Oscar-winning Cinematography of ‘1917’ Puts You in WWI

I took my 86-year-old grandmother to the World War I movie 1917. I figured the special effects of war films are worth seeing and hearing in theaters and my grandmother would appreciate the history we’d learn from a film set in a time predating her existence. We were both impressed with the film and found it to be ultra-engaging. “It made me want to duck a few times,” my grandma said as the end credits rolled. I felt similarly, like I couldn’t blink during the film, which is probably how soldiers at war feel.

1917 is a film about a two-man mission to deliver a message aborting a planned attack on retreating Germans, who are preparing a trap for 1,600 British soldiers. One of the 1,600 is the brother of the man ordered to deliver the message, and that personal motivation is exactly why he’s chosen. He and his partner, however, were expecting an easy mission to bring back food and supplies. But nothing is easy in 1917, and nothing was easy about shooting the movie either.

WWI was fought over a lot of flat land without much of an aerial arsenal, requiring the use of trench warfare. Finding cover was near impossible, so soldiers had to create their own. They dug miles of trenches in the mud and built impressive, underground quarters where soldiers seldom slept. I found the long, tracking shot following our protagonists through the trenches to open the film was both aesthetically pleasing and undeniably useful. The long shot offered an intimate glimpse at what trench warfare was like.

To a cinephile like me, though, the long shot was also indicative of the actors’ ability to deliver pages of dialogue and action and the crew’s ability to capture it along with visual and sound effects. It takes a lot of rehearsal time to synchronize the movements of the cast and crew let alone memorize and deliver dozens of pages of dialogue to the director’s liking. I found the one-shot technique perfectly suitable given the circumstances, but I was thoroughly impressed when this long, tracking shot continued outside the trenches. Before I ever discovered the entire film was meant to appear as though it was shot in one continuous take, I thought it would be abhorrent to award the Oscar for Achievement in Cinematography to go to anyone other than 1917‘s Roger Deakins. The Academy agreed, also awarding 1917 with Oscars for Visual Effects and Sound Mixing, and rightfully so.

Not since Quentin Tarantino’s The Man from Hollywood, a short film serving as the finale to Four Rooms (1995), have I seen an attempt to shoot scenes with so little cutting. That short film of 21 minutes is a testament to Tarantino’s ability to direct and act, given how much is going on in the penthouse on New Year’s Eve. 1917 is 119 minutes long and looks like one continuous shot from beginning to end, making it the crowning achievement of director Sam Mendes, who deservedly won the Best Director Oscar for American Beauty in 2000. But directing a cast to perform pages of dialogue and action while also directing a crew to execute warlike special effects and capture the entire performance is an achievement unforeseen and otherwise unattempted in blockbuster filmmaking. Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) is the inspiration for this style of cinematography, which is an incredibly uncommon undertaking.

Hitchcock was limited by his technology just like everyone else, which is one reason why so few one-take features exist. Film only allowed for 10 minutes of continuous shooting, which is why most one-take features are recent releases. Difficulty is the biggest reason why so few one-take films exist. Just 33 feature-length films, according to this list, have been made with one continuous take. Just one, 21 Brothers (2011), was a war film, and a WWI film at that. 1917 isn’t included on the list because there are moments of complete darkness that allow opportunities for cast and crew to reset or allows the editor an opportunity to cut the continuous take and insert a different take. But 1917 doesn’t have to be one continuous take to be great. It’s still the most engaging war film ever made, using cinematography to simulate war’s overwhelming demands on the senses. I’ve never had a cinematic experience consume me more than 1917, and I’ve never felt closer to a combat zone. 1917 demands your full attention, and its unrelenting cinematographic assault on the senses shall forever be saluted.