![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When 1917 came out last year I wasn't in any hurry to see it. World War One movies are more often depressing than not, something I didn't exactly need as the lockdowns were starting. I'm feeling more normal, now, and saw the DVD last week. Thought I'd give it a try.
First of all, it's almost a remake of Gallipoli (1981) with British soldiers in France instead of Australians on the shores of Turkey. Same war, same central plot, again two guys stuck in a horrible situation with a race against time. If you've seen and remember Gallipoli, you'll notice it immediately.
The thing that 1917 has been praised for most, its flow as if the whole thing was shot with as few cuts as possible, I think in the long run is going to make it come in for some serious criticism. It's wonderful technical cinematography, but it's not good movie making. I don't know about you, but when I see a movie I want the camera to be as unobtrusive as possible. It's fine to feel like you're looking at something happening from a stationary point. It's fine to feel like you are riding along beside horses running like the wind. But in 1917 the 9-minute no-cuts opening scene has a long section with the camera preceding the main characters though a narrow trench, as you if are back peddling madly through a maze you are unfamiliar with. The scene screams 'You are seeing this through a camera lens, you could not be there and do this, it's not at all real!' There is another section much later where the camera moves away from the view of the character it has been following and sweeps around at eye height above and into the middle of a large tightly packed group of sitting soldiers. You couldn't do it on foot without moving a half dozen guys out of the way. Maybe you don't mind being reminded *You Are Watching A Movie! See How Artsy We Are!*, but I do.
The overall story is fine, no complaints. But the middle section of the film just degenerates into silliness. There is a scene near a farmhouse that goes quickly from very tense to what in the heck was the writer thinking? Something really stupid happens and later this saves the day for someone. Yikes! The movie settles down toward the end, although the time frame gets all out of kilter.
Is it a bad movie? No. But it's not a truly good one either. The acting is good. The direction is all over the map from really excellent to giant mistakes. And as I've said the camera work is far too obtrusive. I have to call it run of the mill, one that a lot of people would enjoy, but a lot should think twice about before praising too highly. See Gallipoli instead!
First of all, it's almost a remake of Gallipoli (1981) with British soldiers in France instead of Australians on the shores of Turkey. Same war, same central plot, again two guys stuck in a horrible situation with a race against time. If you've seen and remember Gallipoli, you'll notice it immediately.
The thing that 1917 has been praised for most, its flow as if the whole thing was shot with as few cuts as possible, I think in the long run is going to make it come in for some serious criticism. It's wonderful technical cinematography, but it's not good movie making. I don't know about you, but when I see a movie I want the camera to be as unobtrusive as possible. It's fine to feel like you're looking at something happening from a stationary point. It's fine to feel like you are riding along beside horses running like the wind. But in 1917 the 9-minute no-cuts opening scene has a long section with the camera preceding the main characters though a narrow trench, as you if are back peddling madly through a maze you are unfamiliar with. The scene screams 'You are seeing this through a camera lens, you could not be there and do this, it's not at all real!' There is another section much later where the camera moves away from the view of the character it has been following and sweeps around at eye height above and into the middle of a large tightly packed group of sitting soldiers. You couldn't do it on foot without moving a half dozen guys out of the way. Maybe you don't mind being reminded *You Are Watching A Movie! See How Artsy We Are!*, but I do.
The overall story is fine, no complaints. But the middle section of the film just degenerates into silliness. There is a scene near a farmhouse that goes quickly from very tense to what in the heck was the writer thinking? Something really stupid happens and later this saves the day for someone. Yikes! The movie settles down toward the end, although the time frame gets all out of kilter.
Is it a bad movie? No. But it's not a truly good one either. The acting is good. The direction is all over the map from really excellent to giant mistakes. And as I've said the camera work is far too obtrusive. I have to call it run of the mill, one that a lot of people would enjoy, but a lot should think twice about before praising too highly. See Gallipoli instead!