Sam Mendes’ war drama “1917” is one of the main contenders for the Oscar as the movie of the year. Not a drop of pathos, heroism, patriotism and not a moment for respite. “1917” Sam Mendes shows the reality of war without bills: with corpses, fire and dirt. The 10 Oscar nominations were more than justified.
We plunge into the spring of 1917. On the nose of the British offensive on the Hindenburg Line, which is in northeastern France. However, intelligence receives information that all is not so simple with the offensive, and the army goes straight into a trap. To warn the battalion of 1,600 heads of the ambush, two young soldiers, Schofield (Jodge Mackay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), are sent to them.
The boys have until dawn to warn the battalion and stop a planned offensive. For Blake, the situation becomes personal, because his brother is in this very battalion. It is now not only about saving fellow soldiers, but also about saving his own family. Another thing is that the path to the goal is dangerous – it is not known whether the Germans have left their positions, through which Blake and Scofield need to pass.
The plot of the movie “1917” is as simple as possible: someone must be saved, and for this someone must be risked. For movies on the military theme, this is a very typical story. But provided that in the picture there will necessarily be heroism, for example. Everything is supplemented with large-scale battles, explosions, bloody limbs, shooting, etc.
In general, there is a story, and there are special effects, for which it is not terrible to put money in the theater. Sam Mendes did not go far for inspiration, having taken as a basis for his new movie the stories of his own grandfather about the First World War. Namely stories about so-called messenger soldiers who had to deliver news from point “A” to point “B” in the face of perpetually glitchy radio communications.
In his approach to heroes. their stories and war, Sam Mendes is very reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s last movie “Dunkirk”. Both films have main characters that the viewer follows. But from these heroes you do not expect pathos heroism and throwing themselves on the grenade for their country. The main goal of both Mendes and Nolan was to show what war is really like, where people are depicted without embellishments. They are young boys who have not yet dried milk on their goatee and find themselves in conditions where one wrong step will lead to death.
The first page of the script for the film read, “This is a film that is visualized without montage splices.” Generally, the one long shot method used to be considered cheaper in conditions where you only have one camera. In turn, one long plan must be perfect, because here editing splices will not save. Actually because in modern movies do not often use this method, preferring to work on attractions in particular quick change of plans in editing.
A long single plan can usually only work within a single premise, as in “Child of Man” for example. Or really unfold from location to location as in “Birdman”. It’s for this reason that the scene of the British evacuation from Dunkirk, shot for Joe Wright’s “Atonement,” has long been an incredible exception to the rule. Until now.
The main purpose of long one-liners is to immerse the viewer completely in the conditions provided by the director. But when those are the conditions of war – it turns out, tolerating such things calmly may not work. Sam Mendes and cameraman Roger Deakins (Oscar winner for “Blade Runner 2049”) tried as much as possible to hide all the editing glues (except for the most logical one).
During the movie day they spent their heroes at least eight absolutely different locations, not going further from them than 5 meters. The cameramen were literally glued to the center figures, spinning 360 degrees, flying over the water, dipping into the river (this is only by feel), focusing on details and brief encounters. The main actors, in the form of young McKay and Chapman, had no right to screw up under such conditions. Even if they were literally knocked down by the cast members, they had to get up and run again. After all, preparation for the next take could take hours.
Without leaving the main characters, the viewer feels all the horrors of the First World War. These are deep trenches hundreds of meters long, in which healthy and lying bloody soldiers sit. On the front line there are deep craters filled with rain, barbed wire, corpses of horses and people literally with holes in their bodies, which you can smell while sitting in the movie theater.
In a destroyed French town, people with children are forced to hide in cellars without water and food, while in the streets the Germans burn everything to the ground (and it looks like something surreal). Again, corpses, dirt, death – it all surrounds you, making you feel disgusted or afraid. The production artists’ attention to detail made this movie as much as the screenwriter’s conception or camerawork. And when you realize how coordinated all of the crew’s services had to be, you literally go into a wild rapture.
But we do not fall into depression, although the film is about war, and the number of dead per square meter sometimes exceeds the number of living. To give the viewer a break from the constant suspense with the music of Thomas Newman, we are given respites in the form of star cameos.
“1917” is a reminder of the horror of the war, and the one that has already been a century old. It is a theme that unites all of us, because the stories of those events come from the voices of our relatives. But, perhaps, it is the plot that prevents us from calling “1917” the best movie of the year. Unambiguously, it has the right to claim. The story is banal, but simple and not decorated with tired clichés about heroism or patriotism. What is important, it is by no means lost in the superb visualization, for which one should give all the awards of the world. Sam Mendes and his team made you feel everything, moreover – become a part of their story.
