Cinemas that have been closed for a long time due to the epidemic have gradually begun to recover. In a series of movies released recently, "1917" is a work not to be missed. "1917" uses its superb photography and editing to create a "one shot to the end" immersive viewing experience (in fact, it is an effect composed of countless lenses after very precise calculations), which shows the audience in front of the screen. A visual spectacle about the First World War. It once again proves the symbiotic relationship between film and theater-audiences can only truly appreciate the beauty of "one shot in the end" only in front of the IMAX screen of the cinema; it also shows that the cinema is still one of the most dynamic public spaces of our time.
The director of the film, Sam Mendes, is active in the theater and film industry, and is a talented cross-border talent. In 1999, his debut "American Beauty" (American Beauty) won the Oscar for Best Director in one fell swoop. In a series of early movies, such as "Road to Perdition" (2002) and "Revolutionary Road" (2008), Mendes demonstrated a strong narrative ability. He is good at digging the turbulent and explosive dramatic core under the calm surface of daily life, showing the extraordinary state of ordinary people.
As a director who wandered between art films and commercial genre films, Mendes continued his previous creative style after transitioning to commercial genre films. For example, Mendes’ "007: Skyfall" (Skyfall, 2012) changed the "007" series to the protagonist James Bond's "superhero" setting, turning him into an "ordinary man in crisis" ". This work is considered by some fans to be the best "007" movie in history.
"1917" can be regarded as the masterpiece of Mendes' career. Regrettably, this movie, which was highly anticipated during the awards season at the beginning of this year, won only three technical awards including the Best Photography Award at the Oscars.
In fact, "1917" triggered a platitude of controversy about content and form. The "One Mirror to the End" of this film, as a gimmick, always distracts the audience's attention, and at the same time becomes the "protagonist" in the true sense. "1917" is not a film known for its ideological power. It can be regarded as a kind of "interactive film" of our time, like an open World War I theme park. "1917" tried hard to present the high standards of the film industry. Perhaps it proves once again that real films are disappearing?
Written by | Organzi
This article was first published on the WeChat public account: Beijing News Book Review Weekly, welcome to follow.
1
Controversies brought about by "1917":
Clichés of content and form
The fall of "1917" has once again brought a discussion about the content and form of the film. Stéphane Delorme, the former editor-in-chief of the French "Cinema Manual", wrote that "1917" is essentially a "fantasy" movie. In other words, "1917" is a movie deeply influenced by reality shows and games.
Others think that because the film has created the so-called "one mirror to the end" visual spectacle, it is regarded as a dazzling technique. This view itself is also an outdated concept. Because the form of film art itself can be its content, from this perspective, "1917" is indeed a failed humanistic film (although it strongly promotes a kind of humanism); but it is also a very successful Hollywood High concep movies have once again proved the powerful control of technology. The so-called "high concept" refers to the stylized film production model typified by Hollywood in the United States. It refers to the attractiveness of the visual image, sufficient market opportunities, simple and concise plot main axis and plot layout to seek the understanding and plot of most audiences. Accepted movies.
There may never be a standard answer which is higher between technology and art. Over the years, what Hollywood movies have done is bridging the gap between technology and art, but the current popular "Marvel" movies are making this gap bigger. Specific to the movie "1917", Mendes tried his best to inject humanistic care into this movie full of spectacles, but it showed a regrettable emptiness.
The film tells a thrilling moment on the battlefield of World War I: In 1917, when the First World War was the most stalemate, Britain and Germany were fighting. British boys Blake and Schofield were selected as messengers. Completed the task at any cost within 8 hours, and in the end only Schofield survived...
The film deliberately created two characters with completely different personalities: the optimistic Blake and the skeptic Schofield. The former was assassinated by the downed enemy pilot because of his kindness, while the latter inherited his belief and finally completed the mission. From this story, we can completely regard "1917" as a growing film containing anti-war ideas.
