by Mason Leaver
It’s very likely that one of the things you’ve heard most about Sam Mendes’ 1917 is that it is all made to look like one shot. In the past five years or so, film and television has become full of the technique referred to as “long takes”; the use of an extended scene in a film, which takes place in one shot without any cuts or editing. Since Birdman’s (Iñárritu, 2014) success in 2014, long takes have become a well-worn tool on the filmmaker’s toolbelt. Earlier, Emmanuel Lubezki, the same cinematographer who produced Birdman, employed long takes very well in Children of Men (Cuarón, 2006). Critically, this use of long takes was extremely well received, especially by film critics on Youtube. A film was not praised for its excellent use of a long take, in a way which enhanced the story, but it was praised simply for having long takes at all; as if that were a merit in itself. But as the technique grew in popularity, some uses of it felt vapid and unnecessary. However, in 2019, Sam Mendes has brought the long take back out of the toolbox, and put it to great use with his cinematographer, the ever-talented Roger Deakins. 1917 (Mendes, 2019) manages to breath new life into what could have become a clichéd technique, by presenting a story which feels as though it must be told as a single take.
1917 is the story of two British soldiers in World War 1 who are selected for a dangerous mission, in a race against time to save over 1,000 lives. This journey takes them through the No-Man’s Land of the trenches, all the way into enemy territory. The two soldiers, played by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, are forced to rely on each other to survive in order to accomplish their mission in the short amount of time they have.
1917 is the story of two British soldiers in World War 1 who are selected for a dangerous mission, in a race against time to save over 1,000 lives. This journey takes them through the No-Man’s Land of the trenches, all the way into enemy territory. The two soldiers, played by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, are forced to rely on each other to survive in order to accomplish their mission in the short amount of time they have.
A battle sequence from 1917.
Chapman and MacKay both bring excellent performances to 1917. This is probably Chapman’s biggest role to date, and also most challenging. His previous largest roles have included playing Tommen Barathyeon on Game of Thrones (2013) and Thomas in Netflix’s original, The King (Michod, 2019). This is also MacKay’s largest role to date. Previously, I especially enjoyed his performance as Bodevan in Captain Fantastic (Ross, 2016). Both actors give their all in this film; their performances are not just believable, but moving. They are the only two constants in a film which is constantly moving forward and away from characters we know. The duo bears the weight of the film on their shoulders, and they carry it with ease.
Sam Mendes (Center) directing 1917's costars Chapman (left) and MacKay (right).
Of course, the most memorable aspect of 1917 is it’s implementation of the “long take”. The entire film is made to look like one long take, and it works wonderfully in this film because of the expertise of the filmmakers behind the camera, namely the film’s director, Sam Mendes, and Cinematographer Roger Deakins. Director Sam Mendes, previously known for his work directing films like American Beauty (1999), Skyfall (2012), and Spectre (2015). It was Mendes’ idea to have the film take place over one shot, a choice which he saw as absolutely necessary for the story. Mendes began working with Deakins on Skyfall, and continues his work on 1917. Deakins is widely considered to be one of the best cinematographers of all time, and he brings all of his talents to 1917. There were some sequences of the film which were absolutely breathtaking; even more impressive when you consider that there is no cutting at all. When I was discussing the film with some friends, we began talking about a particular scene which is lit entirely by flairs in the sky. These flairs light the night scene, and their movement shifts the shadows of the scene. One of my friends noted that “it feels like Deakins is just showing off at this point. It’s perfect.” I have to agree with my friend. The cinematography and lighting of the film is exceptional, perhaps downright flawless.
The dynamically sublime sequence of 1917.
One can praise the technical mastery of the film to no end, but the true value of 1917 is in its story, and in the emotions that it provokes. Some of the scenes were absolutely captivating. The lack of cuts places us in the room with the characters. The film is immersive; our experience as an audience is extremely similar to the experiences of the characters, due to the lack of cuts. Mendes carries the audience through a score of emotions and experiences. We feel nervous, freightened, claustrophobic, hopeful, and brave, along with the protagonists.
Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher, wrote about an experience which he called the “dynamically sublime”. The dynamically sublime was a sense of sublimity caused by an overwhelming danger, which brought about bravery in mankind. The juxtaposition of this great danger and this great bravery is what caused the sense of the sublime. One particular source of this sense of the sublime, according to Kant, could come from war. War, Kant wrote, “has something sublime about it… only the more sublime the more numerous the dangers to which they are exposed, and which they are able to meet with fortitude” (Kant, 93). I believe that 1917 captures this sense of the sublimity of the bravery which it takes to sacrifice oneself in war. The climax of the film, which involves a massive charge of troops, with a main character taking a major risk to accomplish his mission, is monstrously sublime. In the theater it felt almost overwhelming.
Not much more can be said about 1917. It is both a technical and artistic masterpiece, and is one of the best films of the year. In a year which has been full of excellent films, 1917 will stand out. I would not be surprised to see 1917 win the Oscar for Best Picture this year. It also will not be much of a surprise if Deakins were to win yet another Best Cinematography award, although I personally am rooting for The Lighthouse for Best Cinematography.
For more information on how 1917 was filmed, see here:
Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher, wrote about an experience which he called the “dynamically sublime”. The dynamically sublime was a sense of sublimity caused by an overwhelming danger, which brought about bravery in mankind. The juxtaposition of this great danger and this great bravery is what caused the sense of the sublime. One particular source of this sense of the sublime, according to Kant, could come from war. War, Kant wrote, “has something sublime about it… only the more sublime the more numerous the dangers to which they are exposed, and which they are able to meet with fortitude” (Kant, 93). I believe that 1917 captures this sense of the sublimity of the bravery which it takes to sacrifice oneself in war. The climax of the film, which involves a massive charge of troops, with a main character taking a major risk to accomplish his mission, is monstrously sublime. In the theater it felt almost overwhelming.
Not much more can be said about 1917. It is both a technical and artistic masterpiece, and is one of the best films of the year. In a year which has been full of excellent films, 1917 will stand out. I would not be surprised to see 1917 win the Oscar for Best Picture this year. It also will not be much of a surprise if Deakins were to win yet another Best Cinematography award, although I personally am rooting for The Lighthouse for Best Cinematography.
For more information on how 1917 was filmed, see here:
Works Cited
KANT, IMMANUEL. CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT. A & D Publishing, 2018.
KANT, IMMANUEL. CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT. A & D Publishing, 2018.
