Movies about World War I are not as plentiful as World War II, but when they come along they are great–Wings, All Quiet On The Western Front, Hell’s Angels, Paths Of Glory, Gallipoli–and I think 1917 can be added to that list. Directed by Sam Mendes, and based on stories told to him by his grandfather, who served in that war, 1917 is a gripping film that left me emotionally wrung out.
It’s a simple premise, much like Saving Private Ryan–two lance corporals are assigned to deliver a message to a battalion that is about to attack the Germans, not realizing it is a trap, and they will be slaughtered. The catch is that the two men have to cross into enemy territory. Another catch is that one of the men has a brother who is in that battalion.
The film then plays out a bit like an odyssey, as the men travel across terrain meeting various obstacles. It is presented as if one continuous shot–there are no obvious cuts (occasionally there are tricks, such as one of the soldiers passing out and time passing). In this way we can almost feel as if we are walking with them.
The landscape is hellish–most buildings have been blown to bits. They comes across an abandoned farmhouse, walk through a field of blooming cherry trees, and there is a particularly surreal scene at night through a conflagration. Cinematographer Roger Deakins, one of the best there is, creates vivid pictures of a countryside that has been taken over by evil forces, that is, war.
The two leads are unknowns, which I think is a good choice. If stars were cast it might have taken us out of the picture. George McKay and Dean-Charles Chapman are the two men. McKay, in particular, is extremely expressive, often without words. He is angry at first, as Chapman, quite innocently, picked him as the second man for the assignment without knowing what it was for. But he is resolute at making sure he delivers the message, defying the odds all the way through.
The score, by Thomas Newman, is also wonderful, managing to be complementary without being obtrusive. Both he and Deakins are Oscar-nominated, and deserve to win.
World War I, unlike the second World War, was a war without easily definable good guys and bad guys. It was a very stupid war, totally unnecessary, and wiped out a sizable percentage of young men in Europe. Movies about this war, like the ones I mentioned, are not political–there are no easy villains like Nazis–and thus usually just show us what a waste war is. 1917 is like that.
Gone Elsewhere 
Saw this today and while I appreciate it has significant qualities, don’t love it like most critics do.
Certainly this is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen; it is technically stunning and Deakins’ cinematography is outstanding. Initially at least, the camera movement is arresting and thrilling.
And there are some brilliant sequences such as the shock suddeness of the tripwire bomb scene and the death of a central character is very well handled.
But I have to admit there were decent chunks of the film (especially in the 2nd half) where I was switching off as the continuous shot style went from being fascinating to rather tedious as there were long stretches of not much happening that wouldn’t have occurred in a normal film.
As well, for all the technical authenticity the behaviour of many of the characters felt more like 2017 than 1917, especially in the swearing. Having Colonel’s tell somebody to “f*** off” just doesn’t feel believable at all.
The film has a lot of impressive qualities but I think it’s been overpraised as it’s not particularly profound or even that compelling.