The State of the Art

Rating: 7/10 (27 January 2020)

In a film landscape where Marvel movies are understood by many as masterpieces, and true art films are so connivingly dissected that nothing is above some reproach, a film such as 1917 makes perfect sense. I have read film critics copiously bandy about the descriptor "immersive" when attempting to justify effusive praise for this film the same way "pathos" is and has been inevitably invoked to describe the films of Charlie Chaplin. I suppose "immersive" does seem like a good fit in a film with a singular linear narrative; on the other hand, with such simple storytelling at play, were 1917 not "immersive," it would be an utter failure.
Amidst the height of the First World War, two British soldiers, lance-corporals Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George McKay), are sent on a dangerous mission to deliver a message to another regiment that will stop a battle and save the lives of 1,600 men, one of whom is Blake's brother. As they battle the clock, their perilous trek through filthy rat-infested trenches and across enemy territory littered with booby traps is filled with high drama rendered ultra-realistically and seemingly captured in real time. Along the way, others that enter and exit the story in small but memorable cameos give the narrative a context and depth that profiles more than mere characters, but the time in which they lived and the war they volunteered to fight and even die for.
If many of these elements seem somehow familiar, that is because they are. Though undeniably "immersive", 1917 is more than anything else derivative. Make no mistake, this is an exceptional movie, although there is no way it could ever be described as exceptionally original. The heavily praised continuous take presentation has a deep and long precedent, originating with Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 film Rope, and most successfully executed with Birdman in 2014. The plot, though based upon true stories told to writer/director Mendes by his WWI veteran grandfather, bears more than passing resemblance to story elements from Saving Private Ryan. Many other film techniques and depictions may only be generously described as homages to Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now.
So does this lack of originality make 1917 a bad film? By no means. The acting is superb and effortless, the music stirring, the cinematography and editing nothing less than brilliant. Does this set a new high watermark for technical film quality? You bet. Writer/Director Sam Mendes has never made a bad film, and here he just may have assembled a perfect one, constructed of the best parts of many other successful films before it.
I suppose in a film culture saturated with countless sequels, prequels, reboots, and reimaginings, this is the new normal. In that context, for better or worse, 1917 is the state of the art.