1917 movie thesis

Keep Your Eyes on the Trees: An Essay on 1917 , the Most Profound Film Since Tree of Life

By Owen Strachan on May 7, 2020

Keep your eyes on the trees. —Schofield to Blake, 1917

The movie 1917 is a success by any measure. On a budget of about $100 million, it has grossed $368 million worldwide, and was nominated for 11 Academy Awards (winning one for cinematography). Director Sam Mendes set out to tell a story heard from his grandfather of a daring suicide mission in World War I, and that story in its cinematic form clearly resonated with viewers (some spoilers to come).

Not so much with critics, at least a good number of the highbrow kind. A few characteristic examples to follow. The Verge called 1917 a “brag trick,” summarizing the views of many reviewers who focused almost exclusively on its “one-shot” cinematography. The New Yorker characterized the film as one of “patriotic bombast.” The Atlantic spoke more plainly still: 1917 is “a bad movie” and a “soulless film.” No mincing of words, these (numerous other reviews argue much the same).

But is it a trick, bombast, bad, and soulless? Alfred Hitchcock once said that his films were like “a slice of cake,” a delicious treat without any real nutrients in them. Is 1917 mere frosting and butter as many critics have it? Mendes has certainly made his mark as a big-budget director. He is an accomplished craftsman of the Hitchcockian kind, adept at entertainment. But again, is that all 1917 is—a cute ode to now-outmoded hero quests?

Here is my own view: 1917 is the most profound major-market film to release in a very long time. The movie is at base a stirring philosophical meditation on the meaning of life; it is an aesthetic inquiry into the good, beautiful, and true. Yes, that sounds like the cake has been baked at a high temperature, I admit. In what follows, I (who earn no money doing film criticism, and justly so) will lay out my case for this view of Mendes’ film (featuring a screenplay of compressed eloquence by Krysty Wilson-Cairns). My thesis can be boiled down to three simple words:

The Importance of Trees

1917 is a film about trees. It begins with Schofield resting against a tree, and it ends with him resting against a tree. As quoted above, Mendes gives us the clue to his film over 30 minutes in, embedding it in dialogue that we might well miss after the shattering bunker scene. “Keep your eyes on the trees” is not a throwaway line, however (as Schofield says it, a lone tree stands tall in the background). We’re not learning through this eminently missable clue—I read many reviews of 1917 and found none that cited this dialogue—that trees are abstractly interesting. No, there is a much deeper philosophical point at work in 1917.

This quick sentence is in fact the very message of the film. Throughout the movie, where trees flourish, there is rest; conversely, where trees have been hacked and hewn to evil ends, there is ruin and pain. In a manner consistent with the lush arboreality represented by Frederick Law Olmsted in design, J.R.R. Tolkien in literature, and Terrence Malick in auteur cinema, Mendes (and Wilson-Cairns) are telling us something vital. I mean “vital” in the deep sense, not the cursory. Bearing fruit, trees “manifest life” (from the Latin vitalis, fourteenth-century origin). Trees show us something of the created order as designed by God: it was not fashioned for death, but for life.

To celebrate and enjoy trees is thus to partake deeply of what we Christians call common grace in this world, even a fallen world like ours. But using trees as implements of war (as the Germans do in 1917 in numerous places) speaks to a worldview that desacralizes the created order and the goodness it bears (Genesis 1:31). Nature stewarded in celebration of life yields still more goodness, while nature sublimated to purposes of needless destruction makes creation nothing less than a witness to hell.

Nowhere is this tension brought out in greater nuance than in the cherry tree scene. About 38 minutes in, Schofield happens upon a grove of them and says, “They’ve chopped them all down.” In the midst of a ferocious war, he stops cold to observe this act of savagery (the Germans have also shot cows and a dog, innocent creatures unjustly handled). Blake then notes what kind of trees they are: “Cherries. Lamberts.”

This next bit of dialogue is necessary to understanding the thesis of the film. Schofield doesn’t know anything about trees; like we all do, he beholds spectacular and intricately detailed beauty on a regular basis but takes no notice of it. Blake, a sensitive soul, notes that people think “there’s only one type” of cherry tree, “but there’s lots of them,” listing “Cuthberts, Queen Annes, Montmorencys, sweet ones, sour ones.” Blake is a witness here to the aforementioned limitless variety of creation. (As a quick aside that deserves more substantiation, I think that Blake may represent the Romantic poet William Blake, a figure who had a strange interaction with a soldier named Schofield in 1803. Blake the character is certainly Romantic in nature—he has a full-orbed emotional life and is aesthetically inclined.)

Blake is the character who opens not only Schofield’s eyes, but ours. Where we like Schofield see a tree, Blake sees a cherry tree; but more than this, he knows that there are many kinds of cherry trees, and that their variations yield myriad colors and textures and tastes. It is at this point that we arrive at Mendes’ major philosophical idea. Enlightened by Blake’s knowledge of trees, knowledge gleaned not from textbooks but from the rhythms of a happy family, Schofield expresses sadness about the desecration of this holy grove. In his optimistic way, Blake responds: “They’ll grow again when the stones rot. You’ll end up with more trees than before.”

Forgive me once more, but I saw nary a critic mention these sentences in numerous snarky “Mendes is a trick-shot director” reviews. I believe this particular comment from Blake spells out the case that 1917 quietly but persuasively makes. Man does terrible things to man, and to creation besides. But even with evil loose in the world, bringing desperate suffering to living things, beauty will win in the end. The glade is a cut-flower civilization in miniature, but the trees have lived and will grow again. This is too weak, actually: the cherry seeds—”stones”—will rot, but will grow back as trees in greater number than before, Blake says. The death of the grove means the flowering of a much greater forest. Transposed in theological terms, evil is not only overcome; evil’s purposes are turned on its head, and goodness expands in ironic fashion because of evil’s destructive schemes.

We shall return to this soaring (and deeply biblical) theme in due course, just as the film does.

The Rebuilding of the Family

I want to move ahead in the narrative, skipping much I could cover. Mendes returns to the theme of rebuilding in the ruins in the fiery French town occupied by German soldiers. After being shot and narrowly escaping death several times, and after one of the most stunning visual images I’ve yet seen in a film (a town enwreathed in flame that is both horrifying and transfixing), Schofield crashes into a basement dwelling. There he encounters a young woman who is keeping a baby alive. Schofield initially is barely able to respond to this pair as he is badly hurt. The young woman moves gracefully toward him and treats his head wound with a gentle feminine touch. She cares for him, the warrior come home to a patchwork family.

For his part, Schofield emerges from his shock and sacrificially gives his canteen of milk to the woman, who gives it to the child. He then warms up further still, engaging the baby and making her laugh. The young woman senses perceptively that he is a father (as indeed he is, we learn later). I wager that Mendes is communicating something meaningful in this scene. In the ruins, in surprising circumstances, the family is rebuilt. Here is the renewal that the world truly needs: not just a planting of trees, but the recovery of marriage, the union of one man and one woman, and the welcoming of children as a gift, not a curse.

It seems that the motif of trees forms the beginning and end motif of 1917 , and this family scene represents the inclusio (the main point bracketed by complementary ideas). The family scene is, in other words, the human expression of the cherry tree scene. Here is the replanting that the world truly needs. It needs men and women, husbands and wives, children loved and cared for, the family restored amidst much attack. Mendes seems to be communicating that this creation order has suffered violence, but that civilization can know healing. It will come through a renewal of the family.

