I think we are in rats’ alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
“What is that noise?”
The wind under the door.
“What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?”
Nothing again nothing.
“Do
“You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
“Nothing?”
―
“World War I was the most colossal, murderous, mismanaged butchery that has ever taken place on earth. Any writer who said otherwise lied, So the writers either wrote propaganda, shut up, or fought.”
―
T.S. Eliot wrote The Wasteland about the world after The Great War, and in that poem is every beat of Sam Mendes’ exquisite new film 1917, a film that is too good for Oscar season. Who would have expected something that is pure poetry to come from a major studio? A war epic, no less, that shows us in real time a young man coming of age on a battlefield, and not just any battlefield — one of the worst and most deadly in human history. It was a war so mind-blowing that no one who survived it — no one who surveyed the wreckage, human and otherwise, at the end of it – would ever be the same again. It’s one thing to fight in the trenches. It’s a whole other thing to test your own strength and fortitude as the only messenger who can save the lives of thousands of soldiers. What choice is there? Heroes aren’t born. They are made. Especially not this reluctant hero, one of two men sent on this deadly mission.
This story, as conceived by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, had to be written as one shot, in real time, and couldn’t be written to skip forward in time to help the writer or the director or the actor or the viewer catch their breath. To take that necessary beat as the film cuts. Oh, how we desperately rely on those cuts because they move the story forward, skip exposition to allow a lot of ground to be covered in a short time. You can even skip forward 20 years if you want with a cut. You can end a relationship with a cut. You can change the scene or the tone or the time of day. Take it away and what do you have? The purest form of storytelling. And acting. And writing. And directing. It is the ultimate test.
In Birdman, Alejandro G. Iñárritu kept the pace of the camera which moved around actors with the syncopation of a drum beat. The drums matched the dialogue which matched the camera movement. Like 1917, it had to follow the protagonist through this madness, but it was not about something bigger than the actor’s own identity crisis. In essence, that is what that movie was about. In Hitchcock’s Rope, we watch two murderers try to get away with it. Hitchcock’s camerawork is designed to purely build suspense, but his too isn’t about anything bigger than two people who committed a murder and would have gotten away with it if Jimmy Stewart hadn’t shown up.
But 1917 isn’t just about the the main character. It has to tell the story of The Great War, no easy feat, for a war on a scale so immense. With that many countries involved, that many corpses encountered at every turn, sooner or later watching this young man navigate treacherous terrain, to grasp that the senseless loss we see isn’t a war fought for any good reason but a war of futility. A war that never should have happened and should never happen again. God help us if that ever happens again.
1917 tells us that not all heroes will survive. Not all soldiers will be saved. Not all mothers will live to raise their babies. Not all babies will emerge from this war with their parents. Mendes doesn’t give us big war. He doesn’t give us thousands of orphans crying for their mothers. He doesn’t give us the 40 million bodies that died in that war strewn across fields to measure scope. He doesn’t want to make this the war epic that would rival Saving Private Ryan. The idea here isn’t to expose what violence is. We already know what violence is. This year’s movies are full of hardcore, graphic violence, much of it coming in the film’s final minutes. But violence is not the subject in 1917. Life is. This is not about what dies but about what fights to live.
Through the combination of Mendes’ thoughtful approach to this story and the breathtaking cinematography of Roger Deakins, we’re shown a war-torn palette of a once-beautiful country laid waste by the ravages of bombs and the feet of soldiers and all of that rain and mud. In one terrifying, vividly beautiful sequence, our reluctant hero finds his way out of darkness and crosses terrain that is only lit by the occasional burst of bombs in the distance. It is shadow play. It is abstract expressionism. It takes this film into the dreamscape where true horror is born.
We cling to hope as we watch our solider’s relentless quest to deliver the message. It must get through. Even if he knows, and we know, that this isn’t the end to this war or any other started by human beings, but with one hero many more heroes can be born. Right now, we need a movie like 1917 to lift us from despair and to inspire us to fight for whatever’s left, even when there isn’t much. And for that, 1917 is a gift, whether people decide that’s what it is or not. It was written that way, as a message of hope.
In the flurry of Oscar season, too many people spend too much of their time putting themselves in front of a movie — any movie — speed-dating not for the love of their lives but rather to seek the Oscar champ. The one ring to rule them all. Up at the screen they stare, taking with them whatever life they’ve lived so far, every movie they’ve ever seen, and whatever was left of the remains of the day.
