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.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

I've been playing catch-up in November and didn't see anything that I mentioned yet. Though I did watch The King off Netflix (a November release that I overlooked somehow) and was impressed enough with it that I wanted to give it a review. (Read it here!) We got to the theater to see Jojo Rabbit, which was a wonderful little film, full of wicked humor and genuine heart. (Read my review here!) And I caught up on one that I wanted to see in theaters but never did -- The Peanut Butter Falcon. It was so good, clean, warm and full of adventure that I wish I had seen it in theaters, but I'm glad I've seen it now. (Review here!)

Now it's December (Merry Christmas!) and there's one last movie I need to see before my end-of-year list will be complete. And it's not Star Wars, though I'm looking forward to that, too. There's more than a few good looking releases coming before 2020 though -- I hope the decade ends with a fantastic month of movies!

What looks good to you?? See y'all again in the New Year!



The Aeronauts
Limited release Dec 6th, streaming Dec 20th; PG-13
Eddie Redmayne hires Felicity Jones to fly a hot air balloon for him so he can study the atmosphere. It says inspired by a true story, so you know it's 100% fictional, and it seems like the movie throws one obstacle after another at them to ramp up the action and tension aspect. Still it'll be streaming on Amazon since it's an Amazon production -- and it's an adventure! I'll always give adventure movie their due chance to impress.




Richard Jewell
In theaters Dec 13th; R
Now this Clint Eastwood film is actually a true story. About a security guard who found a bomb and saved a ton of lives, but then was smeared by the media who believed that he set the bomb in the first place. He fought them (my favorite Sam Rockwell play his lawyer) and proves his innocence, but the media of course didn't spread the truth like they did the lie. They'd already ruined his life, why bother to take it back? So Mr. Eastwood is making this film so that everyone will know and his name will be cleared in public perception as well. It's sad though, because Jewell died back in 2007. Still it's a story worth telling. I'm glad it's being told, and I'll definitely watch it.




Jumanji: The Next Level
In theaters Dec 13th; PG-13
The Rock, Jack Black, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan (and even Nick Jonas) are back for round two of this surprisingly fun reboot of the Jumanji franchise. I seriously don't expect this to rise to the same levels as the last one (genuinely good dumb fun can be hard to do with a big head but we'll see) but even if it doesn't it's not like it's going to ruin anything. A rare example of worry-free sequel!




Uncut Gems
Limited release Dec 13th; R
I may have heard of this one because it's an A24 production crime drama hype. But the only reason I'd want to watch is this: to see Adam Sandler do this level of acting. It's something I'm not surprised he had in him, and it's about time it came out.




Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
In theaters Dec 20th; PG-13
I mean... it's Star Wars, so I'll be there. I was happy when J.J. got the job for this movie, but still haven't been able to build hype for it very far. I expect it'll be about as good as The Force Awakens, but even if it turns out worse than The Last Jedi it won't really make much difference. One thing I know will happen, and that's all I need: Rey, Finn, and Poe, actually in scenes together. Whoever heard of a Star Wars trilogy where the leading trio only interact in the third movie?? But at least it'll happen before it all ends. Maybe it'll be fun, maybe not. I'm really just curious to see at this point!




Cats
In theaters Dec 20th; PG
Another case of curiosity. Insert curiosity/cat joke here, haha. This is such a bizarre mix of awful and unique. I can't tear my eyes away. I won't see it in theaters, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested at all. It's just to weird to ignore.




Spies in Disguise
In theaters Dec 25th; PG
This looks silly. And probably not very good. I'm sure it's more made for the actors, Will Smith and Tom Holland to mess around with than it is a story that's good, entertaining, and worthwhile in its own right -- but since I like the cast, I'm sure I'll give it a chance someday. I just kinda wish Tom Holland would stop wasting his career. Seems like Hollywood has him pigeonholed (pun not intended but I'll allow it) as the endearing goofy idiot and I'm already growing tired of it.




Little Women
In theaters Dec 25th; PG
Every once in a while you need a new adaptation of Little Women, and this one has top-notch production value that's getting me pretty excited. I loved Greta Gerwig's writing and directing in Lady Bird. Also the stars from that film, Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet were great, and seem very well cast as Jo and Laurie perspectively. Emma Watson as Meg isn't ideal but will likely work, and I haven't see Florence Pugh (Amy) in anything yet but hear tell she's talented. I'd love to see this wind up being a high quality as faithful adaptation -- I don't think it's a guarantee, but here's hoping!




