1917: The Romance That Never Happened

“1917” was one of the biggest hits of this year’s awards season. It has made almost $300 million at the box office and counting. The film won Best Drama at the Golden Globes, Outstanding British Film and Best Film at the BAFTAs and... well let’s just say I’m glad I waited until after the Oscars to write this article. Regardless, this WWI film wowed audiences with its teeth-grinding tension and “HOW DID THEY DO THAT?!” one-shot cinematography. But you know what would have made it better? If it were gayer. I’m probably going to have to justify that. Spoilers ahead. The core relationship of the film is between the two protagonists, Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield. Through their perilous mission across the war-torn fields of France, they display openness and intimacy rare from male leads in action films. The single-take aesthetic heavily emphasises their closeness, almost always placing them together in the frame. Their bantering dialogue makes them feel like they’ve been close friends for years. They need each other, they save each other.

A Sampling Of Toxic Relationships In Film

Over time we’ve been blessed with a lot of many amazing couples on screen. Sometimes, the film is incredible, but the relationship? Not so much. Depending on the film, the toxicity of the coupling can accentuate some of its intentions, other times, it’s not even recognized as such. I think the sense of awareness for the subjects makes a real difference. There are a lot of ways to look at toxic relationships in films, and these are several that should get attention, but as you’ll see, it's for differing reasons.

BAFTA The Party’s Over

The British Academy Film Awards are somewhat of a black sheep in the trinity of lavish, self-indulgent film awards ceremonies in the early months of each new year. Their bizarre practice of pre-recording the ceremony – so the winners end up announced before it’s even televised – then editing out a bunch of the technical and ‘smaller’ awards, makes it a very lacklustre viewing experience. Though that being said, there’s a lot to say about the awards and the ceremony itself. First, and most obvious, is the sweep of “1917”. Seven wins out of nine nominations, only losing Makeup and Hair to “Bombshell” and Original Score to “Joker”. Not unexpected given the film’s staggering momentum this awards season, plus the film being British which the BAFTAs highly favour. But it’s still telling. Expect “1917” to make a similar sweep of the upcoming Academy Awards, with a near-guaranteed shot at Best Picture and Best Director, winning both of its equivalents here.

Review: 1917 (2019)

Sam Mendes’ “1917” (2019) is more than just a technical marvel; it’s a captivating survival story of young men in wartime. While its one-take approach with all of its footage melded together to look as though the full two hour film was one continuous shot is great, this is not a film ruled by its gimmick. In fact, it’s easy to forget about the one-take editing by Lee Smith once you’re into the action of the movie until there’s a particularly impressive bit of camera movement. At its heart, “1917” tells a story about the destruction that war.

Editorial: Is This Male Director Good or Have Men in My Life Just Convinced Me to Put Up with Mediocrity?

Every year, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) hosts the Golden Globes.  The Golden Globes are used as a predictor for Oscar nominations. As always, there are only so many slots for each category.  Not every actor, filmmaker, or movie can be nominated. But the Golden Globes typically proves to be pretty white and male dominated.  This year, five male filmmakers were nominated for Best Director. Bong Joon-Ho, who directed “Parasite” (2019), is the only non-white person nominated.  The other nominees, Sam Mendes, Todd Phillips, Martin Scorsese, and Quentin Tarantino are all white dudes. And, in my frank and honest and personal opinion, it is comprised of mediocre white film bros. Sue me. (Actually, please don’t. I have lots of student loans.) 

WordPress.com.

Up ↑