That's the plot of the film. Thin? Well, it's war torn France near the end of WWI and the journey is the thing. Also, there's a plot point that my refusal to reveal severely limits my giving further detail. With a run time of a single minute under two hours, what is there left to say?
The look and landscape of WWI has been so well served throughout the history of cinema that refreshing it for a contemporary drama might seem unlikely. What Sam Mendes has chosen to do here is to suggest wars beyond it and even, perhaps, before it. The uniforms and haircuts are all correct. The bi-planes that buzz through the air can be done with CG. There's even a British Mk 1 tank upturned in a trench. However, the prospect of survival, moment to moment, and any scene that digs into the noise and destruction of warfare might as well be Crimean or Roman. The approach is not so much to present The Great War but to suggest war itself.
This can be overreached. There are decisions made by characters that need post hoc reasoning by audience members rather than flow from the circumstances. The course of this film could at several points be mistaken for a feature length theme park ride and at several other points resembles a first person shooter game more than a tough cinematic epic. But there we venture into one of the swamps of contemporary cinema: is a film lessened by its resemblance, however briefly, to another form or might that just be an expansion into greater culture. As an example outside of this one, I detest the previous decade's trend in mainstream horror to present a series of evenly timed jump scares. When I came to understand that this had been arrived at to cater to a young audience as equally engaged with their phones (and the wider connection through them) as they were with the film blaring and jolting in front of them. To understand is not necessarily to forgive (I still hate those films) but becomes indispensable. So, when we drop from a shooty-tooty bombed out village to a white water rapid rush we have to remember not to be too flat in our response. That can be a good thing as it just means that a movie is a movie and that can and should mean anything.
It surprises me that the "single take" trope has been paraded out for this one in the publicity as the experience of it is efficient and correctly unremarkable. When this became a trend in the 00s and beyond (e.g. Irreversible) we were instructed to marvel at it. Well, it was a feat, even if it really was (with very very few exceptions) one of good camera choreography and expert editing. Here, it adds an immediacy and sense of alertness and readiness to shift gear on a two cent piece. It's done so seamlessly and is so appropriate that this egg who notices editing forgot about it as a feature.
So, why make a movie about a war from over a century ago? Because war is war and whether its fought with dirty bombs or sticks and stones we will probably never shake it. 1917 is careful to let us know that notions of heroism are best left for the officers and media and that one journey through a constant threat of annihilation is the same as a million others when you're going through it. Some might well find some of the final scenes played for an emotional singalong but they struck me as controlled anguish. (But, really, go and watch Paths of Glory, sit through the final scene and tell me you didn't well up ... just a bit.) The final image is one of exhaustion which, as history has it, always seems to be war's last word.
No comments:
Post a Comment