To whatever degree they believe in the natural family (a far better term than our dreaded “nuclear family”), Mendes and Wilson-Cairns have landed on the foundational element of society. We are not born into isolation; we are born into families, at least in God’s design. The family is the first institution, grounded in covenantal marriage that is a picture of the Gospel love of Christ for his church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Even in the treacherous conditions of ferocious battle, the family endures. This short scene, generally mentioned as an oddity by many reviewers, speaks to a profound truth: civilization begins with the family.

Here the trees, so to speak, grow once more.

The Value of a Life

1917 brings its celebration of life to a muted peak in its final scene. Schofield, having lost Blake to an unjust death some hours back, meets Blake’s brother. Schofield and Lieutenant Blake struggle to speak to one another, but even as he delivers terrible news, Schofield performs a precious service. Schofield hands over some small effects of Blake’s. This quick action, easily overlooked, is actually a crucial development of Schofield’s character. Earlier in the movie, Schofield derided a medal he earned in a prior conflict for heroism. Just before the cherry tree scene, he tells Blake that he traded his medal for a bottle of wine. This got Blake’s blood up: “You should have taken it home,” he protests. “You should have given it to your family. Men have died for that. If I got a medal, I’d take it back home.”

Schofield spits back at Blake. “It’s just a bit of tin,” he says. “It doesn’t make any difference to anyone.” But Blake (just before his death) rises again to the challenge: “Yet it does. And it’s not just a bit of tin. And it’s got a ribbon on it.” This early scene anticipates the film’s last scene. At that point, walking into the cut-flower grove, Schofield is battle-hardened. He has lost touch with the good, true, and beautiful. He is by no means evil as the enemy is, but he is no longer able to be a witness to the deep value of life; he is simply surviving. But Blake is still alive, fully alive. He sees that the medal is not just tin; it speaks to the ideals that drive one to risk everything for the sake of the innocent and the threatened.

Notably, in this earlier scene Blake sees the medal as valuable in relation to family. (He adores his family, making it all the more poignant that we meet his brother in closing.) Valor in battle confers meaning on all the sacrifices made by both soldiers and loved ones. War is terrible, but men give everything they have in order to love and protect those who are also sacrificing much at home (who will be justly proud of warrior heroism). The “tin” itself is not worth anything great. But the medal symbolically captures all the hardship, courage, and sacrifice made by soldiers (and civilizations) for a greater good. It simultaneously has no real value and more value than words can convey.

In the end, tin is all that is left in earthly terms. But these effects, though small and insignificant, speak to the value of an entire existence. They tell us who this man was: Blake, a valiant soldier, one so merciful that he died trying to help a foe, a young man whose days on earth mattered . Every life matters. Every person has value, dignity, and worth. Here, I think, we behold a glimpse of the doctrine of the image of God in cinematic expression.

An Odyssey, But a Spiritual Odyssey More Than a Physical One

As mentioned above, the film closes with Schofield resting against a tree. For the first time, he lets himself look at pictures of his beautiful young wife and children. He alluded to his family in the “bit of tin” scene, but got choked up before he could say more. “I hated going home… when I knew I had to leave and they might never see…” At the end of this line, Schofield’s voice trails off. The pain is too great for him, so he goes silent. Here is his mentality early in 1917 : better to survive than despair.

In light of this resolution, we discover that 1917 is not only a “quest” in the classic sense, a man going on a grand adventure. It is that, but it is much more. Schofield himself has gone on a personal quest, yes, but has been changed by his personal odyssey. He is not the same man. He understands afresh just how much life matters. He felt this in a terrible way when Blake bled out on the ground; he felt this like an electric current as he ran to stop the doomed assault; he felt it when he handed over all that was left of a noble life; he feels it as he leans against a tree at the film’s end, looking over his pictures of his family. He has awakened once more to the goodness of the world. The survivor of almost impossible difficulty, Schofield is effectively brought back to full-fledged humanity by Blake. He is, you could say, reenchanted .

Mendes has signaled such a trajectory already. Recall what happened in the German barracks scene: after a terrific explosion (that nearly knocked me out of my IMAX seat), Schofield would certainly have died had Blake not pulled him out of the rubble. In the end, Blake—with the young woman and baby and the singer in the wooded glade—has pulled Schofield out of spiritual ruin as well. Though dead, Blake’s spirited and virtuous example has helped bring Schofield back from a kind of living death. Nearly dehumanized by war, Schofield’s epic quest has revealed that the world is not a machine. Existence is not merely a test of survival. The created order is not intended for consumption, least of all for mindless destruction. Evil is everywhere, but the cherry trees—representing civilization—will grow back, and in greater number. Goodness, truth, and beauty are all around us, and will be found in greater measure in the age to come.

It may well be that these commitments reflect for Mendes not a Christian worldview but a Romantic worldview. Yet as I surface this possibility, I cannot help but think of two intertwined concluding events. First, after surviving a terrible assault and a rushing river, Schofield is nearly dead. As Dan Phillips pointed out to me, cherry blossoms then fall on him and seem to revive him, enabling him to crawl over corpses and survive (a fulfillment of Blake’s words on regenerative cherry trees). Second, as Schofield staggers toward the battlefield, we hear these words from the “Wayfaring Stranger” song sung in the forest glade: “But golden fields lie just before me / Where God’s redeemed shall ever sleep.” Perhaps this is a sign that Mendes’ vision is not only Romantic, and that this is not simply a war movie, or a “quest” movie. It certainly is not a “one trick” movie, nor is it “soulless” or “bad” or “bombast” or a mere slice of cake. No, 1917 is a work of art. It is a beautiful film. It is a deceptively deep inquiry into the value of life, the treasured heritage of Western civilization, and the importance of martial courage. 1917 is, after Malick’s Tree of Life , the most profound film I have seen in some time.

This is a fitting reference with which to conclude. What did we hear early in 1917 , after all? “Keep your eyes on the trees.” How fitting, and how consonant with rich Christian theology. It was a tree misused that damned us. It was a tree fitted for torture that saved us. Like Schofield at the end of his journey, sitting in peace beneath a tree, a living thing that is itself a witness to the goodness of God’s creation, so it will be a tree’s leaves that heal us weary pilgrims in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2).

Keep your eyes on the trees, indeed.

Owen Strachan is a theology professor at Midwestern Seminary and the author of Reenchanting Humanity: A Doctrine of Mankind and coauthor of the brand-new sexuality trilogy .

Providence is the only publication devoted to Christian Realism in American foreign policy and is entirely funded by donor contributions. There are no advertisements, sponsorships, or paid posts to support the work of Providence , just readers who generously partner with Providence to keep our magazine running. If you would care to make a donation it would be highly appreciated to help Providence in advancing the Christian realist perspective in 2024. Thank you!

Events & Weekly Newsletter Sign-up

• Weekly Newsletter
• Providence/IRD Events in DC
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Enjoy this article?