But 1917 isn’t a movie that should be put through this brutal process, even if it emerges as exactly that — the kind of movie an awards show would reward. If not for such high achievement, then what for? Something people just happen to like for a few months?
Honestly, this game can squeeze the life out of the best of them. Measuring a film by what you think 8000 strangers are going to decide based on intel you’ve gathered over the years about their past choices, their age, their gender. The idea that they will just like any war movie is outdated. They won’t. And the preferential ballot mostly takes away passion from their winner. They choose what they love, but they also choose what they like. Watching a movie for that? That’s almost impossible because you’re looking for things they might hate, anything that might turn them off.
You might ask, why make a movie about WWI in one continuous take? The better question is, why not? Why not make this movie that centers on an actor who isn’t well known so he doesn’t bring with him the baggage of superstardom? Why not take on such a difficult challenge? Then you have to ask, why not make a movie about a mobster at the end of his life? Why not make a racing car movie? Why not make a movie about Rudy Ray Moore? Why not make a movie about a marriage ending? They are made for the same reason, people, because climb the highest mountains: because they’re there. That is what artists do. They make things. And lucky us, we get to watch them.
1917 can’t be called anything but great. And if the need to measure that greatness is something as mundane as Oscar potential? Whatever structure we’ve built to roll out these films is almost always shamed by the art itself, as it is with 1917. It is as great a risk taken, as great a work executed, as great a piece of writing, as great a piece of directing and as great a piece of acting that has ever been put on screen. It is all of those things and consider yourself lucky to be living through a year like this one, where there are so many of these brilliant films for the taking.
Human beings were born into violence. Since the dawn of recorded history we strive to become less violent, but that doesn’t mean it’s been bred out of us. We kill animals, and we still kill each other. The world has never known anything like humans. With used our brains to build things like fire and spearheads. Then we learned how to build massive weapons that could kill hundreds, then thousands, then millions. But there was something different about World War I. In the aftermath of 40 million killed at the hands of modern technology, no one ever saw the world, or the humans in it, the same way again.
World War I, like its sequel, was a shocker for the ages. We are capable of great things, but we are also capable of monstrous things. Sometimes I find it hard to see the great things because all I can see are the monstrous things. But it’s been proven that people who read fiction have more empathy. And maybe that, too, is the function of this level of high achievement. We do terrible things but look at this. We can also do this.
What I want is something I can’t have. I want to live with this movie, to remember the first experience of seeing it and that alone, and not everything that comes after. I don’t want to watch the ravages of the season that defines winners and losers. There are just too many good movies this year. Every so often that happens. One after the other is knocking it out of the park. We have to remember what this is and what this isn’t. We have to remember what and who movies are made for. In a perfect world, movies like these are not made for Oscar voters, but Oscar voters will recognize them as movies worthy of honor.
After all, isn’t that what they’re meant for?
Ok..so my post just took ages to appear on this site my really long one sorry bout my concerns earlier ryan I have been very sick you know worst ever virus I a decade I had. I wish I could blame my sickness on academy incompetence but that just b a plain cop out wouldn’t it ?:P
Great piece, Sasha.
Thank you for this essay.
I once visited, an exhibition, In Belgium, of architectural drawings of designs for memorials of the Great War by architects who had fought in that unspeakable horror. Often the drawings had been done before the war ended.
These drawings were as passionate as any architectural works I have ever seen. The architects often used a grand scale reflect the vast scale of the fighting, suffering and sorrow of that time. All of them, individually, or taken together, were obviously, clearly inadequate to the artistic challenge. It is beyond the ability of architecture to pay adequate homage to the soldiers of WWI. Nonetheless, the WWI memorials that did get built are worthy of our time, and are often masterpieces. The memorial in the Edinburgh Castle comes to mind.
Similarly, the idea that a theatrical film, of two hours, could represent 1917 is pathetic. An artist might try to accomplish the same thing with an ornamental bronze with the same prospect of success. Nonetheless the attempt can yield an actual masterpiece of the form. This looks like an actual masterpiece.
The limitations of the form, two hour theatrical, are made obvious by a great film such as this. What brought these men to the point that they could do such things. How did they remake the world in their anger after the war? Everything I see makes me think it is a waste to create these characters for such an ephemeral existence.
But if it doesn’t receive an acting nomination, of which it sounds like there can only be one and that’s lead, does it have a chance to be the first Best Pic winner since Slumdog Millionaire to win the big award without one? That is the question.
