When it comes to impressive achievements in filmmaking, “1917” deserves to be near the top of the conversation. This war film, which unfolds in two hours of real time, is shot to appear as one continuous take. Thankfully, it is so much more than just a technical gimmick. The showiness eases up as the emotional weight of the story unfolds, but it’s still hard not to get stuck on the challenges and manner of the moviemaking rather than the characters that should be the focal point of the film.

Set during the First World War, the story follows Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), two young British soldiers who are given a seemingly impossible mission: deliver a message across hostile territory to the front lines. In a race against time, these men must deliver the information within a couple of hours if they want to stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldiers’ brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap.

The plot is thin, and the characters even more so. Instead of learning more about Schofield and Blake, the showy filmmaking technique commands the spotlight over learning more interesting aspects of these soldiers. It’s more of an experiment in “look what I can do!” rather than compelling storytelling. The camera becomes more of a character than the actual characters.

Does this matter? Not really. Roger Deakins is a master cinematographer, and his technique here creates a fully immersive experience. Paired with director Sam Mendes, the two capture the trench warfare of WWI with clever camerawork that not only gives a real sense of the distance these men had to travel, but makes you feel trapped alongside them as fellow soldiers sharing the same journey. The intimate style of camerawork makes you feel as if you are right there in the trenches, on the battlefield, with these two young men. Since the film is made to feel like it was shot in real time, it becomes a psychological wartime thriller as time begins to run out.

“1917” is a large scale spectacle that often overshadows its small scale story, but there’s no disputing that it is a grand achievement in filmmaking.


  1. Thank you very much Louisa. An insightful review. I felt that this film should be mandatory viewing for high school students due to the immersive nature of the filming technique. Such students would come away with an excellent understanding.

    Its shortcoming was in the characterisations and I was left wanting to know more. Schofield had an upper class accent as opposed to Blake’s regional tones. Could this have been a source of friction? At times the former seemed dismissive of the soldier with more humble origins. A shame these themes were not explored further but there was no time.

    It was very good at doing what it did well even if this was just ‘showiness’ as you’ve said. Was it deserving of the Golden Globe award in your opinion?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I couldn’t agree with your review more, Louisa. “1917” is one of the finest films I’ve ever seen, but it because of the technical aspects and achievements in filmaking that Sam Mendes has brought to life. When this film gets the Original Screenplay award and Sam gets teary-eyed about his family’s tale, I’ll be heaving popcorn at the screen because the basics of a good tale are absent — no character development, and a flimsy tale that makes for an interesting 20-minute yarn over Christmas dinner. What is done with that thin story is an exceptional achievement, but it is the Camera that wins the Best Actor in a Leading Role here, not the unknowns in the starring roles or the big stars in bit parts.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s