This movie can easily be regarded as an anthem of heroes, because of the "pseudo-long-shot" setting, we follow Schofield’s adventure and enter the battlefield together: we have witnessed his transformation from doubting the goal to the intense task of completing the task along the way. Determination, from resistance to his family to homesickness... Mendes restored the growth of a young soldier on the battlefield and also revealed the cruelty of war.
However, the characterization of the film also stops here. The whole film has only functional characters, and all characters are set according to a certain war film. The German enemy is like a murderous machine without emotion, and the French woman seems to have fallen from the sky. Our Lady soothes the heart...
Even the two protagonists with names and surnames, we know very little about their history. The feelings of the characters in "1917" are always thin. Compared with his partner Blake, Schofield is more like a roamer on the battlefield than a participant. His behavior is basically dominated by action, and the whole movie is non-stop run. The subjectivity of this character has almost been replaced by our "invasive" participation, but this is precisely what the main creator intended. As a work that highly imitates the game, "1917" actually continues a classic game narrative: an ignorant person enters the game world, gains experience points by upgrading and fighting monsters, and then completes the task.
Our emotional experience when watching a movie is actually the life experience stimulated by the superb technical means of the movie. Although we and Schofield have always maintained consistency and should empathize with it, this is more like a role-playing "game." Therefore, "1917" can be regarded as a kind of "interactive movie" of our time, like an open World War I theme park.
2
Cracks in technology and art,
Has Hollywood's bridging technique failed?
"1917" is not a film known for its ideological power. As a gimmick, "One Mirror to the End" has always distracted the audience's attention, and at the same time has become the "protagonist" in the true sense. The whole movie is almost completed in one go, consisting of several scenes similar to game levels. We follow the protagonist's actions, turning his viewpoint into our viewpoint, and roaming together in the world of "1917". The long shot here is different from what we generally understand. It does not try to restore a more real time and space, but uses technical means to give us more intense stimulation. The continuity of the lens allows us to better experience the environment and the many crises the protagonist is in. This is also the pleasure of watching: every time a crisis is resolved, we will get an indescribable sense of comfort.
Regrettably, after experiencing such a war that changed the world pattern and an inhuman death, the film ended up in a photo with the words "comebacktous (return to us)", which shows Scofield, who was quite alienated from his family, began to rethink the value of his family. Such an ending is understandable, but on such a movie with a magnificent picture and focusing on grand themes, it seems that the author's structural reflection on history cannot be seen, and merely calling for anti-war is a little pale.
In fact, this work does not provide truth, nor is it responsible for providing truth, as Delom criticized:
"The camera flies from one paragraph to another, creating an effect that is completely opposite to the original intention: we no longer believe in everything we see. Ironically, we feel that everything is made by a computer. Everything is so smooth. As for us, we don’t have the slightest sense of tension. The feeling of reality has turned into the feeling of virtuality. "
"1917" has exquisite scene design, rat tunnels, cherry trees, uninhabited pastures, rapids waterfalls, uninhabited ruins under the night... Our movie-watching experience tells us that Schofield will never die halfway, he will mission accomplished. In this way, our fear of war is dispelled by the behavior of heroes, and even a unique war aesthetic is produced. These are contrary to the profound themes promoted in "1917".
The biggest problem with the film is not whether long shots should be used to represent the battlefield and a better "material reduction", but rather that the film uses such a huge amount of manpower and material resources, but it is piled up with complicated technology. Relatively thin story. Perhaps the main theme of "1917" is not to create a profound theme, but to create a unique viewing experience. From this point of view, this work is no longer a traditional story-telling film. It is a large-scale illusion that can mobilize the audience's senses in all directions.
In order to enhance the audience’s sense of experience, Schofield is like the hero in a fantasy story. He experienced various terrains in just two hours of the movie: from woods to torrents, from plains to ruins... this is true. Enhance the viewing of the movie, but let us lose our thinking about the real history. The so-called "immersion" is supposed to restore the imperceptible reality through technical means, while "1917" uses technology to isolate the reality and create a more refined fantasy.
