1917 Review
It’s not often that a war film tanks. Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, The Great Escape, generally this genre does well in the cinema. From the emotional roller coaster you go on as a viewer, to the impressive effects, the characters you can’t help but feel drawn to, and the fact this genre is based on real-life events that should have never happened. The newest war film that has been introduced to us is 1917.
There are a few factors that will take a war film from “yet another war film” to stand-out excellence. Firstly, the casting choice. To create a film based on tragic events in which an unimaginable amount of the population died (this refers to both World Wars), the characters on screen have to be able to create a connection with the audience for them to feel any kind of hope that this won’t just be two hours of misery. Think Captain John H Miller (played by Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan), or Desmond Doss (played by Andrew Garfield in Hacksaw Ridge). This film follows this trend, by casting George MacKay as Lance Corporal William Schofield and Dean Charles-Chapman as Lance Corporal Thomas Blake. The acting by both main actors is tremendous. They make you grimace, cry, hide behind your hands and even let out a small smile during a sweet moment of connection with an innocent baby.
There is also an abundance of brilliant British actors such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Richard Madden that offer up some memorable moments. If you’re also a fan of the incredible television series, Fleabag, Andrew Scott makes a wonderful little link between his character Lieutenant Leslie, and his Fleabag character, hot priest.
When watching the most successful war films in the cinema, they often feel like you’re part of an experience rather than simply watching a movie. 1917 absolutely achieves this. The one-shot cinematography technique that the film has become famous for, cleverly makes you feel as if you’re a third soldier in the film, almost like it’s from the audience members’ point of view. Whether the characters are storming through the British trench, sneaking around the German trench, or running across no-mans-land, you’re right there with them — feeling the same fear, anxiety and urgency.
The lighting choice of the film adds an extra element. Running through a war-torn French city is stunning to watch. Hiding in the solemn, melancholic no-mans-land feels miserable. You simply cannot look away as the characters push their way through a bright white trench while soldiers wait to run over the top.
There is a seriously flawed part of this genre, however, and that’s the complete erasure of people of colour. We forced Caribbean communities, Asian communities and anyone else that was less powerful than us to fight for us. Yet, war films have been extremely white-washed for far too long. Thankfully, this film does acknowledge other races and cultures, with the inclusion of Indian, black and mixed-race soldiers. However, it’s still not enough. We absolutely need to see more inclusion in this movie genre. We’ve been told stories of white men in both world wars, but we’re not being told the stories of any other communities that helped us win both wars.
Despite this, the film does wholeheartedly deserve the award nominations it received, and the awards it won. But if this film genre is going to be brought into the modern world, it needs to stop erasing whole cultures that were involved in both world wars. Their stories deserve to be told too, and there’s certainly an audience for it.
Hannah Parker
