Riveting World War I spectacle proves purist critics wrong!

Rating: 8/10 (17 January 2020)

Generally the majority of the reviews of 1917 have been positive. But one of the chief arguments against the film among the negative reviews is that somehow director Sam Mendes has sanitized the war-it's described as an "empty spectacle" or designed in effect as "eye candy" for "thrill seekers."

I can only push back against these views as Mendes's "spectacle" is meant primarily to be entertaining. How can any film truly depict the horrors of war? By the very nature of cinematic art, there is going to be some distancing and in the case of a film about World War I, what better way to convey (in some measure) the utter pointlessness of that particular conflict then by creating an exciting story of two "everyman" soldiers, racing against time to prevent catastrophe?

This whole idea that many of the soldiers' recollections (including Mendes's own grandfather, on whom the film is loosely based) cannot be viewed simply in the context of their sense of adventure, is just plain wrong. As depicted in the film, a certain amount of suppression of feelings had to take place, just so the soldiers could carry on. Hence, 1917 is both a tale of adventure and cautionary tale about war.

1917 also has been edited to suggest one continuous take, as though everything is happening in real time. Whether this is merely a gimmick, or adds to the overall verisimilitude, remains open to debate.

The inciting incident occurs when a General orders Blake to hand deliver a message to Blake's brother's battalion (miles away), to call off a planned attack on the Germans, who have actually reinforced their position, thus setting a trap for them. Before he finds out the nature of the mission, Blake selects the more cynical Schofield who ends up accompanying him into no-man's land. All we know mainly about Schofield is that he traded a good bottle of wine for a medal he previously received-much to the chagrin of the more straight-laced Blake.

So yes, Blake and Schofield aren't very developed characters but they really don't need to be. Mendes introduces their "ordinary world" as the trenches, where they exist most of the time, until being called to attack German positions. The two intrepid soldiers leave the ordinary world when they climb out of the trenches and make their way into no man's land.

There's enough here at least to suggest some of the horrors of World War I including all the dead horses strewn about the bombed out landscape along with masses of rats and dead bodies-their faces eaten away by maggots. You can say that our protagonists are initially tested in the first half of the second act "call to adventure," when they enter abandoned German trenches, which they must navigate through, in order to push forward toward their destination.

Blake's competence as a soldier is highlighted when he saves Schofield after a mouse hits a trip wire causing a tremendous explosion in the trenches which reach underground. It's something unexpected and keeps us glued to the screen.

The midpoint of the film comes early, in another extremely suspenseful scene-a German airplane is shot down and crashes a few feet from Blake and Schofield who have been making their way through an abandoned farmhouse.

Schofield reaches the "point of no return" when the German pilot stabs Blake to death after they pull him out of a burning plane. It's another shocking reversal and the mark of good creative screenwriting.

The second half leading to the second act crisis is not as well thought out. Mendes has Schofield picked up by a passing British platoon and illustrates the difficulties of transportation during World War I (a truck gets stuck in the mud and must be extricated) along with an illustration on how soldiers must suppress their feelings in order to function (as the soldiers tell bawdy stories inside the truck, the camera focuses close-up on Schofield, who obviously is trying to contain his emotions, after experiencing the death of Blake, his friend and fellow soldier).

Schofield's dark moment, his second act crisis, involves direct combat with the Germans-first he must pick off a sniper and later, inside a bombed out French town, strangle a German soldier and escape another one, who fires at him incessantly with a rifle.

In between, Schofield provides provisions to a French woman who is caring for an infant-it's a scene designed to show Schofield's humanity and make him more sympathetic. But what about all those shots fired at Schofield during this sequence?-yes he's initially injured by a ricocheting bullet but later all the bullets fired at him, miss their mark!

The improbable escape (which still features a neat, eerily lit town from flares and unattended fires), leads to another improbable (third act) escape, as Schofield must survive a wild trip down the cascading rapids of a river (this scene also proves to be not particularly original).

1917 ends with an exciting climax as Schofield reaches the beleaguered battalion right before they advance on German positions. The way in which he must deliver the general's orders to the company commander, Mackenzie, is riveting and equally poignant when he ends up informing Blake's brother of the sad news of Blake's death.

Not everything in 1917 proves to be completely believable but this is a very solid film which manages to both entertain and (in small measure) convey the horrors of "the war to end all wars."