1917

I've been eager to see 1917 for a very long time now. As a movie lover, you attach yourself to a handful of people that are really good at their craft. Hans Zimmer will put my butt in a seat most of the time. Christopher Nolan every time. Leonardo DiCaprio. Quentin Tarantino. Denis Villenueve. Those are just a few examples. 

Roger Deakins, one of the most accomplished and talented cinematographers ever, is on that list as well. Last year I missed The Goldfinch because of middling reviews, a busy schedule, and the fact that it was a nearly 3 hour film. But I almost went, simply because Deakins was involved. He's responsible for the visuals you saw in Skyfall, Blade Runner 2049, and Sicario (to name a few awesome examples).

Sam Mendes, the very just-"good" SPECTRE aside, is also a draw. He did give us Skyfall after all (along with many other great films). 

So when I heard that Sam Mendes was teaming up with Roger Deakins for a World War I film (a war that is historically very interesting and often overlooked), I was intrigued. When I heard it was filmed as if it was a single, tracking shot, I was sold. When I saw the first trailer, I was nearly salivating. Hollywood unfortunately decided that us peasants wouldn't get this film until 2020. They have their reasons - and they actually make sense - but still it's frustrating and a tad silly to me to be watching the Golden Globes, see this win Best Picture and be yelling at my screen: "Yeah! Must be nice to have ACTUALLY SEEN IT!" 

Tangent aside, rest assured that my strictly-tied-to-end-and-beginning-of-normal-year-ranges Rath Awards will consider this a 2020 film. 

And you know what? This film will probably clean. up. 

Example #1 of tremendous cinematography

1917 is truly a movie going experience I won't forget anytime soon and it will stick with you long after the theater. Along with Dunkirk, we've received some unique, thoughtful war films in recent years that give us more than just battles, explosions, and gore. With Dunkirk, it was the use of time and pacing. With 1917, it's the tracking shot that never leaves our main soldiers. Both could be "gimmicks" in lesser hands, but in 1917's case, it's abundantly clear that Mendes and Deakins both had clear visions to what they were trying to create. And ultimately that's why 1917 shines so bright: the vision is so clear and so well captured that it's hard to find a recent comparison other than the very different La La Land (first example that came to mind, I know there are others). From down in the trenches of the war to a cherry blossom farm to a destroyed town lit only by the light of flares, scene after scene oozes with intricate planning, organization, and uniqueness. 

Our story is a simple one too - often the best for war films: two soldiers must deliver a message to the front lines. Several battalions of the British army are about to walk into a German trap. Should these two men fail to deliver the message, over 1500 soldiers will surely die. Simple as that. It's a story that doesn't get in the way of other elements of storytelling, mainly just the will to survive. You always know what these two men are aiming toward and why they're doing this so you can spend more time being enamored by the film and learning about them. Both Dean Charles Chapman and George MacKay as Lance Corporal Blake and Schofield, respectively, are outstanding here. They're not some pair of beefed up super soldiers but rather some familiar face from your youth that represents someone "thrown" into the thick of war and asked to step up. MacKay in particular gives it his all in this performance and over the course of the film you tend to wonder: who suffered more? MacKay in this film or DiCaprio in The Revenant? There's no twist here that will blow your socks off, but instead just an intense point A - to point B film that works so well because the tale is so simple. 

Example #2

Example #3. Run, Schofield, Run!

And the film is a technical marvel too. Deakins has done some of the most intricate and impressive camera work of his career which can not be understated how wildly impressive that is at 70 years old (or at any age). The way the camera bobs and weaves along with Blake and Schofield is at times claustrophobic, intense in other moments, but thoughtful in others. It gives you a sense of actually being in the war to a certain degree and the complication/difficulty factor of achieving this is likely off the charts. Because of this, the film is well paced at almost real time and the seamlessness of one long shot is a total driving force. Much to my delight - and what truly tips the scales here is that it has one of the year's best original scores. "But Jordan, it's the first film of 2020. How can you say that?" Because it's that good, dammit! Much like Zimmer's did in Dunkirk, Thomas Newman's work here acts as the beating heart of our men and the audience. The clock that's always ticking. It's grand in big moments, intense and pulsing in thrilling ones, and in the film's much appreciated and often touching quieter human moments, it too is quiet and thoughtful.

Honestly, I could give 1917 the score it's getting off of technical merits and direction alone. It's rare that a vision is so well captured onto the screen these days and the way in which it was filmed sets it apart (and far ahead) of most of the pack instead of being "just another war film". But 1917 has more than just technical pizzazz going for it with a pair of well-cast and memorable performances and a story that while simple, provides lots of intensity but also reflective moments in one of history's most violent and brutal wars. 

CONS

• There's rare CG usage, but when it's there it sticks out like a sore thumb

PROS

• Some of the best directing in Mendes' career. Such a clear, detailed, and creative vision is brought to life here
• Equally, some of the best camera work of Deakins career and certainly no easy feat. The tracking shot "trick" is more than just a gimmick and adds so much to the film, it's easy to undersell its importance
• More than that, it's one thing to do a single tracking shot (or appear to at least), but it's another to still capture framing of scenes and visuals in the way Deakins does. He's truly the master of his craft
• An original score that matches the quality of the film (and was probably my biggest worry going into it). Likely one I'll legit listen to in my free time
• Sincere, everyman performances by Chapman and especially MacKay. Their wide-eyed and often-shellshocked path through World War I's battlefields are harrowing and memorable
• A film with palpable tension that - at least for the first 30 minutes or so - rarely lets up. It will grip you from the very start
• Simple, yet poignant story. Wonderful, thoughtful slower moments are sprinkled throughout and end up meaning a lot to the overall quality of the film
• Historically captivating in a war that happened just over 100 years ago but with the technology and conditions feels like it could have been 2 or 3 centuries past
• A near-perfect film, an insanely tense and memorable experience, and a technical marvel on multiple levels. 1917 is a masterpiece

Rath's Review Score |
10/10 - Instant Classic