1917

Spoiler-free!

1917 is a WWI picture about two soldiers, Blake and Schofield, who are sent with a message of warning to a neighboring regiment, telling them not to attack lest they fall into a trap and be massacred by the enemy. It's told in real time. And oh yeah, it looks like it's done in one take.

Technical masterpiece, immersive wonder, blah blah blah. Here's the fact of the matter: "one take" films are useless gimmicks -- unless -- they have, like all good films do, a story worth telling, and worth telling in that specific way. This film not only has the right story, led by talented actors playing honest and beautiful characters -- its technical aspect actually supports and strengthens the story instead of being a distraction from it. Now that is impressive.

Directed by Sam Mendes. Co-written with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.

I spent a lot of time since August worrying that the continuous camera view would prevent me from becoming invested -- or even worse that the filmmakers would skimp on things like character and meaning in favor of showing off their technical achievements. I needn't have worried. Films like Children of Men gave me reason to, where the long shots are made to amaze to the detriment of everything else -- but it's clear that Sam Mendes had the opposite mindset. He utilizes the long takes as a storytelling medium rather than artistic ploy, and finally I see the value of the technique.

To see the step-by-step journey of those two men; the small talk, the jokes, the pauses, the contention and friendship, the frantic action, and the quietly harrowing moments, all pressed together into the same continuous space and presented in a realistic pace of time; it brings a unique sense of connection. Not ten minutes go by before you feel like you know them, and when you aren't spoon-fed aspects of their character such as their desires and fears, but instead must find them within the passing details of their actions, the reward for your noticing is all the greater.

The challenge is making it look effortless.

Roger Deakins did the cinematography work, and what stands out about it is that it doesn't stand out. It's not showy and doesn't call attention to the behind-the-scenes challenges that no doubt existed. Achieving its lovely simplicity while also keeping the picture free of any empty space in need of a cut is deceptively hard. One bothersome thing about long takes is when the camera must move from person to person during a conversation or action, and the delay drags the pace down. Not so here. The plot, actors, and cinematography are crafted into a trinity knot; an interweaving dance that has no perceptible beginning or end, lead or follow, but where each element supports -- and leans on -- the others equally.

The pacing is incredible. The rise and fall of tension, action, and emotion all crafted in front of our eyes instead of spliced together in the editing room. Nothing against editing of course, but it's a testament to the dedication and effort put into this work that it thrills and moves on the same level as any other film, when the rhythm of pace is so vital to creating investment and holding attention. They had no room for error, so they were sure to have none. Because what's the point in creating a technical wonder if the story leaves you cold and the characters are paper-thin? Why bother telling a story with masterful command of technique unless it will move an audience through honest meaning?

If this movie had been no more than an impressive technological feat, I wouldn't care two beans about it.

Which brings me to the heart and soul of the film -- Schofield, Blake, and the two young, relative unknowns who play them -- George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. They are supported by the talents of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Richard Madden; and even in such brief roles these established actors bring great depth and detail. Still it was George and Dean always who held my attention, who I wanted to see more of, and whose two every-men characters I wanted to know better. I've been a fan of George MacKay for a while already, seeking out even his obscure bit-parts to see more of his work, but it was no pre-established bias that made me fall in love with his portrayal of Schofield.

MacKay brings depth and nuance that fills up every moment. He's not overly expressive, more internalized, yet his every thought is readable through a genuine performance that can only come out of a fundamental, and deeply empathetic understanding of the character on the page. He brings both the character, and the film to its fully realized life. Chapman is equally immersed. You can tell they are both there feeling and thinking as their characters rather than putting on a show and pretense. They play off each other as foils to reveal the other's character in the true British fashion of not saying what you really mean, and the subtle detail with which they achieve it makes me eager to be there again and search for further understanding between the lines.

"Be there again." As opposed to "see it again."

I guess there is something to be said for the immersive experience of this film after all. I just think it's important to note what it is that you're being immersed into. A perfectly choreographed dance of actors, sets, and camerawork? That is impressive, yes, but add what that dance means -- the poetry of it, the sense of humanity, the struggle of an individual with individual hopes and cares on full display down to the smallest detail -- and that's when an impressive feat becomes art. And it is that art into which we are being immersed.

