|
Post by jimmalone on Jan 28, 2020 16:25:27 GMT
Well, that was tremendous. It was my second most anticipated movie of the year anyways, but it even exceeded expectations. One great scene after the other, covering many themes and feelings among them like lost innocence, loneliness, comradeship, sympathy, misery and even beauty, enwrapped in a story that albeit only a footnote in something as big as World War I is fascinating on it's own. But what makes the film that fantastic is the technical marvel it is. Mendes has always been a director with fantastic vision and good ideas of how to set a scene and the pairing with Roger Deakins reminds of his marvellous work with Conrad L. Hall. Especially that scenes in Ecoust are just breathtaking and the way of shooting this film only ends to the tension, especially at the beginning and the start. The scenes in the dugouts are obviously predestined for sequences like those. Also Thomas Newmans score always supports the film in the right way, sometimes subliminal, sometimes intoxicating. This is the best film of this year and honestly I don't expect this to change. It's my first 10/10 since "Dunkirk" funnily enough (though Blade Runner 2049 is close and could rise) and with it Mendes enters the elitist circle of directors I give two 10/10s to (the other one being "Road to Perdition").
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 16:45:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 28, 2020 16:45:05 GMT
Yeah, the Germans in this were exemplars of the so-called "stormtrooper aim" for bad guys in movies. To be fair, it's extremely hard to aim properly while either you or your targets are running, and it was dark besides for much of the time he was being shot at. The only time you can argue that the bullet should have hit Will was when the sniper drew his bead on the broken bridgework, but even then, not every shot hits its target. The fire would've been enough for the German soldier to actually hit him though. (I believe he actually did though?) something similar actually happened in Skyfall with less available light in the scene lol. You can't forgive the contrivances when the main dude contradicts them in other movies
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jan 28, 2020 16:49:32 GMT
Yeah, the Germans in this were exemplars of the so-called "stormtrooper aim" for bad guys in movies. To be fair, it's extremely hard to aim properly while either you or your targets are running, and it was dark besides for much of the time he was being shot at. The only time you can argue that the bullet should have hit Will was when the sniper drew his bead on the broken bridgework, but even then, not every shot hits its target. This is exactly what I thought as well.
They "should" have stopped and try to shoot him and not shooting while running. Let's not forget most of the soldiers fighting in the war were not professional soldiers, but simple men, who were called to arms.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 28, 2020 16:58:48 GMT
To be fair, it's extremely hard to aim properly while either you or your targets are running, and it was dark besides for much of the time he was being shot at. The only time you can argue that the bullet should have hit Will was when the sniper drew his bead on the broken bridgework, but even then, not every shot hits its target. The fire would've been enough for the German soldier to actually hit him though. (I believe he actually did though?) something similar actually happened in Skyfall with less available light in the scene lol. You can't forgive the contrivances when the main dude contradicts them in other movies The German infantryman had a weapon that likely wasn't nearly as reliable as what Bond would have had, nor would he have had the training of 007. Plus, you know, if we're going to be judging the spectrum of realism between a historical drama and a James Bond movie, well . . . lol.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 17:11:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 28, 2020 17:11:17 GMT
The fire would've been enough for the German soldier to actually hit him though. (I believe he actually did though?) something similar actually happened in Skyfall with less available light in the scene lol. You can't forgive the contrivances when the main dude contradicts them in other movies The German infantryman had a weapon that likely wasn't nearly as reliable as what Bond would have had, nor would he have had the training of 007. Plus, you know, if we're going to be judging the spectrum of realism between a historical drama and a James Bond movie, well . . . lol. A Gerwehr 98 isn't as reliable as a Glock? LOL. ```For determining accuracy the German military fired a group of shots into a target and used statistics to calculate a hit probability. For this they drew a circle that disregards the hits on the outer part of the target and only count half of the hits (50% or R50) on the inner part of the circle. This dramatically reduces the overall diameter of the groups. They then used both the vertical and horizontal measurements of the reduced shotgroup to measure accuracy. When the R50 results are doubled the hit probability increases to 93.7%.``` Your last point works against you since one would expect less suspension of disbelief from a WORLD WAR I movie than a James Bond film
