes' fierce meticulousness with the nature of the production itself--while also existing as a visceral experience that firmly connects us to the characters of Blake and Schofield.
Whether we regard the twosome regarding a dogfight only to find themselves racing from a downed aircraft, finding themselves trapped within a rat infested German bunker filled with trip wires, crossing No Man's Land on foot, evading snipers and even more, "1917" is filled with knife's edge intensity. That being said, Mendes' film is a graceful one, complete with poetic motifs (the cherry blossoms, for instance) and a fragile poignancy with its cyclical presentation, using imagery that connects the opening to its conclusion, creating a loop that ultimately gathers a picture of every war of every time period and conflict.
Both of the film's leading performances are excellent as they, like the film itself, uses just enough to forge a simple connection between these brothers in arms as well as the characters to us in the audience while also delivering tremendous depth. It just strikes me in particular with how George MacKay was fully ignored this awards season as his performance is shattering.
As Schofield, MacKay, with his long, gaunt face and hollowed eyes, is haunting and devastating, eliciting a full performance (albeit with scant dialogue almost suggesting the skills of a silent film actor) that builds in its purpose, drive and commitment the further the film travels. Again the cumulative effect of MacKay's performance is fully tied into the single take aesthetic which goes beyond the "you are there" effect and becomes something else entirely as we experience the mission in real time directly with him, almost becoming him as we are his eyes, his body, his heart and his spirit in the extraordinary realms of fear of dying in battle and the resolve of meeting his commitment. Just outstanding!!
Sam Mendes' "1917" is magnificent, marvelous and majestic. It is artfully skilled filmmaking, the very type that makes the act of going to the movies a joy and frankly, is in rarer supply in our franchise driven cinematic culture. To be transported to this exceedingly high level is something that should be embraced, celebrated and encouraged as we move forwards into the 21 century and ponder and even debate over what we would like for our movie going landscape to become.
For me, I simply wish for what I have always wished for regarding the movies. To just be told a story to the very best of a filmmaker's abilities, one where, at its absolute finest, I can nearly forget that I am sitting within a movie theater merely watching and become so immersed that the film can become something akin to an out of body experience.
Sam Mendes' "1917" delivers on all counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment