Long takes and tracking shots have always been a part of film, as they convey emotions such as fatigue and tension better than many other shots. Kubrick and Scorsese, among others, have used tracking shots in iconic and disarming ways. There is simply no substitute for a well used long take.
But the reason that filmmaking hasn’t become dominated by these techniques as technology advances is because they severely limit what a filmmaker can convey.
1917 suffers from overuse of these techniques. On paper it makes sense, as the themes of the film and realities of the source material both convey tension and fatigue, but to do so for two hours means that things such as mise en scene and shot composition are much harder to employ. If the camera constantly have to stay fixed to the main characters, than it’s almost impossible to convey any sense of scale or landscape.
The battle scenes in 1917 generally work, but any dialogue scene feels rushed. The scene in the basement with the French refugee feels like he staggers in on the verge of death, has his wounds tended, meets the child, gives it the lifesaving milk he got at the farm, and tragically departs all in a few minutes. This sequence should take far longer. Even the scene where orders are being given and received, such as at the beginning with Colin Firth and at the end with Benedict Cumberbatch, are robbed of there impact because the director can not effectively convey a sense of timing via cuts.
If the long takes were only used during scenes like the crossing of no man’s land, the tunnel sequence, and the desperate last run, then it would be tolerable. As is, huge portions of this film are visually uninteresting and carried only by the performances of a talented cast. 1917 is still a good movie, even if it leans hard on its gimmick.
Submitted February 10, 2020 at 04:57AM by HasSomeSelfEsteem https://ift.tt/2Sxlq8X