I saw the film 1917 the other week. I had seen the trailer at least a dozen times before, as well as a two-minute feature in a theater about the cinematography. Despite all the exposure and a fairly decent amount of knowledge about the film, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and and would highly recommend it to anyone who isn’t put off by war movies in general. The movie is excellent on its own. However, what it made me think about the creative process was what stayed with me the most.
This move follows the journey of two British soldiers in the trenches of World War I, sent on a mission to hand-deliver a message calling off an attack that will end up being a trap set by the Germans. That’s the short version of the plot, and I don’t want to say anymore about it.
What really convinced me about this movie was a short feature I saw during trailers that discussed the cinematography. This movie is filmed as a continuous shot, where the camera is continuously moving along with the characters, swooping and diving and turning to keep up with the action. While the most observant movie-goers almost certainly found the inevitable “hidden cuts” where filming had to stop and restart (they couldn’t actually just film for 2 hours straight and call it good, of course) I noticed nothing of the kind. I was completely enraptured by this technique. It struck me as the most natural way to tell a personal, focused story.
With that spark, I began considering how people choose the correct medium to tell a story, to impart a reaction. Is it that someone who is sufficiently comfortable with a particular method can tell any story they want? Are some people with a predisposition for one medium also predisposed to telling certain kinds of stories? I’m not sure. There are certainly stories that feel like they are better told one way than another. For example, could you tell a story along the lines of Star Wars using only a song, and keep it engaging and nuanced? Probably not. However, the themes present in Star Wars can be told via movies, books, or plays. In fact, I know video games could do it justice as well. However, is Star Wars in particular more likely to succeed, or be effective, in one medium than another? I’m not sure.
When I think about the story told by 1917, I’m struck by its personal nature. It’s about two friends stuck in a terrible situation together. There are some feelings and history hinted at, others openly stated. This story could have made an excellent novel, and to that end, Sam Mendes (the writer and director of the film) had to figure out the best way to represent this story. Of course it could have been a more traditional war movie, with hard cuts, loud noises, impressive battle scenes with many thousands of soldiers. Yet there was a restraint and clarity to this film offered by the cinematography choice.
It’s made me consider how I prefer to share my thoughts, what is natural, and what is well-suited. I enjoy doing podcasts with my friends because it allows a more natural flow of ideas, and I’m playing off the thoughts of others. This is completely different than when I sit down to write a blog post like this. My words change, my entire verbal style adjusts to the medium. It’s still my voice and my thoughts, but coming from a slightly different angle, adjacent to the part of me that comes out with my friends. I need to keep that in mind when I try to force a blog post out of an idea I have, or twist some idea that was a blog post into a discussion point on a podcast.
Overall, this movie made me think. I came out shocked by some plot points, and affected by the way the war was portrayed; it was quite different from what is often seen in media. Yet what has remained is the artistry behind the film, the decisions made and the effort required to see those decisions borne out in a beautiful way.