I saw Peter Jackson’s They Shall Not Grow Old, a documentary that used archival footage actually shot during World War I, two times in theaters so the idea of seeing a fictional drama about World War I seemed cheap in comparison. I generally prefer documentaries over dramas even if they are allegedly based on fact because it is the difference between getting a first hand account and a third hand account, and while objective truth is impossible to achieve, subjective experiences are accessible. I also hate hype, and this movie was winning Golden Globes before it was released in theaters. It is an instinctual turn off how some movies get an automatic stamp of approval which people then mindlessly parrot, “I heard it was a good movie,” while other movies get crickets.
I am not immune to the siren song of the establishment. I saw the preview for 1917 at least 8,000 times so I was at least mildly curious about the story. It has a good cast. I like Sam Mendes, the director. I actually saw his (off?) Broadway production of Hamlet starring Ralph Fiennes. He also directed American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead, Revolutionary Road, Away We Go, Spectre and God bless him for Skyfall, which after Casino Royale, was one of the better James Bond films starring Daniel Craig. He makes solid movies even if none of them are exactly favorites. So I decided not to hate the player, and hate the game even if the plot sounded like a ripoff of Saving Private Ryan just set in World War One. Two soldiers receive an assignment to deliver orders to prevent a massacre, and the pair are personally motivated because one of the pair has a brother who could be affected.
I finally saw 1917 in its fifth week in theaters. If you are really into visuals and filmmaking, then it is a great movie, but if you watch horror movies, specifically found footage, they have been using the same gimmick of creating the illusion of a single take movie for years, but without the funding or respected material. Also if we are being entirely fair, the first section of the film takes pages from the Indiana Jones franchise, but it can get away with it because it is not the typical action adventure film although it really is. It is fair that a war movie would borrow heavily from horror and action adventure genres since it is what war is, but it does not have to, and Jackson’s documentary makes soldiers human first so there is no danger of valorizing their predicament.
My intention is not to diminish Mendes’ accomplishment. Every frame of 1917 brought to life the realities of World War I: the bodies, the rats, the flies, the devastated landscape. If Mendes was trying to get the viewer to feel what it is like to be in a warzone, he succeeded, but it is not enough to make a masterpiece because They Shall Not Grow Old evokes the same without the postmodern attitudes of persisting against authority or the perfect teeth and skin. Jackson’s film wins because the story is riveting. The audience comes away from the documentary with a deeper understanding of the average soldier because we learn about his past, present and future. Jackson managed to make us empathize with his soldiers and depict the nationalistic stereotypes without cosigning the propaganda of Germans as monsters. Mendes fails to do so and exploits our (hopefully) horrors (and not admiration) of Nazis by constantly showing how the Germans are evil for destroying their property, nature and people. When they become real, they are the boogeyman, drunk or ungrateful, not ordinary.
1917 feels like The Revenant in the series of obstacles that the soldiers must face, and that reference is not complimentary. My main issue with the film is that time is short, but around the end of the first third, they start lollygagging. Then when that third of the film reaches its climax, it is completely obvious what is going to happen. Honestly it is obvious if you just look at both soldiers then as the movie gradually gives more backstory on the respective soldiers, we are clearly in archetype predictable territory with the humble heroic soldier who has seen too much and is unable to enjoy the accolades his bravery brings. The story is lacking, and a great film kills it on all fronts: visuals, acting and story. You cannot have it both ways—you can’t praise the realism of the tableaux, but the lack of realism in the story. There is nothing wrong with having a structured war movie, but I want it to be comprehensively tailored at all levels. It relies heavily on three well-placed cameos and spectacle to get us through. It should have been shorter.
I would have preferred if 1917 was a silent film. This film is insecure without dialogue, which it should not save been because the camera wordlessly told a better story by initially focusing on the bucolic landscape, then panning back to orient the viewer of nature’s relationship with man to reveal that this earlier peaceful scene is also a part of the war. Then as the film unfolds, it reveals man’s effect on the environment which runs the entire spectrum of peaceful coexistence, to cutting a swath in the earth to complete destruction. It is an elegant way to tell the entire Biblical story of mankind—from paradise, to the fall, to hell and potentially to heaven again. Most art only captures one, but this film runs the gamut. The most breathtaking section is hell before he gets a brief respite with Persephone (it is in the preview so I do not consider it a spoiler). Beauty and desolation are neighbors. If The Artist could do it, then silent films in the twenty-first century may not be as commercially box office poison as one may think.
Is 1917 a better movie than Dunkirk? Yes, because Sam Mendes succeeds at accomplishing the technical challenge that he made for himself, to make a movie that looks like one continuous shot, i.e. show a single mission, whereas Christopher Nolan laudably tried to depict three different time spans in the same movie, and even knowing that was what he was doing it, I do not think that it is clear. It just did not work. Also in terms of general accuracy with respect to the look and feel of trenches and the diverse makeup of the ground forces, Mendes gets it right. Because most people do not, I do not want to take for granted that he does. I may not think that the movie is as great as the establishment does, but it deserves credit where it is due.
If you are really into war movies, then see 1917, but if you want to learn about World War I, then see Peter Jackson’s They Shall Not Grow Old first. If you are interested in seeing 1917, then it is best suited for the big screen to get the best impact. On a smaller screen, the strongest elements of the film could easily be overlooked. Go big or stay home and watch another movie.