During World War I, Lance Corporal Tom Blake (Dean-Charles
Chapman) is told that his brother’s battalions is about to walk into a trap set
by the Germans. They will be massacred. Because the phone lines are cut, he and
his friend Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) are ordered to cross
no-man’s land to warn them.
The Germans have withdrawn as a way of setting the trap. The
two friends set out, making their way through the gruesome and corpse-strewn
no-man’s land, though other soldiers warn them they have no chance of surviving.
Will it be safe to use the German trenches? How can two lone soldiers hope to
make their way through enemy-occupied territory to warn the other battalion?
1917 is the most immersive war movie I have ever
seen. We are right there with them with seemingly impossible close-ups as they
make their way through mud, rats, water-filled craters, claustrophobic
trenches, and mutilated corpses. At no point was I aware that anyone was acting.
They simply were the soldiers going through hazard after hazard, thinking they
will be shot at any moment. The film is done in a continuous style, so the movie
gives the impression it was done in two or three shots—no shifting to other
viewpoints or convenient scene cuts.
This goes right up there with Saving Private Ryan and
We Were Soldiers as the most realistic war movies. Some of you have sat
through the horrifying first twenty minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan,
but I have to warn you, the state of the corpses shown makes Saving Private
Ryan look like a coming-out party. Hours later, I still feel stunned.
As long as you know what you’re in for, I recommend 1917.
I am actually looking forward to it! Thanks for sharing your review.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Another blogger friend recommended this movie as well.
ReplyDeleteI kind of lost interest in war movies after the big run of them in the '80s. I loved Platoon, but I think after that, I was done. I guess I prefer my horror to be more fictional.
Wow. Platoon. Long time ago. I can't say I loved it, but I understand not wanting to see the horrors of war anymore.
ReplyDeleteWWI is my least favorite war for that very reason. Give me 300 standing strong to their heroic end, ship borne pirates slinging fire at their terrified enemies in the Great Sea, Caesar’s legions slaughtering the intransigent, marauding Huns thundering down on Rome, stalwart Brits waging guerilla warfare against the Danes, Normans destroying house and field of Saxons, Genghis Khan trampling the Mongolians. France against England against France with her band of brothers, give me Washington and Greene and Lee and Grant and all those men who ran up Seminary Ridge and died from minie ball or cannon or bayonet or gangrene, but please, please, please do not make me watch men suffocating, drowning, having chemicals burn their faces off and rats eat their frozen toes.
ReplyDeleteSo it's safe to say that Sara will not go see it. Thanks for posting, and for your knowledge of history.
ReplyDeleteMyself I feel that (real) war movies are generally making money off of other people's sufferings. Something in me thinks or feels that histories of actual wars should respectfully stay in the confines of documentaries, or at most, historical fictions that focus on heroic people, rather than appalling sensationalized suffering. For me, Schindler's List, while yes, a story on a hero, still stepped over that boundary by miles, as did the opening of Saving Private Ryan, both of which I walked out on (crying in the case of SL). And I think that the argument that movies like this makes one more aware it sensitive is dead wrong; it was the books and documentaries that I've read on the Holocaust--the horrors so raw--that made me too sensitive for such an appalling story. Private Ryan less so, but I still feel they were making a buck off of those who got their brains blown out on D-Day.
ReplyDeleteAs a very limited historian, Vietnam seems a close seconds for misery and destruction of morale--equally mired in bureaucratic incompetence and moral ambiguity. And the civil war seemed to have its own special miserable mix of a deep sense of purpose unsavorily (sic) blended with the unfathomable anguish of killing one's own brothers, both figurative and literal.
I'm interested in 1917 because of the single-narrative approach, but beyond that, I prefer my brutally violent wars and war scenes to be based in fiction. Maybe that's just something wrong with me, I don't know. I'm open to analysis.
I can’t tell people that they must like a certain movie genre, but I’ll stick with veterans who say they appreciate a realistic war movie.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I gave the impression that 1917 emphasizes combat. It certainly does have combat, but the horrifying scenes had to do with corpses after battles.