Please Support Providence Today:

Related articles

Review of “Jesus and the Powers” by Michael Bird and N.T. Wright

Daniel Gullotta June 3, 2024

Watching “Leave the World Behind” & Unfairly Maligning Our Military

Eric Patterson May 27, 2024

What “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” Gets Right and Wrong About Killing

Marc LiVecche May 3, 2024

Henry Clay and the Problem of Politics

Jeffery Tyler Syck April 9, 2024

C. S. Lewis was Right on History

Jack Nicholson April 5, 2024

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Institute on Religion and Democracy 1023 15th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005

• Juicy Ecumenism
• Writers’ Guidelines
• Contributors
• Internship Opportunities

© 2024 The Institute on Religion and Democracy. All rights reserved.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

At a time when it seems as if cinema experiences a new technological breakthrough every few months, it's oddly comforting that moviegoers can still be hooked by a film that's presented as being one unbroken shot. Granted, it's not a new idea, but the concept of an extended single shot, whether the shot is meant to stretch for an entire movie, or just serve as the focus for an especially showy scene, still has the power to excite viewers on some basic level. “1917,” the new film from Sam Mendes , is the latest attempt at the feature-length single-shot approach, and its technical accomplishments cannot be denied. But the film is so obsessed with its particular technique that it doesn’t leave room for the other things we also go to the movies for—little things like a strong story, interesting characters, or a reason for existing other than as a feat of technical derring-do. Sitting through it is like watching someone else playing a video game for two solid hours, and not an especially compelling one at that.

As indicated by the title, “1917” is set amidst the turmoil of World War I and takes place in and around the so-called “no man’s land” in northern France separating British and German troops. Two young corporals, Blake ( Dean-Charles Chapman ) and Schofield ( George MacKay ), are awoken from what could have only been a few minutes of sleep and ordered to report for a new assignment. A few miles away, another company, one that includes Blake’s brother, has planned an attack to commence in a few hours designed to push the Germans back even further following a recent retreat. However, recent intelligence suggests that the retreat is a ruse that will land them in ambush that will cost thousands of British lives. With the radio lines down, Blake and Schofield are ordered to head on foot to that company in order to call off the attack before it can commence, a journey that will force them to travel through enemy territory. Of course, the two have been assured that where they will be crossing is safe enough, but the tension within the soldiers they meet as they get closer to the front, and the recent nature of the carnage they witness when they first go over the top, suggests otherwise. And yet, that first glimpse of the literal Hell on earth they must journey through is only a taste of what they have to endure—at one point, one of them inadvertently plunges a hand recently sliced by barbed wire into the open wound of a corpse and that turns out to be one of the less excruciating moments in store for them.

“1917” essentially wants to do for World War I what “ Saving Private Ryan ” did for World War II and “ Platoon ” did for Vietnam—provide a visceral depiction of the horrors of combat for viewers whose only frame of reference for those conflicts has been history books or other movies. This is not a bad idea for a film, but "1917" never quite comes alive in the way that Mendes presumably hoped, and much of the reason for that is the direct result of how he has deployed to tell his story. Now, I enjoy an extended single-shot sequence that exists solely for a filmmaker to show off their technical finesse, but if I were to make a list of the most effective one-shot sequences, they would be the ones that are so absorbing for other reasons that we don’t even register at first that they have been done in what looks like one long take. Take the famous opening scene in Orson Welles' “ Touch of Evil ,” for example. Yes, it is a technical marvel. But at the same time Welles was pulling off this trick with the aid of cinematographer Russell Metty , he was setting up the story and introducing several of the key characters quickly and efficiently. When he did finally make a cut, it came as a genuine shock.

By comparison, there is hardly a moment to be had in “1917” in which Mendes is not calling out for viewers to notice all the technical brilliance on display. Taken strictly on those terms, the film is undeniably impressive— Roger Deakins is one of the all-time great cinematographers and his work here on what must have been a fiendishly challenging shoot is as impressive as anything he has done. The problem is that the visual conceit can’t help but draw attention to itself throughout, whether it is due to the increasingly showy camera moves or the sometimes awkward methods that are deployed to camouflage the edits and which begin to stick out more and more. (Oddly enough, the most blatantly obvious method used to hide a cut—one of the characters being briefly knocked unconscious—is actually the most dramatically effective of the bunch.) Instead of gradually fading into the background in order to make room for elements of a more dramatic or emotional nature, the distracting technique remains front and center.

Granted, one of the reasons that the visual style ends up dominating the proceedings is because there isn’t really much of anything on hand here that has much chance of stealing focus. The storyline concocted by Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns too often feels like an amalgamation of such classic WWI films as "The Big Parade," “All Quiet on the Western Front” and " Paths of Glory ." At certain points, the story stops dead for brief appearances by familiar faces like Colin Firth , Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong in exposition-heavy sequences that feel exactly like the cut scenes that appear between the different levels in video games. 

“1917” is not entirely without interest. This was clearly a fiendishly complicated project to stage and execute and there are some scenes (such as an especially tense one set in a seemingly abandoned shelter that contains a few nasty surprises), that are legitimate knockouts. And yet, for all of its technical expertise, little of it helps viewers to care about the characters or what might happen to them. When all is said and done, "1917" is basically a gimmick film. If that is enough for you, you may admire it for its accomplishments. Personally, I wanted more.

Peter Sobczynski

A moderately insightful critic, full-on Swiftie and all-around  bon vivant , Peter Sobczynski, in addition to his work at this site, is also a contributor to The Spool and can be heard weekly discussing new Blu-Ray releases on the Movie Madness podcast on the Now Playing network.

Now playing

I Saw the TV Glow

Robert daniels.

Clint Worthington

Evil Does Not Exist

Glenn kenny.

Peyton Robinson

The Young Wife

Film credits.

1917 (2019)

Rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language.

119 minutes

George MacKay as Schofield

Dean-Charles Chapman as Blake

Mark Strong as Captain Smith

Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie

Richard Madden as Lieutenant Blake

Benedict Cumberbatch as MacKenzie

• Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Cinematographer

• Roger Deakins
• Thomas Newman

Latest blog posts

Female Filmmakers in Focus: Bridgett M. Davis

Chi Film Fest's 60th Anniversary Cinema Soirée

The Acolyte Sends Star Wars Into a Galaxy Far, Far In the Past

Short Films in Focus: The Year of Staring at Noses

‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film Essay (Movie Review)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Purpose of Bravery

Historical accuracy, significance.

The film ‘1917’ was directed by Sam Mendes, who wanted to create a war movie to reflect the World War I events. The main actors in the film include Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, who played the role of Blake and Schofield, respectively. The two are given a critical assignment by Colin Firth, acting as General Erinmore, to deliver a message to Richard McCabe (Colonel Mackenzie) and save the 16,000 men under a death trap (Mandes, 2019). The film’s plot twist is Mackenzie’s reluctance in receiving the message which took a lot of risks to be delivered. The film shows two committed British soldiers that are ready to risk their lives and stop a deadly attack that is likely to cause death to 16,000 men. The soldier’s challenging journey through the no man’s land is a reflection of courage and resilience.

The purpose of the film ‘1917’ is to show the bravery demonstrated by the two soldiers, Blake and Schofield. The two men were determined to deliver the message to Mackenzie despite the dangers that faced them. They had to travel through the enemy’s land and deal with many life-threatening instances to deliver the message that involved calling off the attack. The film shows that people can be determined to deliver results amidst adversity, just like in the case of Schofield and Blake.

Focused as he was, Schofield managed to reach Mackenzie and gave him the message. Despite the death of his friend Blake, Schofield continued with the mission which he was able to accomplish. The purpose of this film is to show the role of bravery and resilience in mission accomplishment. Schofield did not allow his tough experiences to distract him from the main goal. The film delivers a strong message to people in different fields particularly soldiers to exhibit resilience and bravery in their assignments.

