OSCARS 2020: 1917 (2019)

“1917” was always going to be an Oscar frontrunner. Sam Mendes may not be Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino, as far as critical esteem goes, but he is a previous Best Picture/Director winner whose movies are usually extremely well received. With “1917,” the director was putting his mark on the war movie epic, a genre that is usually favorable to Academy voters. The gimmick of telling this story in real time, in a series of long shots combined to create the illusion of one continuous shot, was obviously going to catch people's attention. The movie was greeted with very positive reviews and even decent box office. At the start of the award season cycle, “1917” did not seem like a likely Best Picture winner. Yet, as Oscar Sunday grows closer, Mendes' World War I thriller is seeming more and more like it'll take home the top prize. Is the movie even that good?

Inspired by the stories Mendes' grandfather wrote about the Great War, the film takes place in April of the titular year. On the Western front, the German army has retreated, causing the British army to move forward. This, however, is a trap and the Germans are waiting to overwhelm the British with artillery. This information is given to two young soldiers, Lance Corporals Will Schofield and Tom Blake. They are then instructed to walk through enemy territory and deliver the announcement to the Colonel, calling off the advancement and saving hundreds of lives. This mission proves easier said than done.

There is a moment, about half-way through “1917,” that has to be among the year's most visually stunning. After Will barely survives being shot by a German sniper, he awakens in the dead of night. The village, now in ruins, stretches out before him. The flashing of flames and bombs is the only thing that lights up the pitch black location. The sequence is equally dream-like, for the way the camera floats down into the battle-ravaged city, and otherworldly, the war having rendered a normal location almost unrecognizable. The chaotic run through this hellish landscape continues until we quite literally crash into dark waters, as cool and blue as the blazing town is yellow and fiery. Considering Roger Deakins was “1917's” cinematographer, it's no surprise the movie is visually spellbinding. The strong images go a long way to establishing “1917” as a film that lingers in the mind.

Much of the press surrounding “1917” has focused on the long takes. (Mendes and his team earns points for not pretending the movie was actually shot in one continuous take.) It turns out, this is not just a visual gimmick designed to show off the skills of the director and his team. Instead, “1917” is built to put the viewers right in the same place as the characters. Tension can't help but built as Will and Tom walk through the trenches, as they fight through barb wire and fall into a crater littered with dead bodies. You really start to feel this intimate quality when the duo is exploring an abandoned German tunnel system, which ends up exploding thanks to an unlucky rat. From there, “1917” rarely stops thrusting the watcher right into the middle of combat. When a downed airplane crashes towards the two, you almost have to duck to avoid getting hit by it too. When Tom runs through a field being pelted with explosions, you feel the heat on his heels. It's a shockingly effective trick.

Yet “1917” is not just devoted to adrenaline pumping thrill sequences. The film slows down several times throughout its journey. Mendes makes these scenes really count, creating huge exclamation points of quiet in-between the war torn battlements. Will almost drifts into sleep while traveling on a truck with other soldiers. He briefly bonds with a French woman and her child while escaping the village, singing a poem to the baby. The most effective such sequence in the film occurs when, after finally arriving at his destination, a collection of men sitting in the fog emerge. As they listen to one of their own sing a beautiful song, a sense of calm and quiet washes over. Moments like these don't just insure that “1917” is excellently paced. They remind us of what is loss during wartime. This is made all the more explicit during another quiet moment, among the film's saddest and most stirring.

Another nice touch of “1917” is that it's cast largely with unknowns. Most of the actors in the film do not look like adult men and certainly not grizzled soldiers. Instead, they look like fresh-faced boys. This, after all, is an accurate representation of what age most soldiers actually are. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman do not look like movie stars. They look like normal kids, who are horribly in over their heads and totally unprepared for what they are called to do. Both have great chemistry together, with MacKay's determination proving especially appealing. Mendes slots the recognizable stars into brief supporting roles, having Colin Firth, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch appear as the voices of authority.

It's pretty easy to figure out why “1917” could potentially take home the Best Picture prize on February 9th. In our politically divided times, with the opposing extremes of the spectrum represented by the class rebellion of “Parasite” and the nihilism of “Joker,” “1917” is a very safe choice. And if you remember that many Academy voters take “best” to mean “most,” Mendes' latest is certainly among the most visually spectacular and bracingly cinematic of the nominees. Yet don't take that as a mark against “1917.” It's actually an exceptionally good movie in its own right, a blazing visual experience with a pounding, humanistic heart that leaves the viewer but thrilled and touched. [9/10]