Good Video Game Storytelling Transformed Into Cinema | 1917 Review
1917 was directed by Sam Mendes from a screenplay he wrote with Krysty Wilson-Cairns. Mendes has developed quite a strong reputation in the film community over the years, with some of his most well-known works consisting of Best Picture winner American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead, and the two Daniel Craig James Bond movies he made (Skyfall and Spectre).
Relative newcomers George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman star alongside each other in the film’s main roles. British stars such as Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, and Richard Madden also appear in very minor roles.
Here’s my brief synopsis of the film:
The year is 1917, and the British Army is advancing forward in the war effort against Germany. One day, however, military intelligence learns that the Germans are setting them up for a trap. Two young and unassuming soldiers are then tasked with delivering a message to call off a different battalion’s attack before all 1,600 of their men walk into a massacre.
This review is the transcribed version of the YouTube review linked above; that video is 4 minutes and 22 seconds long. Regardless of the way you take in my opinion, I hope you enjoy my thoughts on 1917!
To start things out, my expectation is that a lot of people will end up comparing 1917 to Dunkirk.
A lot of factors will influence those inevitable comparisons: you have a World War I story from a British perspective, there is a strong focus on visual storytelling, and it straddles the line between realism and blockbuster filmmaking so tightly that it might as well be a movie version of a video game. If anyone was to dislike this movie simply because of how closely it resembles the experience of a video game, well, they wouldn’t exactly be wrong. A lot of military shooters are built around the idea of either constant action or suspense, and there’s plenty of that here. The presence of danger in 1917’s story is so strong that at any given moment the main characters could enter into some perilous situation without warning, leading one to wonder whether or not the movie was made by Naughty Dog.
But since I love video games, though, I naturally loved this movie too.
I prefer to have stories with fully fleshed-out characters, but I’m willing to bend the rules of film criticism if storytellers can successfully bend the rules of story structure. If we’re going to go with the video game comparison then, I’ll say this: you don’t need to know what Samus’ past is like in the Metroid games since experiencing the story’s events by playing as her works well enough. You can say the same for games like Halo, The Legend of Zelda, Hollow Knight, etc.
The approach of making an immersive war film like this, then, works when the story keeps you with the main characters 100% of the time. What matters is getting to see a viewpoint of the world unique to them. Because of how absorbing 1917 is, I didn’t have any trouble connecting with the two main characters since their determination to complete the mission despite insurmountable odds was enough to suck me in.
A lot of factors will influence those inevitable comparisons: you have a World War I story from a British perspective, there is a strong focus on visual storytelling, and it straddles the line between realism and blockbuster filmmaking so tightly that it might as well be a movie version of a video game. If anyone was to dislike this movie simply because of how closely it resembles the experience of a video game, well, they wouldn’t exactly be wrong. A lot of military shooters are built around the idea of either constant action or suspense, and there’s plenty of that here. The presence of danger in 1917’s story is so strong that at any given moment the main characters could enter into some perilous situation without warning, leading one to wonder whether or not the movie was made by Naughty Dog.
But since I love video games, though, I naturally loved this movie too.
I prefer to have stories with fully fleshed-out characters, but I’m willing to bend the rules of film criticism if storytellers can successfully bend the rules of story structure. If we’re going to go with the video game comparison then, I’ll say this: you don’t need to know what Samus’ past is like in the Metroid games since experiencing the story’s events by playing as her works well enough. You can say the same for games like Halo, The Legend of Zelda, Hollow Knight, etc.
The approach of making an immersive war film like this, then, works when the story keeps you with the main characters 100% of the time. What matters is getting to see a viewpoint of the world unique to them. Because of how absorbing 1917 is, I didn’t have any trouble connecting with the two main characters since their determination to complete the mission despite insurmountable odds was enough to suck me in.
 |
| (Photo Source: IMDb) |
I say performance first because even though the dialogue may not necessarily be poetic, it does feel natural. Writing Shakespearean monologues for the actors to perform just wouldn’t have worked for the story Sam Mendes wanted to tell. As a result, the more grounded approach to writing conversations ensured that character development was still there without sacrificing the gritty tone. The film also required its two leads to exhaust a great deal of emotion and physicality, which both George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman pull off wonderfully. I cared deeply for them simply because I wanted them to be safe in general and so that they could accomplish their very meaningful goal.
But more importantly, the filmmaking techniques tie everything together.
1917 was shot and edited with the intention of pulling off a one-shot effect, which is the illusion of one continuous take running from beginning to end. Although it’s sometimes obvious to note where the cuts blend together, it’s otherwise pretty seamless. But what the gimmick really does is create the sense of always being at the main characters’ side, which caused every emotion they felt to register with me. It also helps that Roger Deakins is possibly the greatest living cinematographer, so you can expect to see many breathtaking images while also being keenly aware of what’s at stake in the story.
Ultimately, though, the cinematography, Thomas Newman’s ethereal musical score, and sound design are in service of the movie’s theme, which is finding the beauty in terrible situations. The film may depict the hellish No Man’s Land and other horrors one might expect from World War I, but there are still many moments in which the film offers glances at France’s green landscapes, cherry blossoms fluttering through the breeze, gorgeous sunrises, and a hauntingly beautiful solo rendition of “A Poor Wayfaring Stranger.” Even in a pivotal scene of high-strung tension and guns blazing in the second act, the audience is still treated to images and music that are enough to take one’s breath away.
But more importantly, the filmmaking techniques tie everything together.
1917 was shot and edited with the intention of pulling off a one-shot effect, which is the illusion of one continuous take running from beginning to end. Although it’s sometimes obvious to note where the cuts blend together, it’s otherwise pretty seamless. But what the gimmick really does is create the sense of always being at the main characters’ side, which caused every emotion they felt to register with me. It also helps that Roger Deakins is possibly the greatest living cinematographer, so you can expect to see many breathtaking images while also being keenly aware of what’s at stake in the story.
Ultimately, though, the cinematography, Thomas Newman’s ethereal musical score, and sound design are in service of the movie’s theme, which is finding the beauty in terrible situations. The film may depict the hellish No Man’s Land and other horrors one might expect from World War I, but there are still many moments in which the film offers glances at France’s green landscapes, cherry blossoms fluttering through the breeze, gorgeous sunrises, and a hauntingly beautiful solo rendition of “A Poor Wayfaring Stranger.” Even in a pivotal scene of high-strung tension and guns blazing in the second act, the audience is still treated to images and music that are enough to take one’s breath away.
 |
| (Photo Source: IMDb) |
My one hope is that people won’t toss this film aside for assuming that the one-shot gimmick is all it offers, for that simply isn’t the case. Thrills, gunfire, explosions, and intense action are here in spades, yes, but they just make the serene and heartfelt moments that more impactful. One of the best things a war film can ever do is acknowledge that it’s better to save lives than destroy them, and that’s exactly the impression that 1917 left with me.
SCORE: A-
SCORE: A-
AGE RECOMMENDATION: There may be plenty of violence, disturbing imagery, and language as one might expect from a war film, but at no point does it ever become excessive. You can definitely expect to see gruesome imagery like mutilated corpses and horrifying wounds from time to time. Anyone who can handle at least a little bit of onscreen violence should be okay to watch this, especially due to the film's historical significance. (16+)
Comments
Post a Comment