1917
Limited release Dec 25th; R
And THIS is most anticipated of the whole year! A WWI story, in which two soldiers must race to warn another group of an impending ambush. The film takes place in real time, shot as if it were one, long continuous shot for the entire feature. As cool as that sounds, that's also my biggest worry, that the gimmick will distract from the story. Or even that the story won't have been developed far due to reliance on the gimmick. There are many big names here -- Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, and Richard Madden -- but the two lead are less known: George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. Chapman was in Netflix's The King briefly, and MacKay has been doing impressive indie work for a while already. He's one of my current favorite actors, and I'm excited to see him lead a film that could easily be a favorite of the year, if all goes to plan!

The King

Spoiler-free!

A Netflix film about King Henry V -- not the Shakespeare version, though it's certainly equally as speculative. Timothée Chalamet stars as Hal, who reluctantly takes the throne after Henry IV dies and Hal's brother who wants the throne (and Hal wants him to have it too) is killed in battle. The film then speculates on the reason why Hal decides to conquer France. And it's an interesting plot in the end, though I couldn't say whether it's based on truth. I expect not.

Directed by David Michôd (The Rover, Animal Kingdom), co-written with Joel Edgerton.

Any film about Henry V would be boring if it weren't speculative and even this one toes the line. But before I turn you off from it accidentally, I have to say I'm writing this review because I enjoyed it much more than I was expecting to. It's a flawed movie, but my ultimate goal here is to recommend it. With that noted, its main flaw from my perspective is a severe lack of personality. You almost don't notice all the great things that happen because the film has either no idea or no intention of serving them up in a cinematic, dramatic storytelling way.

Maybe it was trying to be subtle. It was certainly trying to be subdued, with its lingering shots on expressionless faces and dulled color palate. But more it seemed like it didn't know where to put the dramatic emphasis. Early in the movie there's a slow-mo section of Prince Hal and his degenerate bar friends getting drunk and laughing. The scene is played up and accompanied by dramatic music, but there was no emotional weight within that scene that would benefit from the enhancement. Later, moments that do carry emotional weight and could have used a stylistic pick-me-up are comparatively breezed by and left less effective.

Every time a character dropped an F-bomb it completely threw me back into the modern world. That may have been the biggest flaw of all.

Now, this is a flaw that could render the film boring to casual viewers, but if you're interested in getting a good story out of this, it is there. You just have to pay a little closer attention because the film isn't going to serves the highs and lows properly. The characters are the highlight. Chalamet underplays Hal in a way that works with the movie's dulled and subtle tone, giving enough detail to the performance that the character isn't lost. And he is written well, which is most important. Joel Edgerton is back in form with his endearing portrayal of Falstaff. And the other characters that weave in and out fill out the tapestry nicely. Ben Mendelsohn, Dean-Charles Chapman, Sean Harris, Robert Pattinson, Tom Glynn-Carney, Lily-Rose Depp, and Thomasin McKenzie all bring their brief characters to life.

The secondary problem is that the narrative has little structure. A flaw that can be traced back to lack of emotional rise and fall, and the brief interludes of characters. They are too brief, populating the story for moments, then fading away without having accomplished anything relevant to an overarching story, as good as their individual scenes may be. I quite liked Thomasin McKenzie as Hal's sister; but can't figure why the movie thought her a necessary or relevant inclusion. Once the end is reached you can see a trace of structure looking back, but in the thick of it the story seemed nothing more than a collection of irrelevant scenes and neat vignettes.

At 2 hours and 20 mins, you need to be able to dive in and appreciate that it takes its time, or else you'll just be counting down the minutes until it's over. 

The best of these moments were the battles. They were few are far between but were built up to and executed shockingly well. The one-on-one combat had a scrappy and unchoreographed feel to it that I appreciated, and the main battle against the French was planned and set up fascinatingly. The siege, though brief, looked incredible; in general, the effects and staging were of impressively high quality. If I had to recommend this film for only one reason it, would be the combat, though it takes up perhaps 20% of the film at best. The rest is lackadaisical-but-good character drama and emotionless-but-dedicated building to the fights.

Of Netflix-distributed products these days, it's far easier to do worse than The King than it is to do better.