1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#76 Post by nitin » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:40 pm

I don’t think it has to be a character changing over the time depicted in the film or having an arc, it could be that information revealed about the character casts prior actions or behaviours in a different light. That is still development in my book and so I don’t think the two things you mention are necessarily mutually exclusive.

But the key is more whether anything revealed or developed matters in the context of what the film is trying to do. I don’t think that any of it did in this film because of its priorities for the technical gimmick above all else.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#77 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:37 am

nitin wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:40 pm
I don’t think it has to be a character changing over the time depicted in the film or having an arc, it could be that information revealed about the character casts prior actions or behaviours in a different light. That is still development in my book and so I don’t think the two things you mention are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Sure, you could use "character development" to mean the creation of character, with 'changing' and 'revealing' being two types of character development. I tend to see that as a difference in perspective, ie. characters developed vs characters being developed (by an author or whomever). I'm in favour of using the former since I prefer to talk about what's on screen rather than what the creative process might be, since I don't have access to the latter and I'm not in a writing class. But perhaps that's just me.
nitin wrote:But the key is more whether anything revealed or developed matters in the context of what the film is trying to do. I don’t think that any of it did in this film because of its priorities for the technical gimmick above all else.
I would say its priorities are for action over character, and the technical conceit has little to do with this. It's more the result of its genre and conventions, since we see the same in large numbers of conventionally shot films with the same priorities.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#78 Post by nitin » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am

I don’t agree re the technical conceit not having anything to do with it. As TWBB also mentions a lot of the scenes have a contrived and noticeable artificiality precisely because of the rigidity with which the technical conceit is prioritised.

Re the other point, maybe I didn’t explain myself very well, but the manner in which character information is doled out to a viewer, and at what time, can lead you to understand a character better and sometimes reframe a viewer’s thought or attitude towards a character. You don’t need to have access to the process of the creation of a character’s creation and it is all on screen. A good example of what I am trying to get at is the recent discussion in the Us thread.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#79 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:18 am

nitin wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am
I don’t agree re the technical conceit not having anything to do with it. As TWBB also mentions a lot of the scenes have a contrived and noticeable artificiality precisely because of the rigidity with which the technical conceit is prioritised.
Of course we'd both agree long takes can just as easily--indeed more easily--film long conversations between people as they walk or sit around. So a decision to film primarily action and suspense scenes would hardly have much to do with the length of the takes, seamlessly connected or not. It would depend on the type of movie the filmmakers wanted to make. I mean, Black Hawk Down is a conventionally shot war movie, but still has a much greater focus on action than character (indeed it has even less character development than Mendes' film). You're taking a feature 1917 shares with the majority of action movies and blaming that feature on the one thing it doesn't. Makes no sense to me.

Also, contrived and artificial scene construction has never stopped a film from being character rather than action focused, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

nitin wrote:Re the other point, maybe I didn’t explain myself very well, but the manner in which character information is doled out to a viewer, and at what time, can lead you to understand a character better and sometimes reframe a viewer’s thought or attitude towards a character. You don’t need to have access to the process of the creation of a character’s creation and it is all on screen. A good example of what I am trying to get at is the recent discussion in the Us thread.
No, you're explaining yourself clearly. I was just making a semantic point about "development". With what you're talking about, the filmmakers are developing the character, and the audience's reaction towards the character is developing--but the character him/herself is not developing since they are not changing. It's a matter of perspective. Development implies growth, and while the plot can certainly develop based on character revelations (see: any time someone is revealed to be the killer in a mystery), the character as a character isn't growing. Hence one would hardly say all those creaky, wooden giallos with barely distinguishable characters have a lot of character development merely because one or two of the characters (whom one usually has difficulty remembering) turn out to've been a homicidal maniac, a far larger and more context realigning move than most character dramas pull. That's really more a function of plot.

But this doesn't really matter. I understand where you're coming from and don't wish to talk you out of it. If anything, your definition means 1917 has more character development than I was allowing.