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 17:26:06 GMT
Post by stephen on Jan 28, 2020 17:26:06 GMT
The German infantryman had a weapon that likely wasn't nearly as reliable as what Bond would have had, nor would he have had the training of 007. Plus, you know, if we're going to be judging the spectrum of realism between a historical drama and a James Bond movie, well . . . lol. A Gerwehr 98 isn't as reliable as a Glock? LOL. ```For determining accuracy the German military fired a group of shots into a target and used statistics to calculate a hit probability. For this they drew a circle that disregards the hits on the outer part of the target and only count half of the hits (50% or R50) on the inner part of the circle. This dramatically reduces the overall diameter of the groups. They then used both the vertical and horizontal measurements of the reduced shotgroup to measure accuracy. When the R50 results are doubled the hit probability increases to 93.7%.``` Your last point works against you since one would expect less suspension of disbelief from a WORLD WAR I movie than a James Bond film But in the end, it's about who is pulling the trigger, and between a German infantryman versus a top-trained secret-service agent, who do you think likely will be the more accurate marksman? And let's be real: if you're going to criticize a movie for not having people die anytime someone shoots at them, every war movie in history would be subject to this. This shit happens all the time in combat, where people by rights should have been riddled but wound up without a scratch. At least Schofield took his lumps in 1917, and more than once.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 17:54:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 28, 2020 17:54:20 GMT
A Gerwehr 98 isn't as reliable as a Glock? LOL. ```For determining accuracy the German military fired a group of shots into a target and used statistics to calculate a hit probability. For this they drew a circle that disregards the hits on the outer part of the target and only count half of the hits (50% or R50) on the inner part of the circle. This dramatically reduces the overall diameter of the groups. They then used both the vertical and horizontal measurements of the reduced shotgroup to measure accuracy. When the R50 results are doubled the hit probability increases to 93.7%.``` Your last point works against you since one would expect less suspension of disbelief from a WORLD WAR I movie than a James Bond film But in the end, it's about who is pulling the trigger, and between a German infantryman versus a top-trained secret-service agent, who do you think likely will be the more accurate marksman? And let's be real: if you're going to criticize a movie for not having people die anytime someone shoots at them, every war movie in history would be subject to this. This shit happens all the time in combat, where people by rights should have been riddled but wound up without a scratch. At least Schofield took his lumps in 1917, and more than once. James Bond is washed up in the movie. Hell, he even fails the accuracy test . Germany infantry was actually known for their pinpoint accuracy and training. Military prowess gave Germany the advantage at the European theater in both world wars. Despite having war movies where bullets, regardless of the status of the shooter and rifle, hit the target? Look at Best Picture winner and war film The Hurt Locker for example. The thing about 1917 is given how incredibly distracting that is, at least you can get that with Star Wars since the protagonists have to be alive by the end of the FANTASY science FICTION movie. So what you say is a fallacy, typical from you.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 28, 2020 18:01:14 GMT
But in the end, it's about who is pulling the trigger, and between a German infantryman versus a top-trained secret-service agent, who do you think likely will be the more accurate marksman? And let's be real: if you're going to criticize a movie for not having people die anytime someone shoots at them, every war movie in history would be subject to this. This shit happens all the time in combat, where people by rights should have been riddled but wound up without a scratch. At least Schofield took his lumps in 1917, and more than once. James Bond is washed up in the movie. Hell, he even fails the accuracy test . Germany infantry was actually known for their pinpoint accuracy and training. Military prowess gave Germany the advantage at the European theater in both world wars. Despite having war movies where bullets, regardless of the status of the shooter and rifle, hit the target? Look at Best Picture winner and war film The Hurt Locker for example. The thing about 1917 is given how incredibly distracting that is, at least you can get that with Star Wars since the protagonists have to be alive by the end of the FANTASY science FICTION movie. So what you say is a fallacy, typical from you. Military prowess =/= 100% accuracy. People miss shots all the time, even in combat. There are stories throughout history, even in both world wars against Germans, where people shot at each other multiple from a reasonable distance and still missed. It happened. It all came down to luck and chance. If it's distracting to you, so be it, but that didn't mean it didn't happen.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 18:40:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 28, 2020 18:40:18 GMT
