As quoted above, Mendes gives us the clue to his film over 30 minutes in,Įmbedding it in dialogue that we might well miss after the shattering bunker With Schofield resting against a tree, and it ends with him resting against a Lay out my case for this view of Mendes’ film (featuring a screenplay ofĬompressed eloquence by Krysty Wilson-Cairns). What follows, I (who earn no money doing film criticism, and justly so) will
Yes, that sounds like the cake has been baked at a high temperature, I admit. Meaning of life it is an aesthetic inquiry into the good, beautiful, and true. The movie is at base a stirring philosophical meditation on the Here is my own view: 1917 is the most profound major-market film to release in a very
But again, is that all 1917 is-a cute ode to now-outmoded hero quests? He is an accomplished craftsman of the Hitchcockian kind, adept at entertainment. Is 1917 mere frosting and butter as many critics have it? Mendes has certainly made his mark as a big-budget director. The New Yorker characterized the film as one of “patriotic bombast.” The Atlantic spoke more plainly still: 1917 is “a bad movie” and a “soullessįilm.” No mincing of words, these (numerous other reviews argue much the same).īut is it a trick, bombast, bad, and soulless? Alfred Hitchcock once said that his films were like “a slice of cake,” a delicious treat without any real nutrients in them. “brag trick,” summarizing the views of many reviewers who focused almostĮxclusively on its “one-shot” cinematography. Not so much with critics, at least a good number of the Grandfather of a daring suicide mission in World War I, and that story in itsĬinematic form clearly resonated with viewers (some spoilers to come). Director Sam Mendes set out to tell a story heard from his $368 million worldwide, and was nominated for 11 Academy Awards (winning oneįor cinematography). On a budget of about $100 million, it has grossed
0 kommentar(er)
