*In Carrie Bradshaw’s voice*
I can’t help but wonder…
Would 1917, a ten-time Oscar-nominated film, be regarded as “outstanding” as it currently is if it wasn’t mainly comprised of only a few shots that were so seamlessly edited together that it feels like the entire two hours were completed in just a single shot?
Loaded question, I know, but it is a question that begs to be asked.
Another question I have to ask: when will there be enough war movies? Every year/awards season there seems to be one in theaters/nominated at the Oscars…like how last year Dunkirk was nominated and won three.
Look, I enjoyed 1917. The acting was excellent, the story was enticing, and the cinematography was new and refreshing. But I think the “coolness” of this whole one-shot thing overshadowed parts of the story that could’ve really made this film stand out. My main grievance in this respect is with Lance Cpl. Blake’s death. It was sad sure, but it felt like the kind of moment I should be shedding a tear for. Instead, the moment was more along the lines of “Oh that sucks.” *grabs more popcorn*
But on the other hand, perhaps that is the film’s mission—to engage the audience in the chaos of war—so that we—like the corporals the film follows—don’t have the time or energy to spend on a sad moment like Blake’s death when there is such an imperative mission to be carried out.
This leads to me to two juxtaposing opinions about the film:
-
This film shortchanged its emotional appeal for excellence in technique.
-
This film is perhaps one of the best war films because of its ability to engage the audience in the chaos of war, which leaves little time to digest or feel all that is going on around you.
That interpretation is up to each viewer, but overall the film is a unique, beautiful piece of art to behold, and I recommend others go see it. I guess the only question left now is, will it be able to beat the other mainstream contenders (Joker, Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, and The Irishman) for Best Picture?