Unlike many it would seem, I found 1917 both magnificent and frustrating in equal measure.
The cinematography was outstanding, an astonishing feat. My highlight was the 300-yard dash. The decision to film long sequences to give an impression of continuity was initially a tour de force as we viewers were participating in every step of the protagonists’ experience.
However, for me, by the end of the movie, this movie-making technique had outstayed its welcome. Perhaps this was due to the impatience that our contemporary society has bred within me or with which I was born, but I found it painful having to plod alongside every walk made by the central characters in the latter half of the film.
Eventually, each long sweep felt like a small chapter within a wider thread. This sense of the episodic was surely the very opposite of what Sam Mendes was trying to do. I would have preferred a mix of these extended sequences interwoven with a little more traditional movie-making/editing.
Furthermore, there was at least one passage that added very little, seemingly included to ensure a female presence in a male-dominated plot, and possibly to ward off criticism that women are absent from Mendes’ vision of the Great War. Indeed, the whole film could have been 30 minutes shorter and been stronger for it. Our showing included walk-outs and several checking their phone to determine how much of the screening was still to go in its last half-hour. So, contrary to what I had been led to believe going from the reviews and comments in the media, these were indications that not all cinema-goers are totally caught up in Mendes’ creation.
The story had some good surprises, and it was entertaining watching ‘cameo’ turns from recognisable and beloved star actors, even if they could not all overcome their native accent to completely convincingly pull off their character’s origin.
It was an interesting narrative that focused on war without being a typical war action movie. It showed relatively little of the violent deeds (which made them more telling when they were put on screen), and was more about their impact on the participants. Yet, plot machinations suffered from seeming contrived at times in an effort to keep the central journey moving forward (for instance, the manner of the entrance of the airman, and the convenient passing by of Mark Strong’s group).
Overall, a good if overlong watch. Child 2 gave it 10/10. Though gripped for a large portion of the film, I would be less generous.