The ‘1917’ film is an epic of World War I focusing mainly on the challenges and efforts made by the battalions during the war. Though the film’s plot is fictional, including the characters, the film context and circumstances are similar to those of the British Army during WWI. The horror and heavy losses depicted in the movie are nothing different from the WWI happenings. The tactics, weapons, equipment of war, and uniforms in the film are historically accurate. The film director sets the soldiers to be a mixture of different characters as in the case of WWI. In the latter case, soldiers serving in front-line formations assumed different roles and were of different ethnicities.

The actions in the film are accurate in demonstrating the numerical superiority of the British army in WWI. Mackenzie’s led battalion had 16,000 men who were prepared for the attack(Mandes, 2019). The technology of war, including the trenches and barbered-wire emplacements in the film, are similar to what was present in WWI. However, sending two men through the vast land to deliver a message to the leader of the battalion is historically inaccurate. During WW I, messages was sent through wireless technology and people did not have to travel to facilitate communication.

‘1917’ is one of the most important films because of its emphasis on resilience and courage. The film shows the sacrifices that brave people make to save others. I would not hesitate to recommend this movie to a friend because watching it has made me embrace bravery. The film has made me stronger and more resilient in whatever I am set to accomplish. I derive my inspiration from Blake’s and Schofield’s determination not to abandon their mission despite the near-death experiences.

Mandes, S. (2019). ‘1917’ [Film]. Dreamworks Pictures.

• Sovereignty in "The Exiles" by Kent Mackenzie
• Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry
• The Spirituality of the Book "The Shack"
• The Vector of the I Am Legend Film
• Elefante by Pablo Larcuen: Evaluation of the Film
• Meanings and Messages About Gender and Race in “The Hate U Give” by Tillman Jr
• The Heroism Concept in Two Kubrick's Films
• Chicano Cinema: The Plot of Zoot Suit
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, December 4). ‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film. https://ivypanda.com/essays/1917-by-sam-mendes-analysis-of-film/

"‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film." IvyPanda , 4 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/1917-by-sam-mendes-analysis-of-film/.

IvyPanda . (2022) '‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film'. 4 December.

IvyPanda . 2022. "‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film." December 4, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/1917-by-sam-mendes-analysis-of-film/.

1. IvyPanda . "‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film." December 4, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/1917-by-sam-mendes-analysis-of-film/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "‘1917’ by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film." December 4, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/1917-by-sam-mendes-analysis-of-film/.

Advertisement

Supported by

‘1917’ Review: Paths of Technical Glory

Sam Mendes directs this visually extravagant drama about young British soldiers on a perilous mission in World War I.

• Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

On June 28, 1914, a young Serbian nationalist assassinated the presumptive heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, thus starting World War I. That, at any rate, is the familiar way that the origins for this war have been shaped into a story, even if historians agree the genesis of the conflict is far more complicated. None of those complications and next to no history, though, have made it into “1917,” a carefully organized and sanitized war picture from Sam Mendes that turns one of the most catastrophic episodes in modern times into an exercise in preening showmanship.

The story is simple. It opens on April 6, 1917, with Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay), British soldiers stationed in France, receiving new orders. They are to deliver a message to troops at the front line who are readying an assault on the Germans, who have retreated. (Coincidentally or not, April 6 is the date that the United States formally entered the war.) The British command, however, believes that the German withdrawal is a trap, an operational Trojan horse. The two messengers need to carry the dispatch ordering the waiting British troops to stand down, thereby saving countless lives.

It’s the usual action-movie setup — a mission, extraordinary odds, ready-made heroes — but with trenches, barbed wire and a largely faceless threat. Blake jumps on the assignment because his brother is among the troops preparing the assault. Schofield takes orders more reluctantly, having already survived the Battle of the Somme , with its million-plus casualties. The modest difference in attitude between the messengers will vanish, presumably because any real criticism — including any skepticism about this or any war — might impede the movie’s embrace of heroic individualism for the greater good, which here largely translates as vague national struggle and sacrifice.

What complicates the movie is that it has been created to look like it was made with a single continuous shot. In service of this illusion, the editing has been obscured, though there are instances — an abrupt transition to black, an eruption of thick dust — where the seams almost show. Throughout, the camera remains fluid, its point of view unfixed. At times, it shows you what Blake and Schofield see, though it sometimes moves like another character. Like a silent yet aggressively restless unit member, it rushes before or alongside or behind the messengers as they snake through the mazy trenches and cross into No Man’s Land, the nightmarish expanse between the fronts.

The idea behind the camerawork seems to be to bring viewers close to the action, so you can share what Blake and Schofield endure each step of the way. Mostly, though, the illusion of seamlessness draws attention away from the messengers, who are only lightly sketched in, and toward Roger Deakins’s cinematography and, by extension, Mendes’s filmmaking. Whether the camera is figuratively breathing down Blake’s and Schofield’s necks or pulling back to show them creeping inside a water-filled crater as big as a swimming pool, you are always keenly aware of the technical hurdles involved in getting the characters from here to there, from this trench to that crater.

In another movie, such demonstrative self-reflexivity might have been deployed to productive effect; here, it registers as grandstanding. It’s too bad and it’s frustrating, because the two leads make appealing company: The round-faced Chapman brings loose, affable charm to his role, while MacKay, a talented actor who’s all sharp angles, primarily delivers reactive intensity. This lack of nuance can be blamed on Mendes, who throughout seems far more interested in the movie’s machinery than in the human costs of war or the attendant subjects — sacrifice, patriotism and so on — that puff into view like little wisps of engine steam.

The absence of history ensures that “1917” remains a palatable war simulation, the kind in which every button on every uniform has been diligently recreated, and no wound, no blown-off limb, is ghastly enough to truly horrify the audience. Here, everything looks authentic but manicured, ordered, sane, sterile. Save for a quick appearance by Andrew Scott, as an officer whose overly bright eyes and jaundiced affect suggest he’s been too long in the trenches, nothing gestures at madness. Worse, the longer this amazing race continues, the more it resembles an obstacle course by way of an Indiana Jones-style adventure, complete with a showstopping plane crash and battlefield sprint.

Mendes, who wrote the script with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, has included a note of dedication to his grandfather, Alfred H. Mendes , who served in World War I. It’s the most personal moment in a movie that, beyond its technical virtues, is intriguing only because of Britain’s current moment. Certainly, the country’s acrimonious withdrawal from the European Union makes a notable contrast with the onscreen camaraderie. And while the budget probably explains why most of the superior officers who pop in briefly are played by name actors — Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch — their casting also adds distinctly royal filigree to the ostensibly democratic mix.

Rated R for war violence. Running time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

Manohla Dargis has been the co-chief film critic since 2004. She started writing about movies professionally in 1987 while earning her M.A. in cinema studies at New York University, and her work has been anthologized in several books. More about Manohla Dargis

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

Leslye Headland’s new “Star Wars” show, The Acolyte,” is a dream come true, but she knows it carries enormous expectations .

Once relegated to supporting roles, the comedian Michelle Buteau  is a star of the film “Babes” and is moving to a bigger stage, Radio City Music Hall, for her new special.

American audiences used to balk at subtitles. But recent hits like “Shogun” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once” show how much that has changed .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

History | December 20, 2019

The True History Behind the ‘1917’ Movie

A story shared by director Sam Mendes’ grandfather, a veteran of the Western Front, inspired the new World War I film

Meilan Solly

Associate Editor, History

The new World War I drama from director Sam Mendes, 1917 , unfolds in real-time, tracking a pair of British soldiers as they cross the Western Front on a desperate rescue mission. Seemingly filmed in one continuous take , the 117-minute epic has garnered accolades for its cinematography and innovative approach to a potentially formulaic genre.

