Director Xie Fei's evaluation of "1917" is: works with more skill than content will never reach full marks. I agree with this point of view, but I do not agree that "1917" pays too much attention to technique, and this so-called content must not be defined by storyline.
The first thing I want to discuss is what a movie is.
I agree with the point of view in "Film Aesthetics" that the smallest unit of a film is the lens. At the same time, in my opinion, editing is grammar, and like all other arts, the ultimate goal of film is to convey a kind of feeling of creators, including philosophical thinking, aesthetic concepts, and so on.
· Many moviegoers’ criticism of "1917" is similar to "the movie plot is empty."
Indeed, in terms of plot, "1917" is very simple, but we must first figure out what role the plot plays in the movie?
For example, the works of Bergman and Tarkovsky, as well as the relatively recent work "Interstellar Exploration", for these works, the plot is weakened, they are more inclined to use the lens and editing methods to express the work itself.
So, why not call it "Electricity" or "Shadow Love", but "Plot". Because it comes from drama, action is the language of drama, and contradictions and conflicts constitute drama, just as words constitute literature, and melody constitutes music. The plot, music, and text can enrich a movie, but they are not necessary for a movie, although few movies really don't need something at all.
· Some movie viewers also put forward similar views as "1917", the technique is better than the content, and the use of meaningless long shots is flashy.
I should talk about this in conjunction with the advantages of "1917" in my mind.
"1917" abandoned editing (though not), and completed the narrative of the entire movie with a long shot. If you say that the long shot is meaningless, then the whole movie is meaningless to you. Director Mendes adopted this way of expression, obviously not to show off his skills. The brothers who have played the Battlefield series don’t know if they will feel the same as me. When we crawl carefully in the fields of Arras, when we rush to the top of Zhebo Mountain as if we are dead, we have to sigh for the insignificance and insignificance of the individual to the war. Fragile, but each player constitutes the war itself. Our actions have an indelible meaning for this battle. The war will not end because of your fall, but the fall of the last person will sound the death knell of the armistice, and This death knell is torn for whom I don't know.
In my mind, "1917" gave me a feeling similar to the above, the smallness of the individual, the meaning of the individual, and the rapid change of the battlefield. All of this is obviously brought about by this long line of movement. It provides a new way of thinking and a new perspective. We can say who is good or bad in "1917" and "Dunkirk", this is all personal. Emotional experience, but we can’t say which is correct and which is incorrect in "1917" and "Dunkirk".
After all, it's back to the question of Hamlet. This article only provides my thoughts. "The Irishman", "1917" and "Parasite" have taken three completely different paths. As an audience, I should be thankful.
View more about 1917 reviews