It's not the immersive quality in itself, or the mastered technical achievements alone that makes this film remarkable; the immersion is only the path we travel. In the same way that we understand the intangible thoughts and motivations within the characters of Schofield and Blake by reading beyond the tangible surface of their words and actions, so 1917 uses what technological, material language it has at its disposal to express truths of the immaterial human soul that extend beyond what mere words can say.

5 Favorite Couples Tag

Rules:

Pick one couple from each category

Tagging is optional

Link back to Revealed in Time.

Thanks to Ivy Miranda for creating and tagging me to do this! Time to let my romantic side run loose! I'll steer clear of spoilers for the plots of the movies/TV shows these characters inhabit, but there may or may not be some spoilers concerning the characters, individually and as a couple. Also click the links on the titles to read my reviews of said movies/TV shows! Let me know what you think of my picks in the comments, and participate in the tag if you want to! I'm not going to tag anyone, but would be delighted to see anyone's answers! On to it...

Categories:

1.) Period Drama Couple

2.) Sci-Fi/Fantasy Couple

3.) Superhero Couple

4.) Preferred Couple (from a love triangle) 
5.) Couple Ended Too Soon

Period Drama Couple:

Lizzy Bennet and Mr. Darcy

Pride and Prejudice

 "By you, I was properly humbled. I came to you without a doubt of my reception. You showed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased.” -- Mr. Darcy

 

Film-wise I do prefer the 1995 version (as you may be able to tell...) but this couple is more a credit to Austen's book than anything else. Lizzy and Darcy might even be my most beloved fictional couple of all time. First of all, the fact that I actually love both characters individually is pretty unusual. I love Lizzy's spirit and teasing nature, and how she delights in the ridiculous. And Darcy has that appealing sense of mystery to him, but then once the mystery begins to unravel he only gets more interesting and lovable with his heart of gold. Then together, especially in the novel, they fit together better than any other couple I can think of right now. Darcy is naturally serious and intimidating, but once they are engaged Lizzy gets right to him with her playful teasing and sharp wit in a lovely scene in the book that didn't make it into any film adaptation. They bring each other down from their lofty proud perches while raising up and enhancing their better qualities. A hate-turned-to-love relationship for the ages.

Sci-Fi/Fantasy Couple:

Jim and Selena

28 Days Later...

"That was longer than a heartbeat." -- Jim

This one could have gone to almost any number of couples. Sci-fi and fantasy genres have no shortage of cute couples after all. I decided to go with these two for one main reason: Often with science fiction, the point isn't really the romance. There can be great romances, but most of the time it's the sci-fi itself that really takes front and center. And that's certainly what you'd expect out of a zombie horror film. However, Jim and Selena's relationship ties directly into the theme of the film and becomes one of the film's most prominent features in the end. Jim is new to the zombie world and hasn't become a hardened survivor, but Selena has. She knows what it is to kill loved ones about to turn and we see her do it without hesitation. She tells Jim that she'd do the same to him in a heartbeat. She's become jaded, and survival has become the only thing left in her eyes. However the two develop a cute friendship, and Selena begins to see more than survival in like. And just as Jim completes his journey to becoming a hardened killer to survive, Selena regains her heart. When she thinks Jim is infected (but he isn't) she hesitates. And that says it all.

Superhero Couple:

Peggy Carter and Daniel Sousa

Agent Carter (Season1) (Season 2)

Sousa: "Nothing to say? No quick comeback?"

Peggy: *giant KISS*

Sousa: "...Good point."

This one's maybe a bit of a stretch since neither of these two have actual superpowers, but they are Marvel characters, so I'm gonna go with it! And it's not that I don't like Peggy's brief romance with Captain America in The First Avenger, but we all knew that could never last. From the very first episode of the first season of Agent Carter, I thought that Daniel would be perfect for her and hoped that they'd get together and that he would be confirmed as the husband she refers to in The Winter Soldier. I got one wish granted when they finally happen at the very end of season two. And as much as I would have been all for a third season, everyone knows that a happily ever after doesn't make for good drama, so at least they got that with their future being unexplored. Though I would have loved to see them together and happy a little longer than that brief make-out session -- they were all kinds of adorable even before they were a couple!