Tuco
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:57 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#80 Post by Tuco » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:14 am

Deakins, schmeakins! Mendes, schmendes! Oscars, schmoscars. It's a very impressive movie, period. Not the End All and Be All of war films, nor does any reputable critic claim it to be. Though I must admit, the WW I sequences from the Laurel and Hardy "Pack Up Your Troubles" give it a run for it's money. As far as the video game comments go, respectfully, gimme a break. Let the flaming begin from your parents' basement...

User avatar
Orson Kane
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#81 Post by Orson Kane » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:41 am

Hi could anyone with an understanding of cinematic projection please help me.

If I watch this film on IMAX am I watching something framed in the way the filmmaker intended it?

The imdb specs show up as follows:

Camera - Arri Alexa Mini LF, Arri Signature Prime Lenses
Aspect Ratio - 1.90 : 1 (IMAX version)
- 2.39 : 1
Cinematographic Process - ARRIRAW (4.5K) (source format)
- Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format
Printed Film Format - D-Cinema


however looking at a true IMAX filmmaker like Nolan, his specs for Dunkirk look completely different:

Camera - IMAX MKIV, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses
IMAX MSM 9802, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses
Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses
Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses
Aspect Ratio - 1.43 : 1 (70mm IMAX - most scenes)
- 1.78 : 1 (IMAX Blu-ray & 4K UHD - most scenes)
- 1.90 : 1 (Digital IMAX - most scenes)
- 2.20 : 1
- 2.20 : 1 (70mm & Digital)
- 2.39 : 1 (35mm)

Cinematographic Process - IMAX
- Panavision Super 70

Printed Film Format - 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
- 70 mm (also horizontal) (also IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
- D-Cinema (2K DCP) (4K DCP)



so whilst it looks like Nolan went in filming with IMAX cameras and framing his shots for them, Mendes didn't have this in mind.

I'm always conscious of wanting to view the film in the best possible format and in the aspect ratio the filmmaker intended so what is my best bet?

Thanks

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#82 Post by tenia » Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:00 am

The movie wasnt shot on IMAX, ie filmstock and 1.44 AR. It was shot digitally, and IMAX for digital movies is 1.90. You'd have to look for interviews about how the team intended the movie to look like but in general, if filmmakers are aiming for IMAX AR nowadays, they shoot in IMAX like Nolan did. I thus suppose here that 1917 is supposed to be seen at 2.39.


User avatar
tehthomas
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#84 Post by tehthomas » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:19 pm

Watched this yesterday. It is impressive and a solid 4/5 film. I was not as blown away as I expected to be - I would say it is a better film than Dunkirk. But The Irishman, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood and Parasite are vastly superior films in my eyes.. too bad 1917 will likely snatch the Oscar for BP tonight though.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#85 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:18 pm

Saw this tonight before the Oscars to see how annoyed I should be by it winning - and... eh. I certainly thought it was pretty mediocre, even bad - but it's inert enough that it doesn't really matter one way or another. What fascinates me most is that video game studios have been putting late nights and what is sometimes literal blood, sweat, and tears into making lengthy narratives for immersive spectacles over the last several years (say, the team at Naughty Dog), and those are seen as disposable and even harmful consumer products. And here's 1917, something that feels like a lacking Call of Duty campaign that's about to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Falls short of being an out and out injustice, but... what a world.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#86 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:17 pm

This is the most “Like whatever, dude” movie I’ve seen in recent memory. Speaking of which, I’ve already started to forget most of it— curious what will even be left by this time tomorrow. A lot of effort went into something not meriting it. I didn’t find it much of an “amusement park” either— every beat is telegraphed a mile away, so maybe more like a Rollercoaster Tycoon playthrough if anything

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#87 Post by swo17 » Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:21 pm

I saw this a few months ago. I think there was a war in it? I might be wrong about that

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

#88 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:26 pm

You may be thinking of that unedited footage of a Gwar concert uploaded to YouTube last fall, I think it ran 19:17

Post Reply