Although the movie’s plot is evocative of Saving Private Ryan —both follow soldiers sent on “long journeys through perilous, death-strewn landscapes,” writes Todd McCarthy for the Hollywood Reporter —its tone is closer to Dunkirk , which also relied on a non-linear narrative structure to build a sense of urgency.

“[The film] bears witness to the staggering destruction wrought by the war, and yet it is a fundamentally human story about two young and inexperienced soldiers racing against the clock,” Mendes tells Vanity Fair ’s Anthony Breznican. “So it adheres more to the form of a thriller than a conventional war movie.”

Plot-wise, 1917 follows two fictional British lance corporals tasked with stopping a battalion of some 1,600 men from walking into a German ambush. One of the men, Blake (Dean Charles Chapman, best known for playing Tommen Baratheon in “Game of Thrones”), has a personal stake in the mission: His older brother, a lieutenant portrayed by fellow “Game of Thrones” alumnus Richard Madden, is among the soldiers slated to fall victim to the German trap.

“If you fail,” a general warns in the movie’s trailer , “it will be a massacre.”

While Blake and his brother-in-arms Schofield (George McKay) are imaginary, Mendes grounded his war story in truth. From the stark realities of trench warfare to the conflict’s effect on civilians and the state of the war in spring 1917, here’s what you need to know to separate fact from fiction ahead of the movie’s opening on Christmas Day.

Is 1917 based on a true story?

In short: Yes, but with extensive dramatic license, particularly in terms of the characters and the specific mission at the heart of the film.

As Mendes explained earlier this year, he drew inspiration from a tale shared by his paternal grandfather, author and World War I veteran Alfred Mendes . In an interview with Variety , Mendes said he had a faint memory from childhood of his grandfather telling a story about “a messenger who has a message to carry.”

The director added, “And that’s all I can say. It lodged with me as a child, this story or this fragment, and obviously I’ve enlarged it and changed it significantly.”

What events does 1917 dramatize?

Set in northern France around spring 1917, the film takes place during what Doran Cart , senior curator at the National WWI Museum and Memorial , describes as a “very fluid” period of the war. Although the Allied and Central Powers were, ironically, stuck in a stalemate on the Western Front, engaging in brutal trench warfare without making substantive gains, the conflict was on the brink of changing course. In Eastern Europe, meanwhile, rumblings of revolution set the stage for Russia’s impending withdrawal from the conflict. Back in Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II resumed unrestricted submarine warfare —a decision that spurred the United States to join the fight in April 1917 —and engaged in acts of total war, including bombing raids against civilian targets.

Along the Western Front, between February and April 1917, the Germans consolidated their forces by pulling their forces back to the Hindenburg Line , a “ newly built and massively fortified ” defensive network, according to Mendes.

Germany’s withdrawal was a strategic decision, not an explicit retreat, says Cart. Instead, he adds, “They were consolidating their forces in preparation for potential further offensive operations”—most prominently, Operation Michael , a spring 1918 campaign that found the Germans breaking through British lines and advancing “farther to the west than they had been almost since 1914.” (The Allies, meanwhile, only broke through the Hindenburg Line on September 29, 1918.)

Mendes focuses his film around the ensuing confusion of what seemed to the British to be a German retreat. Operating under the mistaken assumption that the enemy is fleeing and therefore at a disadvantage, the fictional Colonel MacKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) prepares to lead his regiment in pursuit of the scattered German forces.

“There was a period of terrified uncertainty—had [the Germans] surrendered, withdrawn, or were they lying in wait?,” the director said to Vanity Fair .

In truth, according to Cart, the Germans “never said they were retreating.” Rather, “They were simply moving to a better defensive position,” shortening the front by 25 miles and freeing 13 divisions for reassignment. Much of the preparation for the withdrawal took place under cover of darkness, preventing the Allies from fully grasping their enemy’s plan and allowing the Germans to move their troops largely unhindered. British and French forces surprised by the shift found themselves facing a desolate landscape of destruction dotted with booby traps and snipers; amid great uncertainty, they moved forward cautiously.

In the movie, aerial reconnaissance provides 1917’s commanding officer, the similarly fictional General Erinmore (Colin Firth), with enough information to send Blake and Schofield to stop MacKenzie’s regiment from walking into immense danger. (Telegraph cables and telephones were used to communicate during World War I , but heavy artillery bombardment meant lines were often down, as is the case in the movie.)

To reach the at-risk battalion, the young soldiers must cross No Man’s Land and navigate the enemy’s ostensibly abandoned trenches. Surrounded by devastation, the two face obstacles left by the retreating German forces, who razed everything in their path during the exodus to the newly constructed line.

Dubbed Operation Alberich , this policy of systematic obliteration found the Germans destroying “anything the Allies might find useful, from electric cables and water pipe[s] to roads, bridges and entire villages,” according to the International Encyclopedia of the First World War . Per the Times , the Germans evacuated as many as 125,000 civilians, sending those able to work to occupied France and Belgium but leaving the elderly, women and children behind to fend for themselves with limited rations. (Schofield encounters one of these abandoned individuals , a young woman caring for an orphaned child, and shares a tender, humanizing moment with her.)

“On the one hand it was desirable not to make a present to the enemy of too much fresh strength in the form of recruits and laborers,” German General Erich Ludendorff later wrote , “and on the other we wanted to foist on him as many mouths to feed as possible.”

The events of 1917 take place prior to the Battle of Poelcappelle , a smaller skirmish in the larger Battle of Passchendaele , or the Third Battle of Ypres, but were heavily inspired by the campaign, which counted Alfred Mendes among its combatants. This major Allied offensive took place between July and November 1917 and ended with some 500,000 soldiers wounded, killed or missing in action. Although the Allies eventually managed to capture the village that gave the battle its name, the clash failed to produce a substantial breakthrough or change in momentum on the Western Front. Passchendaele, according to Cart, was a typical example of the “give-and-take and not a whole lot gained” mode of combat undertaken during the infamous war of attrition.

Who was Alfred Mendes?

Born to Portuguese immigrants living on the Caribbean island of Trinidad in 1897, Alfred Mendes enlisted in the British Army at age 19. He spent two years fighting on the Western Front with the 1st Battalion Rifle Brigade but was sent home after inhaling poisonous gas in May 1918. Later in life, Alfred won recognition as a novelist and short story writer; his autobiography , written in the 1970s, was published posthumously in 2002.

The “story of a messenger” recalled by the younger Mendes echoes the account of the Battle of Poelcappelle told in his grandfather’s autobiography . On the morning of October 12, 1917, Alfred’s company commander received a message from battalion headquarters. “Should the enemy counter-attack, go forward to meet him with fixed bayonets,” the dispatch read. “Report on four companies urgently needed.” Despite the fact that he had little relevant experience aside from a single signaling course, Alfred volunteered to track down A, B and D Companies, all of which had lost contact with his own C Company. Aware of the high likelihood that he would never return, Alfred ventured out into the expanse of No Man’s Land.

“The snipers got wind of me and their individual bullets were soon seeking me out,” wrote Alfred, “until I came to the comforting conclusion that they were so nonplussed at seeing a lone man wandering in circles about No Man’s Land, as must at times have been the case, that they decided, out of perhaps a secret admiration for my nonchalance, to dispatch their bullets safely out of my way.”