 

Preferred Couple (from a love triangle):

Jonathan Byers and Nancy Wheeler

Stranger Things

Jonathan: I guess I'd rather observe people than... you know...
Nancy: Talk to them.
Jonathan: I know. It's weird.
Nancy: No!
Jonathan: No, it is! It's just, sometimes... people don't really say what they're really thinking. But when you capture the right moment, it says more.

This category is the reason I took so long to make this list. All the love triangles I knew of I was tired of (like The Hunger Games) or weren't really fair, having a clear correct winner. But then I saw Stranger Things. Jonathan (left), Nancy, and Steve make up a very well-balanced and amazingly realistic triangle and are the most interesting side plot of an incredibly interesting show. Jonathan is the weird, unpopular loner who's too busy trying to be the man of his house to engage in high school social drama, and Nancy is a nice girl well on her way to becoming a grade-A jerk, dating the charming but wild and worldly Steve. But when she and Jonathan are thrown together by certain plot events, the friction between the two quickly turns to sparks of romance. Nancy leaves the path to becoming a popular snob, and Jonathan opens up to her. They bring out the best in each other, and there are so many sweet moments to appreciate. But, in a wacky twist, their friendship opens Steve's eyes to his less-than-commendable ways, and he improves his character as well, with a surprisingly awesome redemptive turn. And suddenly there's no clear frontrunner. Jonathan is my favorite character on the show (or in the top two, at least) so he's my pick, but really the two sides are so evenly balanced that I may be swayed in the future as plot and characters develop. We'll see where season 2 takes them!

Couple Ended Too Soon:

Morse and Joan Thursday

Endeavour

Morse: "Well, there are coppers and there are coppers."

Joan: "And what kind are you, then?"

Morse: "I'm the kind that sees young ladies safely to their door."

Poor Morse and his relationship woes! I've been shipping Joan (the daughter of Inspector Thursday, Morse's boss) with Morse ever since their first meeting -- as I'm sure we were meant to -- and in the most resent season we got as close as I fear we ever will concerning them. That is of course, because Morse has eternally bad luck with love -- to his increasing endearment, and in spite of his being one of the biggest hopeless romantics of all time. And Joan seems like a perfect match for him; a young girl in need of a direction and an influence, and whenever she is influenced by Morse she doesn't seem so lost. And Morse always needs someone to care for, and Joan almost constantly provides that for him. The both of them obviously have crushes cultivating, but Morse doesn't do anything about it for so long. Who knows why; maybe he's scared of Inspector Thursday. But when a life-changing event occurs that prompts Morse to finally declare his love, that same event drives Joan further away than she's ever been. Over as soon as it began. Just another step in the steep staircase of Morse's tragic love life. 

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Spoilers are marked.
I watched this movie using VidAngel, so thanks Daniel, for recommending it!

The spy genre gets the gleefully self-aware treatment when gentleman spy Harry aka, Galahad (Colin Firth) recruits a trouble-making young man, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to follow in his father's footsteps and train to become a spy for the Kingsman -- a very posh secret agency whose members go by knights of the round table code names, and save the world with graceful violence, in the best suits a tailor can cut, before nobly fading away again without receiving any thanks or recognition.

Kingsman is basically every spy-movie cliche made extreme and put into a film. On purpose. And it's great!

Act one takes its time and gives us a great introduction to said trouble-maker-soon-to-be-hero. Eggsy's father died saving Galahad's life, and Eggsy seems to have inherited that nobility. But his side of mischief is a double helping -- he's very light-fingered for one, plus has a careless, impulsive attitude and never considers anything before jumping straight into trouble for no real reason at all. He's the ideal kind of lead for this movie, exuding heaps of energy and charm with a matter-of-fact edgy side. Taron Egerton's breakout role, and no surprise; besides being quite the looker, his screen presence is sparkling, and effortlessly draws you in to care for this character. And the script gave a pleasantly unexpected amount of depth to Eggsy's troubles that together with Egerton's characterization and performance made for a very endearing hero very fast.