James Bond is washed up in the movie. Hell, he even fails the accuracy test . Germany infantry was actually known for their pinpoint accuracy and training. Military prowess gave Germany the advantage at the European theater in both world wars. Despite having war movies where bullets, regardless of the status of the shooter and rifle, hit the target? Look at Best Picture winner and war film The Hurt Locker for example. The thing about 1917 is given how incredibly distracting that is, at least you can get that with Star Wars since the protagonists have to be alive by the end of the FANTASY science FICTION movie. So what you say is a fallacy, typical from you. Military prowess =/= 100% accuracy. People miss shots all the time, even in combat. There are stories throughout history, even in both world wars against Germans, where people shot at each other multiple from a reasonable distance and still missed. It happened. It all came down to luck and chance. If it's distracting to you, so be it, but that didn't mean it didn't happen. Post proof
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 18:50:13 GMT
Post by stephen on Jan 28, 2020 18:50:13 GMT
Military prowess =/= 100% accuracy. People miss shots all the time, even in combat. There are stories throughout history, even in both world wars against Germans, where people shot at each other multiple from a reasonable distance and still missed. It happened. It all came down to luck and chance. If it's distracting to you, so be it, but that didn't mean it didn't happen. Post proof Alvin York.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
1917.
Jan 28, 2020 18:54:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by The-Havok on Jan 28, 2020 18:54:34 GMT
Who had a kill count of 35 kills. Not enough proof. Time to go back to school
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 29, 2020 6:29:43 GMT
Post by countjohn on Jan 29, 2020 6:29:43 GMT
James Bond is washed up in the movie. Hell, he even fails the accuracy test . Germany infantry was actually known for their pinpoint accuracy and training. Military prowess gave Germany the advantage at the European theater in both world wars. Despite having war movies where bullets, regardless of the status of the shooter and rifle, hit the target? Look at Best Picture winner and war film The Hurt Locker for example. The thing about 1917 is given how incredibly distracting that is, at least you can get that with Star Wars since the protagonists have to be alive by the end of the FANTASY science FICTION movie. So what you say is a fallacy, typical from you. Military prowess =/= 100% accuracy. People miss shots all the time, even in combat. There are stories throughout history, even in both world wars against Germans, where people shot at each other multiple from a reasonable distance and still missed. It happened. It all came down to luck and chance. If it's distracting to you, so be it, but that didn't mean it didn't happen. If I recall there were times where multiple soldiers were a few feet away with him directly in front of them and took 3+ shots each and missed all of them. That just stretches believability for guys who passed military rifle training and presumably had considerable combat experience by that point. I don't really "penalize" the movie for this since you see this in practically every movie with gunplay.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jan 30, 2020 8:45:20 GMT
This was very disappointing. The cinematography and production design were definitely impressive, but everything else was full of cliches and contrivances. What does this film have to say about war that other much better films of the past haven't said in much more profound ways? It often felt like a Battlefield 1 mission and the only purpose was for the protagonist to just get to his next random npc encounter. It has no thematic depth whatsoever. It's certainly down there with Joker as the worst of the best 2019 picture nominees I have seen. - 4/10
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 30, 2020 12:28:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 30, 2020 16:52:22 GMT
That is a great article. Though it is getting a bit cringey whenever people who obviously don’t play video games try to make the video game criticism.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Jan 31, 2020 7:04:49 GMT
I mean, I loved 1917 & hated Dunkirk personally, so as you might imagine the article wasn't for me... and indeed it is not about 1917 that much, more about many war films. Still, of course it is true that most (all?) or the time storytelling and therefore to some degree a lot of filmmaking (where there is high personal investment in the story itself) says as much if not more about the filmmaker as it does about the story. I disagree with the basic quoted premise of the article though - that every war film ends up being pro-war so I suppose we're not starting off on the same page. Since you shared this, I'll share an article on The Ringer too that I very much enjoyed about the film. All discussion is good discussion say I. What a boring world it'd be if we all sat in every film & felt the exact same way afterwards. How ‘1917’ Turns Its Protagonist Into More Than Just a War Movie Hero
|
|
|
1917.