Or, he theorized, they may have “thought me plain crazy.”

Alfred managed to locate all three missing companies. He spent two days carrying messages back and forth before returning to C Company’s shell hole “without a scratch, but certainly with a series of hair-raising experiences that would keep my grand- and great-grandchildren enthralled for nights on end.”

How does 1917 reflect the harsh realities of the Western Front?

Attempts to encapsulate the experience of war abound in reviews of 1917 . “War is hideous—mud, rats, decaying horses, corpses mired in interminable mazes of barbed wire,” writes J.D. Simkins for Military Times . The Guardian ’s Peter Bradshaw echoes this sentiment, describing Blake and Schofield’s travels through a “post-apocalyptic landscape, a bad dream of broken tree stumps, mud lakes left by shell craters, dead bodies, rats.” Time ’s Karl Vick, meanwhile, likens the film’s setting to “Hieronymus Bosch hellscapes .”

These descriptions mirror those shared by the men who actually fought in World War I—including Alfred Mendes. Remembering his time in the Ypres Salient, where the Battle of Passchendaele ( among others ) took place, Alfred deemed the area “a marsh of mud and a killer of men.” Seeping groundwater exacerbated by unusually heavy rainfall made it difficult for the Allies to construct proper trenches, so soldiers sought shelter in waterlogged shell holes.

“It was a case of taking them or leaving them,” said Alfred, “and leaving them meant a form of suicide.”

According to Cart, leaving one’s trench, dugout or line was a risky endeavor: “It was pretty much instant death,” he explains, citing the threat posed by artillery barrages, snipers, booby traps, poison gas and trip wires.

Blake and Schofield face many of these dangers, as well as more unexpected ones. The toll exacted by the conflict isn’t simply told through the duo’s encounters with the enemy; instead, it is written into the very fabric of the movie’s landscape, from the carcasses of livestock and cattle caught in the war’s crosshairs to rolling hills “ comprised of dirt and corpses ” and countryside dotted with bombed villages. 1917 ’s goal, says producer Pippa Harris in a behind-the-scenes featurette , is “to make you feel that you are in the trenches with these characters.”

The kind of individualized military action at the center of 1917 was “not the norm,” according to Cart, but “more of the exception,” in large part because of the risk associated with such small-scale missions. Trench networks were incredibly complex, encompassing separate frontline, secondary support, communication, food and latrine trenches. They required a “very specific means of moving around and communicating,” limiting opportunities to cross lines and venture into No Man’s Land at will.

Still, Cart doesn’t completely rule out the possibility that a mission comparable to Blake and Schofield’s occurred during the war. He explains, “It’s really hard to say … what kind of individual actions occurred without really looking at the circumstances that the personnel might have been in.”

As Mendes bemoans to Time , World War II commands “a bigger cultural shadow” than its predecessor—a trend apparent in the abundance of Hollywood hits focused on the conflict, including this year’s Midway , the HBO miniseries “ Band of Brothers ” and the Steven Spielberg classic Saving Private Ryan . The so-called “Great War,” meanwhile, is perhaps best immortalized in All Quiet on the Western Front , an adaptation of the German novel of the same name released 90 years ago.

1917 strives to elevate World War I cinema to a previously unseen level of visibility. And if critics’ reviews are any indication, the film has more than fulfilled this goal, wowing audiences with both its stunning visuals and portrayal of an oft-overlooked chapter of military lore.

“The First World War starts with literally horses and carriages, and ends with tanks,” says Mendes. “So it’s the moment where, you could argue, modern war begins.”

Get the latest History stories in your inbox?

Click to visit our Privacy Statement .

Meilan Solly | | READ MORE

Meilan Solly is Smithsonian magazine's associate digital editor, history.

• Cinematography

How Was 1917 Filmed — The Making of 1917 Explained

1 917 was one of the most technically innovative and daring films ever made… but how was 1917 filmed? The production of 1917 utilized more than 500 extras in an effort to retain as much authenticity as possible – and it called for body exhuming, bird conservation, and stringent cloud coverage. We’re going to explore how 1917 was filmed by looking at a bunch of the production hurdles it overcame. By the end, you might have a newfound appreciation for director Sam Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins, the 1917 cast and all the other members of the production team who worked tirelessly to make a war-film unlike any other. Check out this 1917 making of video to see the production in action!

Watch: Behind the Making of 1917

Subscribe for more filmmaking videos like this.

How 1917 Was Filmed

How did they film 1917 .

1917 is a 2019 war film that follows two British soldiers, Lance Corporal Schofield (George McKay) and Lance Corporal Blake (Dean Charles-Chapman), as they cross enemy lines during World War I in order to deliver a message that has the potential to save 1,600 lives. The film utilizes invisible cuts and other editing techniques to appear as if it was shot in one take. This next video looks at the hidden cuts of 1917 — obviously, major spoilers ahead:

How Was 1917 Shot?  •  1917 Making Of

Sam Mendes served as the director of 1917 and co-wrote the script with Kristy Wilson-Cairns. Roger Deakins was the film’s cinematographer; Thomas Newman was its composer. Now that we’ve reviewed what 1917 is and some of the chief people who worked on it, let’s jump into the production history to better understand the difficulties of shooting a military masterpiece.

How Was the Movie 1917 Filmed on Location?

Where was 1917 filmed.

For a movie like 1917 , you can’t just go out into the country and begin shooting. Everything from cast and crew to practical effects has an impact on the local environment – and you need permits from the government to minimize your effect on the ecology. It’s of the utmost importance you manage shooting locations effectively.

“Normally with location movies, you’re in and out in a couple of weeks,” location manager Emma Pill said. That wasn’t the case with 1917 – which was shot for upwards of 60 days from April 1st through mid-June.

But where was 1917 filmed? Well, one reason why filming of 1917 took so long was because it was shot at multiple locations, including Low Force, on the River Tees, Teesdale. This next video by Andy Beck shows us some of the actual places where 1917 was filmed. Listen along as Beck answers the question: where was the film 1917 shot?

Where Was 1917 Filmed?  •  Exploring 1917 Shooting Locations

Surprisingly, it wasn’t the river that presented the most challenging natural obstacle; it was the environment of Salisbury Plain (where a good portion of the filming of 1917 took place) and its local bird population, specifically the endangered stone curlew birds.

Nate Jones of Vulture reported that the production team of 1917 had to minimize its footprint so as to not upset the stone curlew birds and the chirocephalus diaphanus shrimps that lived in the sunken soil created by tank treads. In fact, some members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were actually on the 1917 set to make sure the stone curlews weren’t harmed – and not only did the production team not harm the birds, they unintentionally created a new habitat for them.

The barn that was built for production was supposed to be torn down after shooting was completed, but before it was able to be taken down, birds were discovered nesting there – thus making it illegal for the barn to be destroyed.

How Was 1917 Filmed?  •  The Barn in the 1917 Set

Another obstacle that production had to prepare for was the possibility of finding bodies that needed to be exhumed. Pill said “I had to get a license to exhume bodies… Obviously if they were modern bodies, you’re calling the police. But ancient bodies [3,000 years old], you have to have a license to have permission to exhume them from the ground.” In the end, production didn’t find any bodies. So, where was the movie 1917 filmed? 1917 was filmed across the U.K. in a variety of locations.

The 1917 Cast Was Thrust into the Fire

How was 1917 filmed with a big cast.

