Fascinating... but no best picture

Rating: 8/10 (21 January 2020)

An achievement in movie making, for sure.. but Best Picture? I don't think so.
Lets start with the good. The most obvious is the telling of this story in one single view. No cuts or passing of time. Everything occurring real time. The number of extras involved, the battle sequences, its is choreographed so wonderfully that the movie offers something that no other movie provides. A real perspective... as if you are on the journey with them. It is wonderful way to view this story and one we don't see used often (like in Birdman). However, this perspective in story telling does come at a cost and that is a lack of any real emotional connection to the characters.
The movie begins with two soldiers being told to see the General for orders for a mission and from that point, they are off. How much do we really get to know about these characters? Why should we care about them other than the importance that they be successful in the mission they have been tasked with? As they are trekking through No-Mans land, they are on the look out for enemy Germans. Not really an opportune time to have any real conversations of any real substance so we never really do get to know the characters. The mission, and ONLY the mission seems to be real focus.
1917 is definitely fascinating to watch and certainly worthy of a trip to the theater but it carries very little emotional impact on the viewer as compared to other war movies that have used more conventional methods of film making (Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Band of Brothers). I feel that the movie would have been better served allowing us to get to know these characters through a standard narrative format before moving on to the one take perspective in order to give the audience something to connect them to these soldiers. That perhaps may have given the mission itself more weight.
Yes we know the stakes are high, for them and for the success of the mission... but if we know our history, we really already know how the story ends, so what is needed is the a reason to care beyond that. That all gets lost without at least SOME focus on the characters.
The point is this.. The movie is interesting BECAUSE of its perspective, but without it, would it be as interesting? Probably not.
After watching, does it make you think? Does it make you feel? If it doesn't, then as war movies go, well. isn't that kind of the point and isn't it kind of a failure if it doesn't leave you with some kind of impression?
For me, this movie simply felt like I came in at the point where the film was starting at the beginning of its build towards a climax but I had missed some of the exposition prior to it. So while there is tension and there is peril, there was nothing to connect my interest in the characters other than the success of the mission.
The movie deserves high marks for its direction (no easy feat to coordinate a one take perspective for 1hr 30 minutes) and I certainly have no issue with the approach. After all It worked well in Birdman... but the difference in Birdman, is that we also got to KNOW the character and connect with him through the length of that movie and there was a depth to the character at a psychological level, and it worked because the story itself was completely character centered... not centered around an entire event.
I would certainly give 1917 its props for cinematography, set pieces, visual effects, and perhaps for its way of telling the story, one could argue that it could deserve at least a Best Picture nomination. But considering the current lineup of nominees, there are other films far more deserving of that honor.