Jump to content

1917. Saving private Ryan meets World War One.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

 

 

Basically the one shot does not favour films. I think it’s best used in certain sequences where you don’t expect it, Children of Men being the best example of maybe any film. 

Definitely. The only films I've seen where it really served any purpose beyond just showing off technical or organisational prowess were Rope, because it's meant to be like a play, and One Cut of The Dead, where the single take nature is inherently tied to the plot of the film and the characters are aware of it and break the fourth wall at times. But Rope wasn't very good by Hitchcock's standards and One Cut of the Dead well, it would be a spoiler. 

 

In this film it cheats anyway, while they generally do a better job of disguising the transitions than in Rope or Birdman, the

 

'fade to black'

scene drops all pretence of being a single take and surely counts as a cut/new shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2020 at 21:49, kerraig UK said:

The Great War holds particular fascination for me as such a visceral and brutally prolonged psychological war, with its introduction of fearsome gargantuan mechanised instruments of terror brought to the battlefield for the first time.

 

As an undertaking to bring the unfathomable scale of the frontline together with an intimate portrait of brotherhood and commitment to duty I thought it was majestic.

 

The scope and attention to detail is staggering. It balances being a sweeping epic with the tenderest moments almost perfectly. I was caught up in both the finest textures of mud, and physicality of effort while also wanting to look into the distance and get a vision of what an endless battlefield must do to the soldiers at ground level.

 

The wider story it creates in its art design... A felled tree blocking a road in the distance, the size and sophistication of German barracks pointing to a fearsome foe make the world feel real and lived in. The amount of work put into even the colour and texture of mud sells the whole thing.

 

Script, performances, photography and especially the triumphant score are all exemplary.

 

Its a slight story, but told with a delicacy and intelligence that is to be commended. I got totally caught up at several moments and found it emotionally sophisticated and powerful. It doesn't resort to jingoism, overt heroism (except in one extremely powerful moment) or sentimentality.

 

I thought it was fucking amazing and what cinema exists to do. Books can tell you the story, Videogames can put you in the fight. But seeing how hard work it all was, mentally and physically, even just going over the top in all that gear must have been exhausting, let alone actually fighting. Seeing just how huge the mortars war, the tanks were. it genuinely inspires awe. Like actual awe.

 

Full commitment storytelling from everyone and deserves all the praise that can be heaped upon it.

 

5/5

 

Can I just quote this for my feelings on it. 

 

Shame about the trailer though. The films biggest moment is in it :hmm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess films like this serves to getting more people interested in ww1? Thats perhaps one positive I think of. If it creates more people to read about the conflict and to watch more documentaries and so forth, then that's great, but what the film itself doesn't perhaps do that well is depicting the true reality of the conflict which was basically a time when the individual was reduced to absolute meaninglessness.

Spoiler

Quite the opposite as its telling a story of one man practically saving the day while attempting to make it through the various set pieces people normally associate with the conflict (immaculately done I might add) but hardly any of what made it what it truly was, which, as Forgotten Weapons said  "the first inhuman mechanised juggernaut of a conflict" and the idea of one man having any kind of influence or control what so ever is an incredibly movie-esk thing to pull. 

 

Spoiler

Quite honestly, after the scene previously, where the captain tells our protagonist that he should have witnesses before delivering his message, I was half expecting for his pleas to be ignored. Maybe also then to be forced in participating in the very same charge he was sent to stop - one he knows will be a total a failure. Theres yer ww1!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Just saw this, and came away a bit disappointed really.

 

It was ok, a simple enough tale, but at no point did I sense an eek of danger for the lead roles. The film throughout mustered up no suspense, so it came as no surprise really (when it should of, being on this danger mission) that while they are on this solo against the odds ramble a whole platoon of Brits turn up and say 'alright mate, what are you doing here'.



 

 Next I know Schofield is going to be ok (after bumping his head) that he comes across a load of short sighted Germans, who can't shoot him for shit. And after falling in the magical waterfall that can turn a dark evening into a summers day when you come out the other side, my interest really started to wane.

 

2/5 for me I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2020 at 21:49, kerraig UK said:

The Great War holds particular fascination for me as such a visceral and brutally prolonged psychological war, with its introduction of fearsome gargantuan mechanised instruments of terror brought to the battlefield for the first time.

 

As an undertaking to bring the unfathomable scale of the frontline together with an intimate portrait of brotherhood and commitment to duty I thought it was majestic.

 

The scope and attention to detail is staggering. It balances being a sweeping epic with the tenderest moments almost perfectly. I was caught up in both the finest textures of mud, and physicality of effort while also wanting to look into the distance and get a vision of what an endless battlefield must do to the soldiers at ground level.

