1917 (2019)

I'm not sure, but I guess that last time I've been convinced to give a max rating to a movie in a blog entry was in 2016. Not that it would count much, but I was thinking at some point that I'm excessively selective. So, it was about time to get a confirmation that there still exists a category, unfortunately threatened by extinction, that separates itself from the rest. Or, to put it in a more optimistic tone, you can still find sometimes cinema that has in impact, in all its departments = subject, acting, cinematography, sound, which moves you a bit outside of the idea of pure entertainment. It's possible that part of the impression I got left from "1917" to be on the ground of exceeding my expectations, but it clearly gets into this narrow niche of great movies.

"1917" is a war movie, or better said an anti-war movie. That's one of the reasons why I didn't give it much credit, because I'm just not that fond of the genre. Another reason is hearing about a bland story, with no depth, as well as the characters development. Indeed, the subject is simple: two British soldiers in the trenches of WW1 get the mission to deliver a critical order to a detachment that reached beyond enemy lines. From here, however, to "lack of depth", there's a long path...

An image is worth 1000 words. Tehnically "1917" is exceptional. The idea of long shots and getting an effect of continuous scenes is not at its first use, the most representative being probably Emmanuel Lubezki as cinematographer ("Birdman", "Gravity", "Revenant"). What's Roger Deakins doing though in "1917" is like a level on top of everything we've seen by now. It's not just the continuous scene, is how the camera moves in this continuous scene. There are aspects that might get to seem a bit unrealistic due to this. And here we could get to a long talk with philosophical interpretations, but in brief, WW1 was a static and stupid war - unrealistically stupid. So, what we have first in the camera work part and supplemented by sound, only strengthens this idea. The movie is not that hard to watch regarding what we see on the screen compared for instance to "Hacksaw Ridge". Even so, it doesn't take long to get a feeling of: thank God we're not living such times, and God forbid to ever get there again. And that "lack of depth" actually gets into the ingredients package that contributes to this. What would you expect from a story spanning pretty much the screen time, where somewhere in a desperate situation of getting through with an order of which more than 1000 lives depend of? I think there's already too much depth for a character in this context. The script even finds time to integrate some front line stories here and there, the feelings on returning home, or the direct interaction with the enemy where the first impulse is the human one to help somebody in need. And we have more.

"1917" has what's missing in "Dunkirk", which is a story, and also has what's missing in "Hacksaw Ridge", which is technical excellence. Sam Mendes somehow managed to put together a complete movie, which breaths through every aspect the anti-war idea, and which probably could fit well on a mandatory watch list for some head of states. I've seen comparisons between "1917" and "Saving Private Ryan". Forgive me, but I don't remember much of "Saving Private Ryan". I will definitely remember "1917".

Rating: 5 out of 5