1917 (2019)

[dvining]

Originally Posted by JayTL

My only complaint is that, just for narrative purposes,

[Show spoiler]to have more than 2 people take the journey. A group of 4-5, with some of them dying early/at times some of the main cast should have died would have increased the stakes (in my opinion)

Spoiler tagged just case lol

I saw that as I read through the thread. I think you're looking at this from a literal, plot, and stakes (obviously) point of view, and I get it.

Adding a couple more guys would increase the sense of danger to the main character. As he gets increasingly alone he feels a greater sense of danger.

However, I think that would undermine the film in a couple of different ways. The first is from a historical point of view. These sorts of missions were carried out by no more than groups of two. The second is a character driven reason where Schofield's emotional arc is so tied to Blake that adding in more characters would probably muddy that. Adding in characters that amount to little more than cannon fodder would end up distracting from the actual story at hand: Schofield finding humanity in the midst of inhumanity.

The really tight focus on Blake and the mission (manifested as Blake's brother) for Schofield is the core of the story. Schofield having the fight through hell for a mission he seems indifferent about (because of his experience at the Somme) and to save a man he doesn't know (Blake's brother) creates the emotional resonance at the end.

[oubukibun]

I also love the circularity of the film, essentially ending just as it begins. That cyclic nature is so inherent in war, especially on a battlefield.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but Mendes, who isn't even a director I've ever particularly cared for, juuuust hit this one outta the park.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by oubukibun

I also love the circularity of the film, essentially ending just as it begins. That cyclic nature is so inherent in war, especially on a battlefield.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but Mendes, who isn't even a director I've ever particularly cared for, juuuust hit this one outta the park.

Structure is extremely important in storytelling, and that sort of ending where the character ends where he begins, but he's changed (the original Alfie operates in a similar way) has a certain satisfaction to our lizard brains.

Here it's used intelligently with Schofield having completely become a new man because of the harrowing experience he's had, looking at his wife and children's picture where, at the beginning, he was just trying to get some shut eye.

[oubukibun]

Indeed.

Haha, lizard brains... Sorry, now I'm in Corman territory.

[A113]

Originally Posted by dvining

I watched this again recently, and reading through this thread I'm really surprised that no one caught on that the action takes place on Good Friday of 1917. There are some mentions of April 6, 1917 being the day that the US entered the First World War, but considering the action of the film, Good Friday seems far more appropriate.

The journey that Schofield follows ends up a descent into a fairly literal Hell in the form of Ecoust with its church on fire, washed clean by a river (Mendes equated it to the River Styx from the Greek vision of Hell), and he has to come out the other side saving 1600 men.

This ends up being a collection of images and symbols that could be empty if not backed up by solid character driven storytelling, and that's where the subtle nature of Schofield's journey becomes important. He goes from being a bit of a nihilist, having cast away his medal from the Somme, to finding some humanity to cling to in the overall awful conflict of trench based warfare. Blake's mission becomes his own through a promise, and through that promise he regains his sense of humanity.

There's something to be said about restrained emotion that I find incredibly powerful as well. The ending, with one man barely keeping it together as he receives news of his brother, absolutely gets me every time. Would it have any of the same emotional power if he had screamed and wailed instead of done his best to keep his stiff upper lip as he fought the sudden sadness within him? I don't think so.

I very rarely feel like a new movie (even just new to me) can climb to the top of the heap of cinema in my mind, but 1917 did the first time I watched it and remains there three viewings in. It's a technical marvel with such an incredibly strong emotional core while intelligently using visuals and images to provide increased depth.

Great post! although I personally preferred Dunkirk over 1917. I've only seen it once and that was when it came out in theatres but reading ur post i'm definitely gonna give it another shot tn.

[Koller70]

Dunkirk is a better filmmaking achievement.
1917 is just a videogame. A fake sentimental cheap gimmicky filmmaking stunt of the moment which doesn't even hold up on second viewing.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Koller70

Dunkirk is a better filmmaking achievement.
1917 is just a videogame. A fake sentimental cheap gimmicky filmmaking stunt of the moment which doesn't even hold up on second viewing.

Neither is that good. Both are average gimmicky films.

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by Koller70

Dunkirk is a better filmmaking achievement.
1917 is just a videogame. A fake sentimental cheap gimmicky filmmaking stunt of the moment which doesn't even hold up on second viewing.

Originally Posted by slumcat

Neither is that good. Both are average gimmicky films.

[Sozo]

1917 remains one of the best theatrical experiences of the past five years or so for me. Just a jarring and mesmerizing film from start to finish. I enjoy watching it at home but seeing it at the MXT was jaw dropping at times.