It’s reasonable to suspect that the weather in Salisbury, England in April would be dark and dreary, but for Mendes and the 1917 team, it was anything but what they expected. In fact, the first day on the shooting schedule was so sunny that Deakins decided they couldn’t film. If you’ve seen the film,  you know that it's mostly overcast or dark – so for continuity’s sake it wouldn’t make sense if there was one shot in the sun and the next shot was under clouds.

The sun played a huge role in the production of 1917 because it served as the film’s primary light source. Roughly 80-90% of the film was solely reliant on natural lighting, but there are a couple scenes that were illuminated by fire and explosions. Watch this next clip to see Mendes break down “the desolate town” scene from 1917 – and read our article on how Roger Deakins shot a oner film for more technical details.

How Was 1917 Filmed?  •  Sam Mendes Explains

It’s amazing to think that Mendes and Deakins were able to manually control light and shadow to such a degree . How crazy is it that they measured the walls and vibrancy of light to calculate the effect of potential shadows? To me, that attention to detail is something that makes Mendes and Deakins some of the best filmmakers in the world.

A lot of people ask was 1917 filmed in one take. In this next video, we break down some of the key details and strategies Roger Deakins used to make it appear as if 1917 was filmed in one take.

Was 1917 Filmed in One Take?  •  Breaking Down the 1917 One-Shot

The production of 1917 teaches us to always expect the unexpected. Star George McKay said that the 1917 cast began rehearsing and choreographing in January, three months before the April start. But even with all that time to practice, there were still a lot of obstacles that nobody planned for. In this next video, McKay explains how perhaps the most iconic scene from 1917 was full of mistakes.

1917 Cast Member George MacKay

I suppose it would be hard not to run into people when everybody is running in one direction and you’re cutting across them. Maybe McKay knew he was bound to run into some extras – but it doesn’t seem he was prepared to fall down and get knocked around as much as he did. Ultimately, this moment teaches us that nothing ever goes according to plan in filmmaking – and that’s one of the most beautiful things about the medium.

How Roger Deakins Shot a “Oner”

Now that we’ve broken down some of the production hurdles 1917 overcame, let’s move onto the cinematographic challenges. In this next article, we analyze how cinematographer Roger Deakins and director Sam Mendes shot a “oner” or a “one shot film.” We’ll show you all of their camera equipment and camera tricks so that you can attempt a oner of your own.

Up Next: 1917 One Shot Explained →

Create production calendars with a drag-and-drop timeline.

Create customizable production calendars for your next video or photoshoot. Add events, tasks, and dependencies. Invite your team and share calendars with clients.

Learn More ➜

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Pricing & Plans
• Product Updates
• Featured On
• StudioBinder Partners
• The Ultimate Guide to Call Sheets (with FREE Call Sheet Template)
• How to Break Down a Script (with FREE Script Breakdown Sheet)
• The Only Shot List Template You Need — with Free Download
• Managing Your Film Budget Cashflow & PO Log (Free Template)
• A Better Film Crew List Template Booking Sheet
• Best Storyboard Softwares (with free Storyboard Templates)
• Movie Magic Scheduling
• Gorilla Software
• Storyboard That

A visual medium requires visual methods. Master the art of visual storytelling with our FREE video series on directing and filmmaking techniques.

We’re in a golden age of TV writing and development. More and more people are flocking to the small screen to find daily entertainment. So how can you break put from the pack and get your idea onto the small screen? We’re here to help.

• Making It: From Pre-Production to Screen
• The Rule of Six — Eye Trace Editing Technique Explained
• How to Get a Film Permit — A Step-by-Step Breakdown
• How to Make a Storyboard: Ultimate Step-by-Step Guide (2024)
• VFX vs. CGI vs. SFX — Decoding the Debate
• 583 Facebook
• 2 Pinterest

• The Real World War I History Behind the Movie <i>1917</i>

The Real World War I History Behind the Movie 1917

T he recent run of World War I centennial anniversaries led to a spike in interest in the conflict, which ended in 1918, and Hollywood has been no exception. The few critically acclaimed Great War movies, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Sergeant York (1941), were joined in 2018 by Peter Jackson’s documentary They Shall Not Grow Old. On Christmas Day, that list will get a new addition, in the form of Sam Mendes’ new film 1917.

The main characters are not based on real individuals, but real people and events inspired the movie, which takes place on the day of April 6, 1917. Here’s how the filmmakers strove for accuracy in the filming and what to know about the real World War I history that surrounded the story.

The real man who inspired the film

The 1917 script, written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, is inspired by “fragments” of stories from Mendes’ grandfather, who served as a “runner” — a messenger for the British on the Western Front. But the film is not about actual events that happened to Lance Corporal Alfred H. Mendes, a 5-ft.-4-inch 19-year-old who’d enlisted in the British Army earlier that year and later told his grandson stories of being gassed and wounded while sprinting across “No Man’s Land,” the territory between the German and Allied trenches.

In the film, General Erinmore (Colin Firth) orders two lance corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay), to make the dangerous trek across No Man’s Land to deliver a handwritten note to a commanding officer Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch), ordering them to cancel a planned attack on Germans who have retreated to the Hindenburg Line in northern France.

Life in the trenches

The filmmakers shot the film in southwestern England, where they dug about 2,500 feet of trenches — a defining characteristic of the war’s Western Front — for the set.

Paul Biddiss, the British Army veteran who served as the film’s military technical advisor and happens to have three relatives who served in World War I, taught the actors about proper techniques for salutes and handling weapons. He also used military instruction manuals from the era to create boot camps meant to give soldiers the real feeling of what it was like to serve, and read about life in the trenches in books like Max Arthur’s Lest We Forget: Forgotten Voices from 1914-1945 , Richard van Emden’s The Last Fighting Tommy: The Life of Harry Patch, Last Veteran of the Trenches, 1898-2009 (written with Patch) and The Soldier’s War: The Great War through Veterans’ Eyes.

He put the extras to work, giving each one of about three dozen tasks that were part of soldiers’ daily routines. Some attended to health issues, such as foot inspections and using a candle to kill lice, while some did trench maintenance, such as filling sandbags. Leisure activities included playing checkers or chess, using buttons as game pieces. There was a lot of waiting around, and Biddiss wanted the extras to capture the looks of “complete boredom.”

The real messengers of WWI

The film’s plot centers on the two messengers sprinting across No Man’s Land to deliver a message, and that’s where the creative license comes in. In reality, such an order would have been too dangerous to assign.

When runners were deployed, the risk of death by German sniper fire was so high that they were sent out in pairs. If something happened to one of them, then the other could finish the job. “In some places, No Man’s Land was as close as 15 yards, in others it was a mile away,” says Doran Cart, Senior Curator at the National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City. The muddy terrain was littered with dead animals, dead humans, barbed wires and wreckage from exploding shells—scarcely any grass or trees in sight. “By 1917, you didn’t get out of your trench and go across No Man’s Land. Fire from artillery, machine guns and poison gas was too heavy; no one individual was going to get up and run across No Man’s Land and try to take the enemy.”

Human messengers like Blake and Schofield were only deployed in desperate situations, according to Cart. Messenger pigeons, signal lamps and flags, made up most of the battlefield communications. There was also a trench telephone for communications.

“Most people understand that World War I is about trench warfare, but they don’t know that there was more than one trench,” says Cart. “There was the front-line trench, where front-line troops would attack from or defend from; then behind that, kind of a holding line where they brought supplies up, troops waiting to go to to the front-line trench.” The “bathroom” was in the latrine trench.