Jan 31, 2020 9:47:12 GMT
Post by ibbi on Jan 31, 2020 9:47:12 GMT
I mean, I loved 1917 & hated Dunkirk personally, so as you might imagine the article wasn't for me... and indeed it is not about 1917 that much, more about many war films. Still, of course it is true that most (all?) or the time storytelling and therefore to some degree a lot of filmmaking (where there is high personal investment in the story itself) says as much if not more about the filmmaker as it does about the story. I disagree with the basic quoted premise of the article though - that every war film ends up being pro-war so I suppose we're not starting off on the same page. Since you shared this, I'll share an article on The Ringer too that I very much enjoyed about the film. All discussion is good discussion say I. What a boring world it'd be if we all sat in every film & felt the exact same way afterwards. How ‘1917’ Turns Its Protagonist Into More Than Just a War Movie HeroI definitely don't agree with the thing in its entirety. Truffaut's argument makes close to no sense for me, though perhaps when he initially made the comment it held up better. I just think the criticisms of 1917 it makes pretty much all stand up.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 31, 2020 15:57:06 GMT
I thought the film was extraordinary. Definitely the best one Mendes has made thus far and pretty much career best (or close) for many involved in it. I've always considered Mendes to be a pretty terrific filmmaker and what's always impressed me in particular was that for someone who came from theatre Mendes has showcased an incredible sense of seeing things in highly cinematic terms. Almost all of his films have everyone behind the scenes operating at the top of their craft and every time I look at Road to Perdition or Skyfall or Jarhead or American Beauty I see that every shot had proper thought put into it. And it fits right with my own sensibilities because I love to see a controlled frame, I love it when I feel that the director has been very particular about his/her vision, when I feel their directorial hand while watching the films. And 1917 is definitely the greatest example of this notion amongst Mendes's films as of yet, and it'd be pretty tough to top it. For a movie to be executed in this particular manner it obviously has to be thought through with extreme care, attention to every detail and a lot of vision in the director's brain, and I thought that everything I saw on the screen there (incidentally, fuck everyone who saw this as a screener unless there was literally no other way for them to see it) was a result of some incredible directorial work. It's kind of amazing how Mendes's theatrical roots and cinematic sensibilities collide in this particular project which is essentially a grand two-act play which just happens to be done on film terms and which ends up being one of the most incredible cinematic experiences of the last couple of years. One of the reasons why I think the film's screenplay richly deserves its accolades is precisely that hybrid between a visceral cinematic experience and a play in which every scene has a distinct thematic purpose and reaches for a meaning that is bigger than the story itself and yet they all seem like quite natural pieces of this particular story as well.
For a movie that's occasionally been lazily criticized as being a hollow videogame-like experience I found it surprisingly restrained and mournful. The one shot concept might've sounded like a reason to do some showoffy action sequences but I actually can't quite think of a big war film which is as unreliant on combat and noise as this one. 1917 presents itself as a true anti-war picture in many ways which start with the main story itself which is about trying to avoid a battle at all costs. It is emphasized by the main character's inherent trying to avoid violence unless it's absolutely necessary which is another example of the script's strength. It's not spelled out in some dialogue bit but we can absolutely see that Schofield (quite brilliantly played by George MacKay) has an inherent belief that humanity is something that the horror around him has not yet bended and that belief not only gets tested but results in horrific tragedy in one case and in him having to resort to brutality in another - two events that clealry leave deep scars in his soul which we don't need to hear about because we can see it through his face. Kudos to MacKay for merging the physicality and the emotions of his character in one seamless performance which to me seems impossible not to empathize with (even though the film does have detractors so obviously it's not the case for some).