 

The wider story it creates in its art design... A felled tree blocking a road in the distance, the size and sophistication of German barracks pointing to a fearsome foe make the world feel real and lived in. The amount of work put into even the colour and texture of mud sells the whole thing.

 

Script, performances, photography and especially the triumphant score are all exemplary.

 

Its a slight story, but told with a delicacy and intelligence that is to be commended. I got totally caught up at several moments and found it emotionally sophisticated and powerful. It doesn't resort to jingoism, overt heroism (except in one extremely powerful moment) or sentimentality.

 

I thought it was fucking amazing and what cinema exists to do. Books can tell you the story, Videogames can put you in the fight. But seeing how hard work it all was, mentally and physically, even just going over the top in all that gear must have been exhausting, let alone actually fighting. Seeing just how huge the mortars war, the tanks were. it genuinely inspires awe. Like actual awe.

 

Full commitment storytelling from everyone and deserves all the praise that can be heaped upon it.

 

5/5

 

 

You've blown my tiny mind with this waffle. I'm going to read a few pages of A Brief History Of Time to come down off this crazy high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pavey said:

 Just saw this, and came away a bit disappointed really.

 

 

  Hide contents

It was ok, a simple enough tale, but at no point did I sense an eek of danger for the lead roles. The film throughout mustered up no suspense, so it came as no surprise really (when it should of, being on this danger mission) that while they are on this solo against the odds ramble a whole platoon of Brits turn up and say 'alright mate, what are you doing here'.

 


 

 Next I know Schofield is going to be ok (after bumping his head) that he comes across a load of short sighted Germans, who can't shoot him for shit. And after falling in the magical waterfall that can turn a dark evening into a summers day when you come out the other side, my interest really started to wane.

 

 

 

2/5 for me I think.

 

See I knew this would get brought up by someone but 

Spoiler

it was dark, they were running and one of them was ill. I've tried to shoot guns at a target stood still with all the time in the world and my aim has been poor, nevermind in a situation like that. Its entirly plausible that during WW1 you'd have people piss poor at shooting the way they threw men into battle on conveyor belts without proper training.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, deerokus said:

Definitely. The only films I've seen where it really served any purpose beyond just showing off technical or organisational prowess were Rope, because it's meant to be like a play, and One Cut of The Dead, where the single take nature is inherently tied to the plot of the film and the characters are aware of it and break the fourth wall at times. But Rope wasn't very good by Hitchcock's standards and One Cut of the Dead well, it would be a spoiler. 

 

In this film it cheats anyway, while they generally do a better job of disguising the transitions than in Rope or Birdman, the

  Reveal hidden contents

'fade to black'

scene drops all pretence of being a single take and surely counts as a cut/new shot.

 

Yeah i watched One Cut Of The Dead a few weeks ago. It being hand held i didn’t even notice it really. Another one shot film is Victoria. You watch it too aware of it, or i did. Early on it works, following the characters ride a bike through streets at night it increases immersion, then it become more noticeable, then if it introduces extreme situations it’s hard to do it without it feeling like a play. This happens, and then this happens. 
 

The director can’t do establishing shots, can’t let the film sink in. 

 

I found it more impressive than 1917 though, it doesn’t cheat with pitch black filling the screen, and genuinely escalates in an exciting way and the more it continues you wonder where it will go, eventually justifying its idea. 1917 has none of this, there isn’t any sequences where you’re surprised where they turn or surprised how it’s able to find new angles. I don’t think any of it looked hard to do.

 

Taking multiple dumps on this film now, it just failed on every level. The score was predictable and generic as well. At one point it has an attempt at something pulsating, thrilling but it’s so predictable and tame as to barely be worth being there, and it just made me think of how Jonny Greenwood’s score for There Will Be Blood was. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2020 at 23:55, Pavey said:

 Just saw this, and came away a bit disappointed really.

 

 

  Hide contents

It was ok, a simple enough tale, but at no point did I sense an eek of danger for the lead roles. The film throughout mustered up no suspense, so it came as no surprise really (when it should of, being on this danger mission) that while they are on this solo against the odds ramble a whole platoon of Brits turn up and say 'alright mate, what are you doing here'.

 


 

 Next I know Schofield is going to be ok (after bumping his head) that he comes across a load of short sighted Germans, who can't shoot him for shit. And after falling in the magical waterfall that can turn a dark evening into a summers day when you come out the other side, my interest really started to wane.

 

 

 

2/5 for me I think.


