Technically Accomplished, Emotionally Weak

Rating: 6/10 (21 January 2020)

The first thing anybody will tell you about "1917" is that it was filmed to look like one long take. It's the kind of movie that uses "making of" featurettes as part of its marketing strategy. Unless you really dig movies that are technically accomplished but not much else, beware. Remember "The Revenant?" Remember how whenever anyone involved with that movie talked about it in public all they talked about was how grueling it was to film? They didn't talk about the characters, or the story, or the themes, or the emotional investment. No, it was just a bunch of logistics about how to work in the cold.
Yes, "1917" is a technical marvel, and I would probably recommend it just so that people can see it for themselves, as I'm sure a lot of people will be dazzled enough by it that they won't care that the gimmick came first and the story came later. My problem is that, for a movie that's supposed to make us feel what it's like to be dumped into the chaos of war, it feels so overly choreographed. The film never stops being impressed with itself, and as the camera tracks and swoops and swirls around perfectly art directed WWI battlefields, you can practically hear Sam Mendes cooing "wait till they get a load of THIS shot." I was so distracted by watching the gimmick that I never felt involved in the story.
But maybe that's for the best, since there isn't much of a story to be invested in. Mendes went to the Steven Spielberg school of directing, where character motivations are so simplistic that a five year old could understand them. Thomas Newman provides a typically thunderous score that telegraphs every time it comes blaring on the screen exactly how we're supposed to feel, which can pretty much be summed up as "War Bad. Heroes Good." Roger Deakins, who deserves every ounce of praise he's sure to get for this movie, does create some beautiful and astonishing images, but the one-shot approach gets monotonous after a while and draws attention to what a contribution skillful editing would have made to the film's rhythms.
One thing that surprises me somewhat is that among all the awards buzz this film is generating, none of it has been for lead actor George MacKay, who delivers a stunning and stunningly physical performance. Because the whole movie is designed to look like one continuous shot, he is by definition in literally every moment of it, and he totally carries it. If Leo DiCaprio could win an Oscar for grunting and grimacing his way through "The Revenant," why shouldn't MacKay be recognized for this?
Grade: B+