11 January 2020 12:39

British Academy of Film and Television Arts Nomination The Irishman

The enemy is dug up while waiting to kill two English battalions who believe that this enemy is exposed and fleeing in full retreat. If the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment does not receive an order to cancel this attack against the Germans, some 1600 men will be torn to pieces. The only way to alert them is to send a message by hand. Two men, two incredibly young men, are given the job. It is the spring of the third year of the First World War. Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) have only a few hours to deliver this message.

Review ‘1917’: Technically Dazzling, Emotionally Missing

First, they will have to cover, mainly on foot, kilometers of flat and exposed land which, until a few hours ago, was occupied by the Germans. The two men leave the relatively safe limits of the trenches and, in broad daylight, travel through a deserted landscape of hell, a post-apocalyptic world strewn with corpses, stumps of trees, shelled buildings, dead animals and faceless enemy booby traps. (integrated) (/ integrated) The main idea of ​​the film is that it is supposed to look like a film taken in one take, one shot (two, in fact). There is a good reason for this. The idea, I guess, is that this approach will make us, the viewers, feel like the third man on the mission. And in a few scenes, it works, especially a shocking turning point in a deserted farm. Overall, however, with the camera bouncing and diving, sometimes shyly (but nowhere near as shy as this terrible Oscar-winning Birdman), you feel like you are losing something, mostly any sense of intimacy with the characters. Close-ups were invented for a reason, and when the camera behaves like a voyeur instead of a lover, or the attempt to keep this unique tracking plan is so tense that you can't help but notice, it takes you out of the movie. Sometimes frustrated. There is a scene in a dark basement that clearly lacks privacy and desire, director Sam Mendes. The potential was there. It is poignantly written and interpreted. Unfortunately, the gadget keeps us at bay. Part of the problem could be mine. Although I have never read reviews before seeing a movie, I can't avoid the hype, and 1917 is a critically acclaimed favorite for the best movie. For this reason, I entered assuming I was going to see something like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) or Paths of Glory (1957), two masterpieces from the First World War that you can never really shake. In terms of performance and technically, 1917 beats the group. The problem is the lack of backlash. Beyond war is a terrible and obscene waste of young lives, 1917 has little to say. Towards the end, through Benedict Cumberbatch, who has a small role, this is unnecessarily spoken aloud. War films should be more than that, even war films with no Oscar aspirations. Saving Private Ryan is how terrible the war is and the importance of a single life. Everything is calm about how terrible the war is and the trap set by society to deceive young people into believing that war means glory. Paths of Glory tells how terrible the war is and the corruption of an uncontrolled officer class. Even programmers like Fixed Bayonets (1951) talk about the severity of the war and meet the leadership challenge. 1917 is how terrible the war is and… and…. and … It is not even a story of maturity or overcoming cowardice. You may not notice it, but you certainly feel it when the characters are not developing, especially the main characters to which you never feel connected because the camera does not allow it. You want to find out how this journey changes your protagonist. Is he becoming a man? Is he becoming hardened and cynical?. Everyone gets here is dirty, exhausted and hopeless. In this way, more than any other film, 1917 reminded me of the 1959 Japanese film Fires on the Plain, but it's still a better film because it has a backlash, those ideas that you can never really shake. Make no mistake, 1917 is a good movie. Sometimes it's better than good. It's never pretentious, you never get bored and the British army is treated with the respect it deserves. If you are looking for a few hours of escape and explosions mixed with moments of tension, you could do much worse. If you are looking for something to live up to the hype and stick to the ribs, this is not it. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook page here. Advertisement