Dark evening? You clearly weren’t paying attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I really enjoyed that and it sucked me in, but on reflection it doesn't hold up too well. It felt a bit contrived and like it was trying to fit too much in.

 

It really made me reflect what an incredible film Dunkirk is, which shows a much more chaotic and terrifying version of war for me. I think maybe I was hoping the film would go that way, especially after the really strong opening. But then that bit in the trailer came up where I knew what would happen, and it felt more like a roller-coaster ride. I knew the trailer had spoilers but didn't think they would use every single incredible shot in the film joined together.

 

Really glad I saw it in the cinema, the sound was great as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I found this particularly gripping.  I didn't feel especially invested in any of the possible outcomes.  It was an alright watch though. 

 

Deakins, however, is a fucking genius.  The lighting from the flares and burning church. :wub:

 

It does seem a bit churlish, but whenever the camera went behind something I felt a little deflated.  There's a tension to continuous shots that the film kept breaking.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went again as my mum hadn't seen it and I really like going to the cinema. Enjoyed it first time, but second viewing was terrific. Actually felt more tense second time around, maybe the ear-splitting Dolby Atmos helped. Not that it is a particularly loud film (incredibly) but when it is, it is utterly terrifying. The story is simple, but engaging, and the level of detail is staggering.

 

I appreciate no war is exactly a picnic, but came away somewhat muted about just how fucking grim life must have been for those on the frontline. Utterly appalling how so many young lives were discarded for the sake of a few yards of mud. Found it a haunting experience, a really fine film. And Roger Deakins is a sorcerer. Goodness me, what an artist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/01/2020 at 21:24, Boothjan said:

 

Kaiser Wilhelm screams? 


Not enough pos’ for this. :lol:
 

I watched it yesterday and thought it was incredible. Not just on a technical level - of which it undoubtedly is - but for real, gut wrenching drama I thought it was brilliant. 
 

On 13/01/2020 at 23:00, kerraig UK said:


Heh. Totally disagree with that. The scope of the thing is what I was most awed by. It's unfathomably large scale. It's just not a narrative as much as it is a roller coaster.


Absolutely this. A classic example of how the best movies are those with simple plots that make space for human drama, which this had in spades. 

 

On 17/01/2020 at 23:55, boomeh said:

what the film itself doesn't perhaps do that well is depicting the true reality of the conflict


You can’t be serious? This was your takeaway? It was a horrifying sequence of events depicting man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. The machines of war and their destructive capability, the cruel calculation required of warfare, the dehumanising effect of killing. 


It couldn’t have been a more powerful anti war film. 
 

I don’t neg ever but oh my gosh at some of the impressions expressed here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/01/2020 at 15:42, Pete said:

Well I really enjoyed that and it sucked me in, but on reflection it doesn't hold up too well. It felt a bit contrived and like it was trying to fit too much in.

 

It really made me reflect what an incredible film Dunkirk is, which shows a much more chaotic and terrifying version of war for me. I think maybe I was hoping the film would go that way, especially after the really strong opening. But then that bit in the trailer came up where I knew what would happen, and it felt more like a roller-coaster ride. I knew the trailer had spoilers but didn't think they would use every single incredible shot in the film joined together.

 

Really glad I saw it in the cinema, the sound was great as well.

 

Crazy. This towers over Dunkirk for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kerraig UK said:

I'm baffled by this one. I think it's a beautiful poem and people are projecting their own wishes for what they think a film should be onto it as criticism.

 

More than anything it made me think of Wilfred Owen

 

Well that's a new experience. I've never been down a poetry rabbit hole before. :)  Ages since I read any of his poems.

 

I get what you get out of the film but I just kept having thoughts like

 

Spoiler

"Wow. Colin Firth looks fat and old"

 

"Is my wife getting motion sickness yet?"

 

"That sweeping cut past the rock looked like a cardboard cutout"

 

"Oh, his mate's dead. Guess that makes him invincible."

 

"Ugh. Mark Strong"

 

"Wait, was he shot or did he just bump his head.  Why isn't he bleeding more."

 

"A woman!  Guess the film needs one by now"

 

"Ok, if he wasn't shot before why isn't he now"

 

"He really is invincible"

 

And wished I didn't.  I really just didn't get drawn into it enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

not seen it yet but the one shot nature thing is interesting. Rope has been mentioned and one cut of the dead. Both are fine films, Rope is hamstrung by being a play as plays often don't make good transition to film. One cut of the dead isn't really one shot. Anyway the reason for posting having not seen the film is that another one shot film is Running time with Bruce Campbell and I think can be added to the small "successful" pile of one shot films - shot on location and is a heist film very nicely done. Go watch it if you can well worth it if you can find it anywhere (I got it on DVD from US about 20 years ago!)

