1917 on France 3: virtuoso show or empty shell? The “For or Against” review

Sam Mendes’ film, which takes us to the heart of the First World War, divided the editorial staff.

Praised by critics and the public, 1917 was a real commercial success (more than 440 million revenues worldwide), crowned by two Golden Globes (best dramatic film and best director) and three technical Oscars (best cinematography, best sound and best visual effects). Sam Mendes’ war film nevertheless divided the Première editorial team upon its French release at the start of 2020. Here are our opinions “for/against” before its rebroadcast on France 3, this Monday evening (then in streaming the next day on the France Télévisions website).

FOR

Before making cinema – and in parallel since then – Sam Mendes is a man of the theater. Anyone who has had the pleasure of admiring Cabaret, The Blue Room, Richard III or The Glass Menagerie staged by him will have enthusiastic memories of it. By its ability to show and hear classics through an always inventive prism. But also by the variety of its tastes. On the big screen, the Mendes look remains the same. Explore constantly different terrains. From American Beauty to Away We Go via The Paths of Perdition, Jarhead and The Rebel Marriage, he only really failed the time he stuttered while doing Specter after Skyfall.

This bias necessarily bristles those who only judge an author by his ability to always plow the same furrow. And this 1917 will release their gall. It follows two British soldiers assigned to an impossible mission in the hell of the First World War: to bring a message to an officer miles away that could prevent a deadly attack. A race against time behind enemy lines which takes the form (obviously not quite) of a single sequence shot. Like Iñárritu with Birdman, Mendes has a sense of a great, playful spectacle…