Back to the shooting method - again, the film's restraint was for me the key to really getting into its admittedly attention-calling idea. What really separates this from stuff like Gravity or The Revenant is that this film is not about jumping from one visceral setpiece to another - it's about stepping into the character's shoes on every step of his exhausting journey, be it a heart-pounding deathly situation or just crawling through mud. Whereas in some movies this technique may seem to be devoid of any thematic relation to the material, I think here we see a perfect marriage between the two because always staying with the character is as important in the quiet moments as it is in the more intense ones. The one shot thing completely draws us into the experience, yes, but I love that in this film it also means staying right with the character even when another movie would've surely opted for cutting away. Among the strongest examples of that is Blake's death scene which struck me as being an incredibly tough and powerful moment which really justifies the filming technique. The camera stops and quietly observes as the two war brothers are talking for the very last time and we literally see a young man's life get drained out of him in all of its senselessness and horror. Any other movie would've cut away to show Schofield's face or just to a different scene altogether to escape the pain, to soften the blow and to lessen the awfulness and yet in this movie there is no easy escape. The brilliance of the mixture of the film's technique and its script (which can be seen throughout) is truly revealed here - Mendes is not merely paying tribute to the young men who found themselves thrown in the hellfire of war, he's dedicated to putting us in their shoes and not simply show us what it must've been like to be shot at in the battlefield but what it's like to watch your friend die in your arms, what it's like to crawl through corpse-infested mud, what it's like to finally obtain a moment of quiet and kindness before continuing on with your task. He's not cutting away and that's precisely the point. Sometimes the movie is visceral and heart-pounding, sometimes it's quiet and beautiful, sometimes it's downright exhausting and I can't praise Mendes enough for doing it all in the way that he did - these two hours end up feeling like living through that war alongside the other men.
None of that would've been possible without Roger Deakins and his incredible contribution with some major praise going towards the camera operators too. For the last couple of years it seemed like Lubezki was kind of owning the long take medal in the hearts of many but I think that Deakins's foray into this particular style of shooting rises to the absolute top. His camera movement is as precise as ever and the way it waltzes through locations and interplays with the performers is jaw-dropping. At the same time the lighting is just as amazing with the night sequence in particular being among the highlights of his entire career, and somehow within this dance Deakins and Mendes manage to capture shots which are as gorgeously composed as anything Deakins has ever conceived. The combination of the above is exactly why I think this one take achievement is unparalleled so far - its precision is striking, its impact is unbelievable. And I particularly want to praise the relationship between the characters and their surroundings and how that is portrayed through the cinematography - I'm not just talking about the incredible blocking but also about the almost 3D effect the image ends up having because of (I guess) the lens choice. I'm not really that much of a techno guy to talk smart about this but the position of the camera and the choice of lens always made it a point to bring us as close to the environments as possible which is why the feeling of being there with the characters is so strong. When they step into the trenches, make their way through the mud or end up in the ruins of villages and towns, the camera allows us to feel the surroundings as if we can look around them, feel them, almost smell them. There's just no better way to showcase the greatness of the production design of a movie than this - to almost literally allow the audience to walk through these sets as if we're right there on location. Every bit of mud, every scrap of metal and every pieces of burnt wood feels as if you can touch and feel it. It's a film that brilliantly invites you to become one with the soldiers which instantly makes you feel for them even more. Of course another aspect instrumental (no pun intended) to the achievement of that feeling is Thomas Newman's magnificent score.
So yeah, I adored this. Right down to the very ending which created the quietest moment of cathartic emotion I've seen in a long time.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
1917.
