1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#51 Post by nitin » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:22 am

This is basically TwitchTv: the movie. And it is as boring as that sounds (sorry if you like TwitchTv).

All of the award noms are incomprehensible (even the technical ones as while I am sure the one shot visuals were a technical obstacle course, this is far from the best cinematography of the year) but getting one for screenplay is fucking outrageous!

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#52 Post by Nasir007 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:26 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:54 pm
dvining wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:56 pm
The long takes probably made the editing very simple.
There must be very little in terms of CGI. I assume that there was a whole lot done practically.
The CGI is required at the very least to stitch takes together to make it all seem like a single take. CGI would also be needed to make sure everything is matched between the two takes being stitched together and that the lighting is adjusted and the positions of anything that might have changed etc. etc. So CGI would definitely be needed even with the long takes just due to the format of the movie.
I somehow missed this during the initial nomination announcement but I heard a podcast and just realized this received a VFX oscar nomination. Not that I predicted it but still interesting and shows lots of support for this film - (along with the surprise (and unwarranted) screenplay nomination).

User avatar
Toland's Mitchell
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:42 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#53 Post by Toland's Mitchell » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:28 pm

I saw 1917 earlier this week. It was solid, but over-hyped. The camera work, the sound, the acting, the pacing, the suspense...all good stuff. But there's nothing that elevates it to the best of its genre, nor the best of 2019. It's a simple film. It had straightforward story that was easy to follow. There wasn't much characterization. And for a war film, there wasn't that much action. Furthermore, the film wasn't trying to make us think deeply about the nature of war, nor was it trying to educate us about this particular one. The story could have been set during any conflict in human history. And if people watch 1917 to learn something about WWI history, they're not gonna come away with much, except an accurate idea of what the uniforms, weapons, and trenches looked like.

Anyway, I think my main gripe with 1917 was its lack of originality. It seems the filmmakers went down the checklist of common tropes in war films:
SpoilerShow
Dangerous mission behind enemy lines, check. One soldier says the mission is suicidal and wants to turn around, check. Helpless woman with a child, check. Somber death scene, check. Gunfight against an enemy sniper, check. Soldier who seemed cowardly and apprehensive rises to the occasion, check.
Basically I felt like I had seen this movie before, just not set in WWI.

Nevertheless, 1917 was a solid film. But I think it's overrated. Let's just call it what it is...Oscar Bait.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#54 Post by nitin » Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:51 pm

I called it TwitchTv: the movie above and while that may sound flippant it really did feel like that time when I saw my friend play COD all those years ago. It was extremely uninteresting.

Gallipoli did the basic premise of this entire film’s narrative in its last 5 minutes but you know actually had a great film and characters around it.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#55 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:50 pm

I didn’t like this either, but it’s also exactly what you expect it to be so mileage will vary. Think of the opening scene of The Revenant a movie I disliked but can’t deny it had some of the most impressive setpieces I’ve seen including that meticulously choreographed opening battle. Then imagine a visual ride at Universal Studios or one of those arcade games where you’re shootings at people or dinosaurs or aliens as the screen shifts your perspective for you once you beat the “stage” and an object comes flying out of nowhere like deus ex machina to destroy the threat or conveniently introduce a new one and signal the next stage. This movie is pretty much that, an artificial rendering of the realities of war that consistently took me out of the movie with its gimmick and eye rolling designed setpieces. The concept is a horrible fit for the material because for all the impressive direction it turns war into a playground of dramatics rather than plant the audience in the chaotic shoes of the solider as is its intent.

I can’t think of a war film that moved me less or that was more obviously a blockbuster Movie, but this is an amusement park ride and if it remained as such it would be okay but with it actually holding a chance of scooping oscars other than technical ones it’ll be the film I root against the hardest come the ceremony.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#56 Post by aox » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:03 pm

It's a visual marvel, well made, but just OK.

I just find that if you are going to take the "continuous" shot angle, that means you are trying to build tension. What you get in the tradeoff is that it is almost impossible to have intimate scenes. Mendes tries to have it both ways.
SpoilerShow
For me, he gets away with it in the plane crash scene/stabbing. But the scene with the woman and baby completely deflates any tension or momentum the film was building. Then, our protagonist makes really stupid decisions moving forward.
It's a beautiful film, but it could have been so much more.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#57 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:14 pm

SpoilerShow
I thought the plane crash was the worst example of its faults. Like, of course it crashes right where they were standing and they have to run out of the way! That’s exhibit A of the theme park ride comparison and all I could think about was childhood memories of going to Universal Studios, where they did the exact same thing but through the proper medium channel. Maybe it’s more due to how we view film language vs video games but the stabbing took me out of the movie because we followed the main soldier’s perspective. I see how that should make it more authentic as he turns and we with him must figure out what happened, but it just felt like a video game. To give Mendes some credit, I think this has more to do with how we (at least I) associate this kind of surrogate experience through cultural conditioning and I wonder if such a scene will play more honestly in a few years if more filmmakers use this kind of subjective lens for their storytelling (though I hope this is not developed into a trend).

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#58 Post by aox » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:18 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:14 pm
SpoilerShow
I thought the plane crash was the worst example of its faults. Like, of course it crashes right where they were standing and they have to run out of the way! That’s exhibit A of the theme park ride comparison and all I could think about was childhood memories of going to Universal Studios, where they did the exact same thing but through the proper medium channel. Maybe it’s more due to how we view film language vs video games but the stabbing took me out of the movie because we followed the main soldier’s perspective. I see how that should make it more authentic as he turns and we with him must figure out what happened, but it just felt like a video game. To give Mendes some credit, I think this has more to do with how we (at least I) associate this kind of surrogate experience through cultural conditioning and I wonder if such a scene will play more honestly in a few years if more filmmakers use this kind of subjective lens for their storytelling (though I hope this is not developed into a trend).
SpoilerShow
Well, I agree. That whole sequence was pretty ridiculous. I just mean that Mendes still had some tension and momentum capital left with me after that relatively "quiet" scene. All of that was lost though with the mother/child and the milk coincidence. The film just collapsed for me full-stop. I simply didn't care after that point and there was 25 minutes left?

On a separate note, maybe I blinked but why didn't he take his gun when he ran from her presence?

Post Reply