In fact, Hollywood has always been good at shooting war movies with big scenes, and "Saving Private Ryan" is one of its masterpieces. Injecting universal values into the grand scenes of war is the strength of Hollywood movies. Although "1917" still continues the way of shaping heroes, it is not enough because of the lack of values that can support the theme.
This world war in which thousands of people lost their lives is not a personal adventure game, let alone justice in the sense of today. The movie allows the audience to substituting the perspective of the British army, portrays the Germans as inhumane killers, and simplifies the complexity of the battlefield. As a film with strong anti-war thinking, "1917" is too pursued to show the protagonist's adventure process, creating a period of spectacle on the battlefield, while ignoring the ideological core of the film.
3
"1917" proves again,
The real movie is disappearing?
However, "1917" is still an excellent pioneering work. It tries its best to present the high standards of the film industry. How humans use technology step by step to realize the illusion that can only stay in the mind. "1917" also represents the ultimate desire of mankind for images. We are not only looking forward to watching, but also looking forward to entering it. "1917" represents a mainstream direction for future movies, but it also undermines the persistent charm of narrative movies.
To some extent, the body of the film is being challenged, and new technological forms and broadcasting platforms are shaping the art of film like never before. Last year, the veteran director Martin Scorsese criticized the current Hollywood movies, believing that the real cinema (cinema) is disappearing-this kind of movie is aesthetically, emotionally and spiritually revelatory; the focus is on shaping The role highlights the complexity of people; makes people encounter surprises and interprets life with drama. Instead, there are theme parks, playgrounds and comic-style movies. He pointed out bitterly:
"It is sad that the current situation is that we have two completely unrelated lands: one is a global audiovisual entertainment product, and the other is a movie (cinema). The two occasionally overlap, but they have become more and more important. The less. What I fear is that the economic dominance of one of the two is being used to marginalize or even devalue the other’s existence.”
This sentence can not only criticize the Marvel movies that flood the theaters, but can also be seen as a forward-looking reminder to movies such as "1917". But at the same time, "1917" is the kind of movie that must be watched in front of the big screen. Even today when "The Irishman" is moving to Netflix, Mendes is still using an almost paranoid creation to prove the symbiotic relationship between the screen and the movie. After all, only in movie theaters can audiences appreciate this film specially made for the IMAX screen and appreciate the beauty of one shot.
The era of movies obsessed with narrative and character creation may really be becoming a thing of the past (although this has never been the only appeal of movies). In the era of streaming media dominating the rivers and lakes, movies are reaching audiences in a faster, newer, and cheaper way. . One of the ways that film authors want to keep the theater is to create one after another gorgeous audiovisual belonging to the movie theater. The kind of "real movie" ("cinema") that Scorsese is looking forward to upholds the aesthetics and narrative rules. Or revolutionary changes will take place.
Perhaps, Mendes did not give up the exploration of people in his heart. On the final subtitles of the film, he explained that the inspiration of the film came from his grandfather, a person who lived in the past. In the whole tense movie, the most moving parts are the flashes of human nature: Blake's endless memories of family life and the folk songs sung by soldiers in despair. We are willing to believe in these moments, and we are willing to open ourselves to being moved by these clips because we are willing to believe in the power of emotions.
To be optimistic, "1917" is an experiment in this process. Although it is not perfect, it is a milestone. The problem has never been the improvement of technical means, or the magnificent vision, or even imitating games, but how to use images to reach people's hearts.
This article is exclusive original content. Author: Tong Qinzi; Editor: Dong Muzi; Proofreader: Wei Zhuo. Reprinting is not allowed without the written authorization of the Beijing News, welcome to forward to the circle of friends
This article was first published on the WeChat public account: Beijing News Book Review Weekly, welcome to follow.
View more about 1917 reviews