Jan 31, 2020 18:04:41 GMT
Post by avnermoriarti on Jan 31, 2020 18:04:41 GMT
Nice reading for sure, actually goes further with a couple of points I tried to make in my original post, but I think becomes a bit of a mess with the anti/pro war, but I think that Truffaut’s quote applies and is is true to this movie . The point is more clear in the last section when goes on the fetishistic spectacle and take a look on the way violence as an experience is treated and what is the purpose of entertainment that is asume in 1917, that's to me where the movie enters in dangerous territory as presenting it only in a solemn way. But leaving that personal take aside, the fact that people who never play videogames still bring that perspective to conversation speaks to how distracting that approach was to 1917, Deakens cinematography is not only beautiful but one can't help but imagine the enormous task that went in every shot, even in press Sam Mendes spend a lot of time talking about that, maybe the war theme in the movie becomes trivial and goes against the purpose of the director, call to much attention to itself and clouds the homage to his grandfather. At least Dunkirk had the impressionistic approach going for it.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
1917.
Feb 2, 2020 15:13:50 GMT
Post by spiralstatic on Feb 2, 2020 15:13:50 GMT
I definitely don't agree with the thing in its entirety. Truffaut's argument makes close to no sense for me, though perhaps when he initially made the comment it held up better. I just think the criticisms of 1917 it makes pretty much all stand up. Fair enough. I don't agree on 1917 either, but it's interesting how an experience can be very different for different of us.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Feb 2, 2020 15:21:58 GMT
One of the reasons why I think the film's screenplay richly deserves its accolades is precisely that hybrid between a visceral cinematic experience and a play in which every scene has a distinct thematic purpose and reaches for a meaning that is bigger than the story itself and yet they all seem like quite natural pieces of this particular story as well. I absolutely loved your post JangoB. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and I completely agree, but could not have put it so eloquently (if I could have got it into words at all.) I could quote the entire thing and just say yes, yes, yes, but I thought I'd quote just this one bit as I found the way that every image and much of the sparse dialogue has deeper themes and connections to be really moving. As I said before, the thing that really got me sobbing in the film - cherry blossom. Credit too to Krysty Wilson-Cairns here.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 2, 2020 15:59:36 GMT
I actually can't quite think of a big war film which is as unreliant on combat and noise as this one. 1917 presents itself as a true anti-war picture in many ways which start with the main story itself which is about trying to avoid a battle at all costs. It is emphasized by the main character's inherent trying to avoid violence unless it's absolutely necessary which is another example of the script's strength. It's not spelled out in some dialogue bit but we can absolutely see that Schofield (quite brilliantly played by George MacKay) has an inherent belief that humanity is something that the horror around him has not yet bended and that belief not only gets tested but results in horrific tragedy in one case and in him having to resort to brutality in another - two events that clealry leave deep scars in his soul which we don't need to hear about because we can see it through his face. It's about stepping into the character's shoes on every step of his exhausting journey, be it a heart-pounding deathly situation or just crawling through mud.
I love your whole post, but this sentences especially.
I think some of the film's best scenes are in the calmness. For example the scene, when they get out of the tunnel. I've probably never felt loneliness been depicted so well in a film with one single shot, it almost felt like an allegory. And Schofield climbing out of the river and through the woods, hearing the song after just experience the sheer horror is one of the most hauntingly beautiful things I've experienced as well.
I think the whole journey is to be seen also under the loss of innocence. And this is probably what war means to men that are forced into the fight. They experience a total new brutality of life. Malick did this even better in The Thin Red Line, but it's remarkable how Mendes did it with just a few simple shots and dialogue at the start of the film serving as contrast.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 2, 2020 16:00:36 GMT
Credit too to Krysty Wilson-Cairns here. My favorite person on the awards trail right now.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Feb 2, 2020 17:53:06 GMT
I actually can't quite think of a big war film which is as unreliant on combat and noise as this one. 1917 presents itself as a true anti-war picture in many ways which start with the main story itself which is about trying to avoid a battle at all costs. It is emphasized by the main character's inherent trying to avoid violence unless it's absolutely necessary which is another example of the script's strength. It's not spelled out in some dialogue bit but we can absolutely see that Schofield (quite brilliantly played by George MacKay) has an inherent belief that humanity is something that the horror around him has not yet bended and that belief not only gets tested but results in horrific tragedy in one case and in him having to resort to brutality in another - two events that clealry leave deep scars in his soul which we don't need to hear about because we can see it through his face. It's about stepping into the character's shoes on every step of his exhausting journey, be it a heart-pounding deathly situation or just crawling through mud.