So when the second act starts and Eggsy must compete with a large bunch of Kingsman recruits who also happen to be mostly made up of total snobs, I was even more involved in the training than I was the real stuff once that really got going. This was the height of the movie's fun factor. I mean, putting a bunch of kids in a competition and asking us to root for the fish-out-of-water underdog isn't the most original thing ever, and not naturally conducive to being uniquely entertaining, but somehow it totally was. The tests they are given for training were all great fun, because they were the sort of cheesy, crazy things that old spy movies were incapable of doing, and newer movies with the right budget never do for fear of being unoriginal.

Kingsman didn't care about being unoriginal, because it made everything unoriginal feel original anyway!

The action was quite stylized in an unusual way and was used quite impressively. The best fight scene was the one in the pub near the beginning, where you can see the style play out the most. The choreography is top-notch, fun and exciting and everything the movie promises. The camera lets you see everything, not by staying still and just avoiding the dreaded shaky-cam, but by actually following the action in order to enhance it. It pans down along with someone being smashed into the floor, zooms in and out crazily and moves in unexpected twists and arcs, and it all works beautifully. Later it's toned back a little but the final battle still had plenty of coolness going for it.

The worst of the action comes along with a few other downfalls, right around the third acts beginning, when training is over, and the saving the world part starts up. It all starts at the quaint little church in Kentucky where Christians are represented as violent crazed extremists who in reality would be a cult. So I started out this scene with my eyebrow raised, and then the film began to fall apart and lose me on an artistic level as well. The length of the violence there is far, far, too long, not serving any purpose to the plot or to our entertainment. (Spoilers!) Then, it sets up Galahad for his death -- which I did like how they took the opportunity to have some fun thumbing their nose at the spy movie cliche, but the result of it was Galahad dying very anticlimactically, with, for me a least, a lot left wanting in his relationship with Eggsy. I'm not sure if or how they could have done it better, but sadly that was the beginning of a slight but noticeable downhill slope.

Quite a good cast. I never mention it, but Michael Caine is in it too. And Jack Davenport. And Mark Hamill!

The film evens out again for a while as Mark Strong's agent Merlin takes over for Galahad as leader, and he, Eggsy, and Roxy (Sophie Cookson) another new recruit take on Samuel L. Jackson's lisping, queasy-stomached super villain intent on saving the Earth by destroying most of its inhabitants. They get into a bit of a groove -- Mark Strong does wonders for anything he's in -- but after a while it teeters downward again as you realize that most of the deeper meaning behind all the vibrancy and fun died with Galahad. Eggsy still needs to save his mother and baby sister along with the rest of the population, but there's no real urgency present. Not like when he and five other recruits were falling and one had a sabotaged parachute. That was urgent -- but that was in the second act.

Another cliche is smashed when Samuel L. Jackson's humanity-destroying device is actually set off, instead of being stopped just in time. The device causes people to want to kill each other, and that commences while Eggsy has the final showdown with Swords-For-Legs Girl (Sofia Boutella) which was cool, but when he stands gloating over her dead body while millions of people kill each other and has to be reminded my Merlin to go turn it off -- that was the film's low point. Not right for his character either. (End of Spoilers.) I loved that they wanted to have fun turning the cliches around in such a fun, self-aware way. They even slyly broke the fourth wall two or three times with cheeky brilliance. But a film needs to have meaning, and by the end of Kingsman, they had forgotten and left behind most of the meaning they began with.

Waiter: "Would sir care for a drink?" Eggsy: "Martini. Gin, not vodka, obviously. Stirred for ten seconds while glancing at an unopened bottle of Vermouth." Brilliant.

Still, overall, Kingsman has more depth and more things to involve you than your average gleefully violent, casually profane R-rated action comedy. It has... manners. And what with such a charming lead, the refined, sophisticated, bitingly sharp humor, a plot that is deceptively basic, involving you by just plain being good, and the truly original and outstanding action, this is a breezy, fun and stylin' spy flick that deserves its place on the ultra-cool team.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

Last month my personal predictions were accurate: Agent Carter wound up being just as fun as I expected and saved January from being a complete let-down in the entertainment department. Here I review episodes 1 and 2, 3 here, and 4 here. February will be happily filled with them as well as the last four air! But on the film side, February is looking up from its preceding month with a few movies with some potential, and one surprise must-see!

