Film & TV
1917 takes the cinematic portrayal of war to new heights Éamon Goonan looks at how 1917 differs within the saturated genre of war films
D
espite the popular aphorism that war never changes, cinematic portrayals of war vary greatly in consistency. Sam Mendes’s “1917”, however, succeeds in delivering an unflinching portrait of World War I. In an evocation of Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan”, the premise involves young soldiers being sent on a perilous Homeric odyssey. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman, who slot perfectly into the boots of lance corporals Schofield and Blake, are tasked with a seemingly insurmountable mission, one in which they must race against time. Our two protagonists must encroach behind enemy lines before dawn to hand-deliver a message
“
periodically confronted with the expedient human cost of war. On occasion, the two young soldiers allow themselves an intermission from the gravity of their mission, exchanging boisterous stories and slightly juvenile humour. At times like these, it doesn’t require much imagination to liken the soldiers to two schoolboys, sent on an errand by a secondary school teacher to deliver a message. The youthful appearance and demeanour of the army men might be highlighted to Irish viewers who recognise Chris Walley, one half of “The Young Offenders”, as one of the soldiers encountered on the expedition. Young male viewers will likely exit the cinema with an unfolding sense of relief, grateful for not having come of age in a conscripting country during wartime. Some authoritarian military figures in this movie possess a certain ignorance which harks back to the renowned poem, “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen. “Hope is a dangerous thing,” utters Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel MacKenzie, as he itches to send the next wave of troops into the industrial meat grinder of no man’s land. The overarching visual motif of the cherry blossom is very fitting in this movie, as it represents the fragility and beauty of life. The petals, which fall from the tree shortly after blossoming, reflect the short-lived but meaningful lives of the fallen soldiers. The buddha supposedly came to enlightenment while sitting under a tree; perhaps it is appropriate that a key closing scene involves a protagonist sitting solemnly under a tree. Like the buddha, the soldier finds himself without possessions, realising that the true worthwhileness of life stems from the intangible relationships we craft between ourselves.
The breathtakingly fluid cinematography of Roger Deakins glides effortlessly around the protagonists; making the viewer feel as though they are an accompanying soldier
which will prevent a potentially catastrophic assault on the German trenches. Mendes employs a “one-shot” format for the entire duration of the movie, giving the impression of a movie which has ostensibly been shot in a seamless single take, albeit with infrequent ellipses. The result of this audacious cinematic technique is uncompromising, breathless, encompassing immersion. The breathtakingly fluid cinematography of Roger Deakins glides effortlessly around the protagonists; making the viewer feel as though they are an accompanying soldier. The epic scale of the battlefield is manifested as the action traverses various hellscapes, effectively capturing our heroes’ anxious reluctance to progress to the next uncharted territory. The movie is interspersed with nail-biting, edgeof-your-seat moments, amplified in shock-value by the film’s “point of view” format; a booby-trapped bunker, an ostensibly innocuous dogfight, a gunshot slicing through silence. While these visceral, shocking scenes evoke a significant emotional response, it is in fact the more restrained scenes that pull on the heart strings. “1917” oscillates between the inglorious, fatalistic face of war and the innocent, hopeful face of MacKay. As a result of this juxtaposition, we are
Little Women brings a classic tale to a modern audience
L
Beth Molloy reviews the timeless tale of Little Women
ouisa May Alcott’s “Little Women” is one of the few novels written by a female author, featuring female protagonists that has stood the test of time. Off the top of one’s head, similar novels such as Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” and L.M Montgomery’s “Anne of Green Gables” spring to mind, and while all three of these books have been reworked for both stage and screen in many different ways, Alcott’s “Little Women” is perhaps the story that is most loved and remembered for its on screen adaptations. Published in the 1860’s against the background of civil war and the abolition of slavery, it’s a time when women are told to marry well and obey their husbands. Despite this Alcott presents us with a novel that works hard to deliver a truth about women, that they too, like men, can hope and dream and feel and know their own minds. This is perhaps why many directors have tried to capture this ageless tale. Greta Gerwig is the latest to try her hand. Gerwig’s adaptation has been incredibly well received. The movie, released in December 2019, has received a plethora of award nominations. Most notably, Saoirse Ronan is nominated for her fourth Oscar for her performance as Jo March and Florence Pugh is also nominated for her portrayal of Amy March. Arguably the film should have been nominated for more, the opinion of many is that Gerwig was unfairly snubbed for best director. Ronan delivers a strong performance as Jo March. She is fiercely independent and Ronan
6| the college view The Hype
delivers an inspired performance. She works hard to ensure that Jo is a well rounded character and doesn’t shy away from scenes that might show Jo to be in a less favourable light. The best part about this whole film however is Florence Pugh’s performance as the youngest March sister, Amy. Pugh delivers a much more likeable character than the 1994 adaptation and it was clear that Gerwig had worked hard to ensure that Amy didn’t appear as the spoilt younger sister. Pugh lands an emotional delivery and made us question pre-existing opinions that we might have of Amy March. Timotheé Chalamet makes a good Laurie. When he is on screen alongside Ronan and Pugh he allows their character’s to breathe. He brings out both the best and worst parts of them and he should be commended for this. This is after all a story about little women, not a man trying to find his place. Chalamet is aware of this and he gives an educated performance. What Gerwig did best however was showing that women can be whatever they like once they are happy. She did this well by highlighting the fact that despite Meg, played by Emma Watson, having a love for acting, she also would love to be a mother and it was okay for her to choose this. Marriage is not conceding to the societal norms that “Little Women” challenges, but instead shows that women making their own decisions is empowering.
“
Published in the 1860’s against the background of civil war and the abolition of slavery, it’s a time when women are told to marry well and obey their husbands.
