1917 (Sam Mendes 2019)

[Chris Knipp]

French critical response to 1917.

1917 came out today in France and its AlloCiné press rating (based on a lot of reviews - 34) is a 4.2 (the spectators score is even higher, a whopping 4.5). This is the equivalent of a Metacritic rating of 84% (of 90% for the spectators) - in contrast to the actual one of 79%, which is high, but considering the accomplishment, somewhat niggling.

There are some negative views expressed, such as the "con" side of Première's two-part review, which accuses Mendes of being a copycat filmmaker, who has imitated Nolan's Batman in his Skyfall James Bond treatment, and with major debuts to Dunkirk as well as Saving Private Ryan and Paths of Glory this time. And others found the immersiveness too calculating.

But overall the French critics seem to have grasped better than the American ones that a movie can be a technical tour de force and yet also utterly absorbing and convincing. Caroline Vié of 20 Minutes writes, "The filmmaker can be reassured: the race against the clock in the heart of chaos is so absorbing that we forget his virtuosity." Eric Neuhoff of Le Figaro: "The immersion is total." This can't happen if you're constantly telling yourself, as Anglophone critics apparently are, "This camerawork is showoff-y."

[Chris Knipp]

Mike D'Angelo's 'subscribers review' of 1917 - he rates it a 61, pretty high for him.

The latest in his Patreon (not published) reviews sent to subscribers.

He gives it a 61, which puts it 24th in his 2019 list. He doesn't like "oners" "(even the name grates)". But while he thinks it was "a dumb idea to create the illusion of a single unbroken shot," and would prefer a version of the film shot "normally," perhaps "Tarr-style" "with 15 or 20 expertly choreographed plans-séquences? Evidemment." (Or course he would.) But he doesn't think the "absence of visible editing" was "a huge, movie-ruining distraction," because Mendes "makes it obvious where the joins" are like Innaritu in Birdman. There's no sign of sacrificing the quality of a scene to maintain a take, and scenes are "meticulously executed" as in Menedes' other films.

He "enjoyed it", "which is kind of a damning verb." He experienced it "more or less the same way" he experiences the "Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland. But he tells about a friend who "found it so deeply moving that he wound up having to pull his car over on the way home from the theater, lest his tears obscure his view of the road." (This reminded me of my experience with Karim Aïnouz's INVISIBLE LIFE, which I reviewed here last month, only more intense.) He is never as moved as he is by "All Quiet on the Western Front or Paths of Glory,". In fact it's hard to see quite how he rates it so high, but he does.

I am a little like this. I rate 1917 high, higher than #24. (Most of D'Angelo's 2019 top ten I haven't even seen, and sound obscure, but Knives OUt, Uncut Gems, Parasite and Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood ground it a bit.) but at moments in the two times I've watched the film I've felt like I was on a thrill ride. But at others I was deeply involved, and moved. It's that kind of film.

But if you're watching/counting "takes," you're not enough involved in the film, and perhaps too conscious of yourself as a critic.