Did you read what she beautifully wrote about separating the art and experience from the “one ring to rule them all” mentality? That was a large part (and point) of this entire post and you’ve now reduced it right back to base-level handicapping.
Sasha, thanks for this gorgeous piece of writing…and feeling. By the way, I agree about this movie. I just saw it a second time and it’s truly in a class of its own.
I haven’t seen this movie but from what I’ve read Peter Weir did something similar , and about WW1 , with his masterful Gallipoli starring Mel Gibson
Funny you mention this — I thought of that film more than once during 1917, especially in the final run through the trenches.
I thought that Gallipoli was a great movie that captured those colonial times in Oz very well and had great historical accuracy ; but having said that I cannot imagine 1917 winning BP cos the voters will not be much interested in an obscure battle in a long ago war no matter how well done it is
I have absolutely no qualms with sam mendes winning best director and best picture …though i not seen it 1917 yet as it not landed in theatres, in oz, reality is as you say sasha that the movie was shot in ‘one continuous take’ has to surely make it on a par of ambition in war movie filmmaking to ‘saving private ryan’ i know coming from me thaty is bloody huge to say that but i insert the word ‘potential’ as in..scale and ambition in a different context but the principle of ambitious goals whereas ‘saving private ryan’ sort to encapsulate horrors of realism of war from a more traditional storyline film making backdrop, 1917 from what i heard in reviews is the first war movie made with continuous constant chain of events evolving around the one main moment….this alone if it is as superb as critics make it out to be ..is reason alone for this to be a most fierce and respectable oscar contender.
OH boy oh boy i have to say ladies and gents right here right now for once controversy, polititics is gonna take a back seat and whoever wins so long it following i will listof contenders i prefer to win in no particular order and get nominated this is most anticipated blockbuster competitive intriguing oscar race that i really care about..not just one or 2 movies either like most years this year i count 5 i can easily name i love to see best picture..(i exclude endgame as my no,1 cos it wont get nominated unless daylight thunderbolts strike the academy brain cells with super duper commons sense).
WE have that i expect and hope to see these juggernaut event films duking it out for oscar glory:
1. Ford vs. Ferrari
2. 1917
3. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
4. Jo jo Rabbit
5. The Joker
6. Dollemite is my name
7. AD astra
8. Judy or the Two Popes
Now i actually predicting that given Scorsese won not that many years ago and given the Irishman is really at number of levels hardly material that voters can see filmmaker not challenged himself with combined with widespread disenchantment of netflix and scorsese decision to sell out big screen experience could poison industry preeception Scorsese turned his bag on the big screen..i think it a tactical error. and even if it gets nominated it wont win. Not against the original, inventive and boundary pushing contenders .
I also think that oscar will choose either between ‘Judy’ or ‘The two popes; imparticularly cos both these films while context is different are biographical in nature one of very imporant religious themes relevant today and the other about one of the turn of the last century modern day for it time great actors in Judy Garland. I dont think oscar can ignore these.
I not sure what the top 10 would be in my mind..but fact i been able to list 8/10 already witrhout any difficulty with 7/10 films type i would not mind to win highlights how truly unprecedented for a lot of us this oscar race will be.
WE never had for instance a film win best picture based in considerable part on origin story of a comic book character transcends itself into a real film noir drama/ biographical cross. (joker)
We never had a racing movie be a contender for best picture let alone one with such memorable chemistry between two leads and certainly had far too few oscar winners of films about industry innovation and industry itself (ford vs ferrari)
We far too few occassions had a war movie be a frontrunner and win not since platoon in truth has film won best picture of war genre but seems sam mendes who elevation of bond franchise to combine most striking imagery esp in skyfall and spectre and level of drama and artistry nbobody thought possible warrants consideration that he earned his stripes with this epic (appallingly it been 35 years about since a war movie won best picture)
Ad Astra i saw when i was not feeling well in hindsight i truly wish i would seen it when i was well that how much faith i have in this movie transcended epic journeyman type nature of original vision blended with real science fact phenomenas and realism in space travel fusing much celebrated appollo 13 films realism with ambition and scope of 2001 in parts is very rare indeed how i wish i saw it for i expect hope common sense this makes the cut as amongst final lot of oscar contenders for best pic.
Eddie Murphy hallmark on hollywood has been huge but been inconsistent in recent times..particularly the 80’s he forged in his own way the action comedy- box office lead for africam american prominence in cinema. fast forward all these years ltr and really this is about eddie murphy scope achievements in film and big i owe you but more than that story is vintage murphy blended with real true story with comedy and drama and certainly for me it most intriguing (second most) after jojo rabbit for i dont know much bout true story Murphy film comes from..but there a lot of love for Murphy and could this be the year his return is celebrated to lead this film to oscar glory? why not? (if the entire film in my eyes when comes out is as awesome as critics make it out to be.