Seventh Son
Feb 6th; PG-13
Another one of those adaptations from a YA novel. This one isn't dystopian though, so that's different. It's more Eragon, with a magic-filled medieval setting. And there's a heavy dose of the creepy sorcery. Ben Barnes plays the lead, the seventh son of a seventh son, which makes him very important somehow, and Jeff Bridges is his mentor, who must train him to-- I don't know, fight evil... that part isn't very clear. Julianne Moore is the villain. I don't imagine this will be good at all, and though the trailer wants you to think "300" or "Godzilla," it looks more like "Clash of the Titans" except even more weird and even less popular.




Jupiter Ascending
Feb 6th; PG-13
Not to be confused with Mercury Rising. This movie can be completely balanced with pros and cons, see: Pro; it has Sean Bean (and I'm very curious to see how his death scene turns out) -- con; it has Channing Tatum. It has Eddie Redamayne (and he's doing a cool "whisper every line" thing) -- it has Mila Kunis (and she wears an awful lot of makeup for her "degrading, unglamorous job"). It has James D'Arcy -- apparently; 3 trailers and five days til release and I've seen no evidence of his existence in this movie. It has super cool special effects -- that will undoubtedly smother any trace of a compelling plot line. With so many extending action sequences, at least we won't have to sit through too much of the un-compelling and weird plot -- who am I kidding, we definitely are. And thus the balance tips.




Kingsman: The Secret Service
Feb 13th; R
I have been excitedly anticipating this movie since I first saw the trailer sometime in September. Or, rather I should say "had" been. I only learned a couple weeks ago of it's R rating, which I seriously will never understand because there's no way it needs all that to be fun or funny, because the trailer looks awesomely fun and hilariously funny, and it's totally clean! Anyway, the plot is kinda like Spy Kids for adults... or Johnny English minus the imbecile... or X-Men without the superpowers... Ooo! Or James Bond with lots of comedy! Newcomer Taron Egerton stars as one of many college-age kids selected to train to become a Kingsman (super-cool gentleman spy). Colin Firth is the agent who sees his potential, and Samuel L. Jackson is the baddie. Michael Caine and Mark Strong are also there.




The Last Five Years
Feb 13th; PG-13
With February always comes the slew of romance movies, and this one stands a little bit out from the rest by being musical, based on a stage musical. It's about a couple's five-year-long romance, and is formatted interestingly; the girl's (Anna Kendrick) point of view is retrospective, starting at the end of their marriage (spoilers, much?) and ending when they meet; and the guy's (Jeremy Jordan, of Broadway fame) goes normally, from beginning to end. (So it's a bit like The Doctor and River, except, not at all... I'm probably just confusing you... I'm confused too.) With Anna Kendrick, and Jeremy Jordan, I'm sure the music and singing will be great, but there's not much else here to really interest.




Old Fashioned
Feb 13th; PG-13
This is the perfect example of why I do this Upcoming Movies post at all, because I doubt I would have ever noticed this little movie flying under the radar of other Valentine fare. It's an indie rom-com about a guy, who, after abandoning his wild and secular lifestyle meets a girl he's interested in, and doesn't know how his new moral self should handle it -- so they try an old fashioned courtship. It's being marketed as an alternative and polar opposite to 50 Shades of Grey, which is just brilliant. I'd want to see it just because of that, but I want to see it anyway -- and definitely I will. With it's limited release I might not get an opportunity for a while, but I will at my earliest convenience. The premise is great, and if it's done well, the movie could be great too.



Does February hold any promise for your entertainment?

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

Jennifer Ehle. Colin Firth. Elizabeth Bennet. Mr. Darcy. BBC. Six episodes. Five hours. Classic.

I love this picture...

I was around eleven years old when I first saw this mini-series. I remember getting pretty bored, and very restless, but I watched it. Over and over in fact, because of my parents and older sister. I tried to understand what was going on, and waited for a view of a horse or a pretty dress. Whenever I did understand a bit or piece here or there, I was incredibly proud of myself, and tried even harder to understand even more. Nearly nine years, and probably at least thirty viewings later, I've got a handle on the story, but I'm still catching new intricacies every time.