 

There are very few concepts that would work as a one-shot - it is easy to reel off examples of one shit sections in films that work but true one shot films are few and far between as they don't fit many concepts at all.

 

Will be interested to see this one as I can see how it might work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's such a weird criticism. "Guys, I don't know if you can see my blue tick, but it's actually NOT all one shot. And given my incredible film knowledge I could actually sit down and tell you where they cut." Yeah. Well done. 

 

What I liked about 1917 was that it all being one long shot was that it actually added something to a war movie that I'd never seen before. It wasn't like in stupid shitty style over substance Birdman, just a stylistic choice/gimmick. It meant that you knew every single thing that happened was happening over a short period of time. Now, this sounds pretty obvious, but there's a bit in which Warman McScaredSoldier gets in the truck with all of the cliched soldier types who say they're going off somewhere. In a million other films we then cut to that location and shit goes down, but in this there was a real momentum and knowledge that everything has to happen in sequence, and there's going to be constant drama along the way. You feel like you've been on an emotional journey with the lead character because you've literally not moved away from him for two hours. I liked that, it felt fresh, and gave the film the poetic feel that Kerraig is talking about. One long prose, no breaks (EXCEPT WHEN THE CAMERA GOES BEHIND THAT MAN I SPOTTED IT AREN'T I A CLEVER FILM MAJOR!! etc etc)

 

It did also lead to what I didn't like about the film. The whole thing kind of felt like a series of set pieces that had been set up to happen to two characters. What I think Dunkirk nailed was that feeling of a million different things happening everywhere and everything being fucked. So that when the characters you're following do come into things it feels like the war is happening around them. Whereas, in 1917, because of the way the film was set up a bit like a MASSIVE EXPENSIVE PLAY with the long takes, it felt a bit like a COD campaign. It all felt a little choreographed and like people were only there to directly interact with Warman and his mate. That's because films like this are really difficult to make in this specific way. I still liked it a lot, but it lacked that sense of gritty realism that Dunkirk had.

 

Also, for the love of God, do something clever with your marketing if you're making a film like this. The whole point is that it's one long shot, one long story that builds to a crescendo. I think the sense that the audience is with the lead and going on the journey with them is lost slightly if your Digital Ads are full of shots from the last third of the picture, and your trailer features four or five set pieces from the film. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Birdman's use of the one shot is so successful that I didn't even notice it when I first saw it. I found out shortly after and then thinking back on the viewing realised how clever it was. I thought the film was intimate and compelling with a real feel of inhabiting the main character's "space". No gimmick there for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mugman said:

 

 

It did also lead to what I didn't like about the film. The whole thing kind of felt like a series of set pieces that had been set up to happen to two characters. What I think Dunkirk nailed was that feeling of a million different things happening everywhere and everything being fucked. So that when the characters you're following do come into things it feels like the war is happening around them. Whereas, in 1917, because of the way the film was set up a bit like a MASSIVE EXPENSIVE PLAY with the long takes, it felt a bit like a COD campaign. It all felt a little choreographed and like people were only there to directly interact with Warman and his mate. That's because films like this are really difficult to make in this specific way. I still liked it a lot, but it lacked that sense of gritty realism that Dunkirk had.

 

 


See this is what I liked especially. It's not a war film, its a soldier film. Its his mission experience. We always look at films like we're peeking into a world, but thats not how we actually perceive our own world. We only experience reality from our own perspective, so its often like these things are happening around us, rather than we're simply present during a happening. 

1917 captured that. I imagine if you were a soldier on a mission, it would feel like the war was happening TO YOU.

A far bigger problem is that in reality they probably would have just sent a carrier pigeon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your comment about it feeling like set pieces strung together @Mugman and in hindsight could view it that way, but watching it and not knowing what was going to happen next it just felt like a dangerous, unpredictable foray into enemy territory. My heart was in my mouth almost the whole way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this last night but wanted to read the thread before posting what I thought, I hadn’t read or seen anything about this - even the trailer as it was straight after a JoJo Rabbit trailer so ignore it talking about that!

 

I loved it, it’s in the masterpiece class for me and basically a lot of what @kerraig UK said reflects my feelings, it didn’t feel like a war film like Saving private Ryan but a human story of a tiny microcosm of said war that while heroic made fuck all difference to all but a few as we know what would have happened shortly after...

 

Spoiler

I loved that we know he has seen battle but we don’t know what it was or why he had the medal, he is clearly affected by it versus the newbie who is bright eyed and off on an adventure to save his brother and half the army...


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.