I love your whole post, but this sentences especially.
I think some of the film's best scenes are in the calmness. For example the scene, when they get out of the tunnel. I've probably never felt loneliness been depicted so well in a film with one single shot, it almost felt like an allegory. And Schofield climbing out of the river and through the woods, hearing the song after just experience the sheer horror is one of the most hauntingly beautiful things I've experienced as well.
I think the whole journey is to be seen also under the loss of innocence. And this is probably what war means to men that are forced into the fight. They experience a total new brutality of life. Malick did this even better in The Thin Red Line, but it's remarkable how Mendes did it with just a few simple shots and dialogue at the start of the film serving as contrast.
I think also, all that the two protagonists really care about is family and home. They're not at the top, concerned about the war & having to pragmatically make callous decisions (like the decision to send Blake on this mission at all was actually because he was skilled at reading maps - great that he is - bonus, but he was chosen because his brother is at the other end and they know a soldier will do their best - risk more and be faster to try to complete their mission if it is for family where they might give up more easily otherwise.) These two young men simply want to make it home to their loved ones. And surely that notion is something that comes from what Mendes wanted to express about his Grandfather? I really noticed how (I'm pretty sure it was) Schofield paused in those tunnels to look at the family photograph left behind there of some anonymous German soldier's family. I love how it takes no more than a fleeting moment to convey that Schofield understands this is all the (rank and file) Germans want too - to get home to their loved ones. Blake is desperate to get going on the mission because, of course, most of all of his brother. He is clearly new to the war & I'd say he even more than Schofield exemplifies that basic human instinct to preserve life. Which is what in the end is his undoing. But Blake due to his newness, doesn't yet have that same yearn for and understanding of what it would mean to be home and truly be home, without the war to return to. Blake still thinks of medals and heroism and he thinks there's something fun & exciting in war. He hasn't seen enough to understand all yet. I would say Schofield is already more jaded. He will do what he needs to to get home and I think he already would do that at the start of the film, but he would rather not. He would rather not harm anyone and I reckon he's probably already realised (which, I agree, you can feel in George MacKy's performance - from the outset, he isn't the carefree young kid Blake is. He's older, has been at war longer and has seen and done more. There is something haunted about him: a seriousness borne not only when he has to kill here, but which already exists as Schofield has most certainly had to kill before and already understands the cost of that to his soul every time. . And I think that's why he goes along with Blake in the moment with the soldier from the plane. He wants that too. And he probably wants to be that person Blake still is. Schofield has already lost enough innocence (I certainly agree this is a theme jimmalone) to know what he should do in this situation, but he wants to believe in something bigger & better, still and he doesn't just stupidly do what Blake says - he doesn't want to kill either. Every person Schofield meets, even when he does kill, it is never his instinct to kill. He does it only as means to survive & he resorts to it only when he has exhausted every other possibility for his own survival... And that's it: ultimately, Schofield will do what he needs to to survive, probably at some point the dual tasks of getting home to his family & getting to Blake's family become all there is to keep him going. I doubt you can care otherwise for your own self much when you must feel you're being destroyed by the actions you have to undertake to survive - killing tearing who you are apart that bit more every time, sometimes in the worst way - he strangles a young guy after all, looking him in the eye while doing so. And yeah, none of this is said in words, but it is all totally there. And then people say the film is like a video game... So, this all obviously isn't there for everyone, but it is for me. (Trying to type this while watching the BAFTA live feed, so sorry for probably loads of stupidness I've typed.)
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 3, 2020 5:04:46 GMT
Just rewatched on the small screen and yeah, predictably it does lose some magic. Still like it quite a bit though, and I think I like Newman's score even more than on my first viewing.
Everyone talks about "The Night Window" (which is a great piece of music) but this moves me the most.
|
|