I'm going to have to make a conscious effort here, to not cover every single bit of this movie. So if you think of anything I left out, just automatically assume I loved it - unless it's a change from the book; then just assume that I "tolerate it with equanimity."

First off, the cast. Overall, obviously, no complaints. I am especially impressed though, with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle as Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet. They look great and sound great, but I love watching their reactions most of all; the subtleties there are so exquisite.

Watching Mr. Darcy's subtle smiles and expressions is one of my favorite things.

Everyone is well cast, and thanks to the five-hour run time, all get a little time of their own to shine in. Mr. Wickham (Adrian Lukis) is a great villain, and you almost feel bad that you have to dislike him; it's very rewarding though, to dislike the more obviously evil Lady Catherine (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) and Bingley's (Crispin Bonham-Carter) sisters (Lucy Robinson and Anna Chancellor). Mrs. Bennet and other more mildly annoying characters are just the right amount of annoying, and fun to laugh at along with Lizzy. None of the characters are perfect - the good, likable characters all have their flaws - and we love them even more for it. Every character is individually developed just like their book counterparts; everyone loveable in their own way.

The story was adapted very faithfully, carefully, from Jane Austen's beloved novel, maintaining all the main plot points perfectly, and, just as importantly, the theme, the feel and the point of the entire book. Along with the dialogue, Austen's dry wit and satire remains happily intact. The complex characters are understood and done justice through the writers as well as the actors - a team effort, with everyone giving their all.

Lydia (Julia Sawalha), Jane (Susannah Harker), Mary (Lucy Briers), Kitty (Polly Maberly, honest), and Lizzy (Jennifer Ehle). All wonderful.

 I should clarify that I definitely don't get either restless or bored watching this anymore, even with the large number of times I've seen it. I still pay attention, and make sure I never leave the room when one of my absolute favorite parts are coming up. Obvious moments like when Lizzy and Mr. Darcy dance at Netherfield, and the two proposal scenes make my list, but also some more understated moments. Like Lizzy's reaction as Mr. Bennet reads Mr. Collins' letter in the final episode. Or the way Lizzy plays with Mr. Wickham, then finally lets him know she knows he had lied after he's married Lydia. Or when Mr. Darcy rolls his eyes behind Lady Catherine's back... and every time he relinquishes an understated smile. And many other little moments. I don't often leave the room while this movie is playing.

The busy scenes are especially great, because the background is always so interesting, with people mingling in the background, and actually developing their characters even more while a couple characters in the foreground carry on a conversation. Brilliant - making the most of every minute.

And I still love those pretty dresses. I now appreciate the men's costumes as well though, and I like looking for the fashion differences in the characters, and determining whether they are caused by the character's personal tastes, or their position or rank in life. Same with the houses, furniture, food... it's all so interesting!

I think I want this dress...

Speaking of their life, that's another thing I love - it's foreign to me, so I love to see the way life was lived back then. What was normal, what was considered right, and then through Lizzy's eyes, what of those things were ridiculous and laughable. Not only do we learn how society worked then, we also learn that it was just as silly sometimes as practical people now know today's society to be. Some things never change. It's a little like this movie (like the novel) was made for people of the early 1800s, and to truly understand it, you have to understand the time. An obstacle sure, but once you're over it, the reward is extremely satisfying. In this category, I still have much to learn.

Much like Lizzy in this scene. Another great costume example too - Mr. Darcy favors his green coat, and I can see why!

Even without understanding the time well, or even all, there is still something to this story... a love story. And not just about two people who fell in love, but two characters - two realistic people, proud and prejudiced as they were, who changed themselves, built up a strong relationship, and acted their love. Austen knew her characters, and knew how to develop them and shape them into a story - a satire, a comedy, a drama. A romance. And everyone involved with bringing her vision to the screen in this version knew how to adapt her story; they knew how to carefully translate it - as literally and respectfully as possible - to a different medium. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how Austen is done.

-- 5/5 stars.

My third review for this challenge!