Generally, Studly Doright and I are on the same page when it comes to movies. We do have our particular viewing niches, though. He tends toward movies that are big on sophomoric humor, while I enjoy science fiction more than he does. We can usually compromise, and often do the quid pro quo thing where we alternate movie choices. “I’ll watch Dumb and Dumber with you tonight if we can watch Star Wars, A New Hope, tomorrow.”

Occasionally there’ll be a movie he really wants to see that no amount of quid pro quoing will satisfy. For example, I do not like war movies. They make me furious and anxious. Okay, one could argue that many sci-fi films are nothing more than futuristic war movies, but by their very nature they are elevated above the nitty gritty of say, Saving Private Ryan, a film that haunted me for years.

Last night, though, we decided to watch 1917. I’d heard so many great things about the making of the film, and didn’t veto Studly’s choice as I normally would any other war movie.

Did it make me angry? Yes. War is an abomination. I hate the glorification of war that is part of many films. But there was none of that here. My anger wasn’t at the movie itself, but at war in general.

Did it make me anxious? Incredibly so. I almost could not breathe in certain scenes. But, I did like this film, I actually liked it more than Studly did.

The cinematography is incredible. I know nothing of movie making, but apparently the people in charge on 1917 did.

From Wikipedia: “Filming took place from April to June 2019 in the UK, with cinematographer Roger Deakins and editor Lee Smith using long takes to have the entire film appear as two continuous shots.”

Can someone explain that to me?

Peace, people!

Author: nananoyz

I'm a semi-retired crazy person with one husband and two cats.

13 thoughts on “1917”

  1. My husband is obsessed with long tracking shots. The movie Atonement has a classic one that is worth watching the movie again to notice. (Yes, it’s another war scene, and a particularly heartbreaking one but not a “war movie” in the strictest sense.) Tracking shots are where the camera rolls along behind – or beside or in front of – the subject, so you experience what the subject experiences as she/he/it moves through a scene. If it is done continuously without cuts or edits, it can be very powerful, and there are all sorts of clever ways to enhance the experience with sound effects, lighting, shadows, etc. This is part of what was done in 1917 to give the sense that there were no cuts in the filming. There were a few “tricks” to allow the camera to break away without the viewer getting a sense that they were not WITH the main character every minute, but my understanding is there were very few of these. I LOVED this movie. It was as gorgeous as it was soul-tormenting, but my husband was beside himself with awe. I do not like war movies in general either, but I think those that avoid glorification and give the viewer an inkling of the tragedies that they create are essential to remind us that this is one of the most horrid of human activities that should be avoided at all cost.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I haven’t seen it yet but my daughter did and she said it was outstanding. Of course the cinematography is what she was referring to. I look forward to seeing it. There is nothing glamorous about war. I feel like this is what everyone on the front lines of COVID-19 is dealing with. Maybe not all the blood but certainly the death.

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.