Dissenting view: technical achievement, mediocre movie

Rating: 6/10 (3 January 2020)

I have a special fondness for movies that set technical limitations and still achieve full bodied, engrossing story telling. For example, Stephen Knight's Locke is one man, in a car, by himself - and it's riveting. Die Hard takes place (mostly) in a single blinding. 1917 sets a limitation for itself by presenting the movie as a single continuous shot. (It's really at least three, but that's beside the point.)
The rationale is that this would immerse the viewer in the experience of the war. And despite Deakins skill in pulling off the achievement, I think it does the opposite. It's awkward at times, distracting, and gives up the foundational language of film: the power of editing. Some thoughts:

Cutting focuses our attention, shifts our point of view, can put us both inside and outside the experience of the characters.

The long shots of the characters walking toward the camera in the trenches are off putting. They are completely unlike the way we experience reality - how often do we hold a steady gaze on a single point while walking in real life? It's meant to be subjective and immersive, but it's the opposite.

Things get better outside of the trench when the camera has more movement, but get worse in the ruined village, a sequence that looks more like a video game with new pursuers appearing in the channel behind him.

The monotony of the single tales had me looking around the frame for the bodies in the mud, pressed in the trench walls, etc. - impressive art direction, but distracting, pulling me out of the story.

The bodies sticking out of the mud were supposed to be horrifying, but they struck me as antiseptic. And one reminded me of Davy Jones ship in the second Pirates movie, which made me laugh inappropriately.
The real problem is that we have scene this movie before. The plot is the same as Saving Private Ryan, or even Thin Red Line or the Naked and the Dead, which were also built around a single mission. I think Mendes tried to overcome a familiar story with the single take idea. I also think that he can't resist sentimentalizing the story and reaching for unearned emotion.
The flaws of the movie are seen in the far to brief appearance of Mark Strong, who is strong, grounded, real, everything the rest of the movie is not. A more cinematic approach, and a story more grounded in human experience, and built out of characterizations like Strong's, would have been much more interesting.
As it is, 1917 is a mildly interesting experiment with a conventional story at its center.