If 1917 is serious thrills and spills of war then Jojo Rabbit is even more bolder and rare ..as it dares to make parody without offending jews others seek strike balance so as to entertain out of tragedy of the nazi- era setting..and few if any war parodies pull this off but this would indeed by a great look for academy if a war parody that measured balanced and knows when to push humour button if it gets oscar nomination. I love to see that but will academy be that bold? regardless i love to see it happen
Tarantino been around long time..his latest film i wonder is bit on conventional side for the master filmmaker..but of all contenders i confess ;’i owe you’ looms large every film he reinvents the wheel he gets a bit stereotypical with ulktra violence but hs achievement is making it work in a way public emrbace it and even if critics divided by it..what stands out i guess with once upon a time in america is that most critics are onside as much as public usually are for him. a film achievement that is bit heavy on cleche but exposes the flaws of modern hoillywood inadvertent but unlike other contenders form oscars point of view does once upon a time in hollywood remind a little too much of oscar voters of dark behind scenes stuff they never want reported? it part fiction but despite that i think Tarantino done a lot right in his career even if i not a fan of him and his one of stereotypical styles that experiements that works and more than any other contender i see big i owe you richly deserved so i think this film gets in this year i hope so though i stubbornyl at time decided not see it (i think at tiume it release i was too encapsulated with trying to see ‘Joker’ and endgame a third time like veryone else was.
I find it hard to believe a more traditional biographical film that bold for needing to be authentic based on historical relevance in case of The Two Popes or the relevance to Hollywood turn of the century saw Hollywood evolve in the post war era in Judy in Judy Garlands life. i just cant fathom logic amongst most these boundary challenging films to compete and shoujld make final cut for oscar nominations this year for best pic, director and script at least, that one these 2 movies will not make final cut for oscar contender.
First it impossible ignore a film about 2 popes debating engaging audience on culturally and religious and serious issues in important but poignant entertasining engaging way at a time relgiious institutions dealing serious things something more melancholy while not losing it focus is admirable should contend this year..especially cos we talking about 2 evergreen leads in great anthony hopkins and almost as brilliant jonahtan pryce going head to head…though it netflix unlike ‘ the irishman’ this movie relevance transcends online streaming debate it appeal to oscar voters and i hope it does to me if i see it in cinemas.
as for Judy well oscar simply be mad to not consider a film on.life of Judy Garland amongst most iconic celebrated hollywood actors at turn of hoillywood golden age i think though it didnt get great reviews it got solid and history should be on it side especially when you consider renee zellwegger been ever consistently brilliant in numerous roles for while now and deserves clearly in my view to win in that role and not won enough not fort a while thjat and fact nobody has any issues with this film cos everyone respect judy garland and clearly filmmakers did..i hope see that with my parents and fact that this film could be amongst most family friendly well oscar like to juggle diversity card so why not?
AS for Avengers Endgame i will be really upset if it doesn;t get in…but that is a debate for another post believe you me
Of course I haven’t yet seen 1917. And I haven’t read all of Sasha’s reviews. But this is the best piece of hers I’ve ever read. Brava!
I told Sasha the same thing last night!
Ryan my dear friend how are you? I taking rare issue with fact last two posts I put my creative and passionate time and energy as I always do on this site both posts no less on enormously significant constructive discussions which were constructive themsrlf have not stayed up online …as far as I know posts were not offensive I posted and as such should have stayed online can you pls investigate awards daily logs to investigate if wrong posts by the mediation team have been removed by accident ? Why were my posts not approved online? I feel it quite unfair that some mediators ( not u necessarily ) don’t proof check to know difference what acceptable what not you know what I mean ? Pls keep me posted kind regards aaron
Damn – and I could only read parts of it, due to spoilers!… 🙁 Maybe I’ll remember to come back to it later. What I did read was definitely very strong, though. I especially liked this bit:
“And if the need to measure that greatness is something as mundane as
Oscar potential? Whatever structure we’ve built to roll out these films
is almost always shamed by the art itself, as it is with 1917.”
I do hope you’ll come back and read Sasha’s piece once you’ve seen the movie. I know I’m going to do that.
I’ll think of a way to remind myself to do that. 🙂 I’m sure there’s a solution…