There were about 35,000 miles of trenches on the Western Front, all zigzagging, and the Western Front itself was 430 miles long, extending from the English Channel in the North to the Swiss Alps in the South.

April 6, 1917

The story of 1917 takes place on April 6, and it’s partly inspired by events that had just ended on April 5. From Feb. 23 to April 5 of that year, the Germans were moving their troops to the Hindenburg Line and roughly along the Aisne River, around a 27-mile area from Arras to Bapaume, France. The significance of that move depends on whether you’re reading German or Allied accounts. The Germans saw it as an “adjustment” and “simply moving needed resources to the best location,” while the Allies call the Germans’ actions a “retreat” or “withdrawal,” according to Cart.

In either case, a whole new phase of the war was about to begin, for a different reason: the Americans entered the war on April 6, 1917. A few days later, the Canadians captured Vimy Ridge, in a battle seen to mark “the birth of a nation” for Canada, as one of their generals put it. Further East, the Russian Revolution was also ramping up.

As Matthew Naylor, President and CEO of the National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City, Mo., says of the state of affairs on the Western Front in April 1917, “Casualties on both sides are massive and there is no end in sight.”

Correction, Dec. 24

The original version of this article misstated how WWI soldiers de-loused themselves. The troops used a candle to burn and pop lice, they did not pour hot wax on themselves.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Joe Biden Leads
• TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2024
• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Sealed Trump’s Fate : Column
• Are Walking Pads Worth It?
• 15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Olivia B. Waxman at [email protected]

1917 (Film) Sam Mendes

1917 (Film) essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of 1917 (Film), directed by Sam Mendes.

1917 (Film) Material

• Study Guide

Join Now to View Premium Content

GradeSaver provides access to 2361 study guide PDFs and quizzes, 11008 literature essays, 2769 sample college application essays, 926 lesson plans, and ad-free surfing in this premium content, “Members Only” section of the site! Membership includes a 10% discount on all editing orders.

1917 (Film) Essays

Excellence in war film: comparing mendes’ 1917 with coppola’s apocalypse now anonymous 10th grade, 1917 (film).

Throughout its long and storied history, the war film has both entertained and informed audiences across the world. Invariably, bad, good, and great war films are released every year. Great war films, though, typically tell an exceptionally simple...

Read the Script for Golden Globes Surprise Winner ‘1917’ (EXCLUSIVE)

By Matt Donnelly

Matt Donnelly

Senior Film Writer

• Emile Hirsch to Narrate Audiobooks of Pioneering Queer Author Fritz Peters 11 hours ago
• Controversial Donald Trump Movie ‘The Apprentice’ Made a Splash in Cannes. Is Hollywood Too Scared to Release It? 5 days ago
• Sun Valley 2024 Invites Shari Redstone, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Jason Blum and More (EXCLUSIVE) 6 days ago

“Life, to be sure, is nothing much to lose,” wrote English poet A.E. Housman. “But young men think it is, and we were young.”

Houseman’s poignant words appear on page two of the screenplay for “ 1917 ,” co-written by the film’s director Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the gripping journey of two British soldiers who endeavor to save thousands of lives on foot during World War I.

Mendes, who stunned by taking the director and picture, drama trophies at Sunday’s Golden Globe awards, and Wilson-Cairns also sell the innovative conceit of their narrative on the script’s third page — which you can find below in its entirety, exclusive to Variety .

“The following script takes place in real time, and — with the exception of one moment — is written and designed to be one single continuous shot,” they advise the reader.

Mendes has spoken at length this season about his deep ties to the war, recounted to him in stories from his grandfather Alfred Mendes. Earlier this week, Variety ‘s Tim Gray underscored this emotional link that has taken a back seat to the film’s stunning visuals, courtesy of famed cinematographer Roger Deakins.

Popular on Variety

Wilson-Cairns hit the road in service of the script, flying to a French battleground.

“When I was there, I realized something I had read but never understood: that men died so their country could gain inches, just inches of land,” she told Variety .

“1917,” from Universal Pictures and Amblin Partners, boasts a starry but subtle ensemble cast lead by upstarts George MacKay (whose breakout came in the Cannes darling “Captain Fantastic”) and Dean-Charles Chapman. Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden and Andrew Scott also appear.

View PDF here

More from Variety

‘the watchers’: dakota fanning, ishana shyamalan and georgina campbell reveal how ‘love island’ helped shape the horror film, the ad market is not ready for the imminent streaming sports boom, ‘emilia pérez’ star karla sofía gascón signs with uta (exclusive), new movies out now in theaters: what to see this week , what netflix learned from ‘fallout’ success apparent in new synced-up games & unscripted strategy, dakota fanning reveals the birthday gift tom cruise gives her every year since 2005’s ‘war of the worlds’: ‘he sends me shoes’, more from our brands, shane smith returns to vice after company bankruptcy, sets podcast with bill maher, a tech magnate is asking $12.5 million for kareem abdul-jabbar’s former l.a. home, ai video firm spiideo lands $20m venture capital investment, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, road house sequel will be ‘bigger’ and ‘expansive,’ says jake gyllenhaal, verify it's you, please log in.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga Link to Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
• Young Woman and the Sea Link to Young Woman and the Sea
• Jim Henson Idea Man Link to Jim Henson Idea Man

New TV Tonight

• Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• Ren Faire: Season 1
• Clipped: Season 1
• Queenie: Season 1
• Sweet Tooth: Season 3
• Mayor of Kingstown: Season 3
• Criminal Minds: Season 17
• Becoming Karl Lagerfeld: Season 1
• Power Book II: Ghost: Season 4
• Erased: WW2's Heroes of Color: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• Eric: Season 1
• Dark Matter: Season 1
• Evil: Season 4
• Tires: Season 1
• Outer Range: Season 2
• Star Wars: Ahsoka: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1 Link to Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Star Wars TV Shows Ranked by Tomatometer

30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

6 TV and Streaming Shows You Should Binge-Watch in June 2024

The Acolyte First Reviews: A Familiar but New Vision of Star Wars , Packed with Stunning Action

• Trending on RT
• The Acolyte First Reviews
• Vote: 1999 Movie Showdown
• Bad Boys: Ride or Die

Where to Watch

Watch 1917 with a subscription on Netflix, rent on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, or buy on Fandango at Home, Prime Video.

What to Know

Hard-hitting, immersive, and an impressive technical achievement, 1917 captures the trench warfare of World War I with raw, startling immediacy.

Critics Reviews

Audience reviews, cast & crew.

George MacKay

Lance Corporal Schofield

Dean-Charles Chapman

Lance Corporal Blake

Mark Strong

Captain Smith

Andrew Scott

Lieutenant Leslie

Richard Madden

Lieutenant Joseph Blake

Movie Clips

More like this, related movie news.

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

• April 6th, 1917. As an infantry battalion assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that will stop 1,600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap.
• April 1917, the Western Front. Two British soldiers are sent to deliver an urgent message to an isolated regiment. If the message is not received in time the regiment will walk into a trap and be massacred. To get to the regiment they will need to cross through enemy territory. Time is of the essence and the journey will be fraught with danger. — grantss
• April 6, 1917. On a battlefield in Northern France, Lance Corporal Tom Blake with the British Army is asked to choose one of his battalion colleagues to join him on an assignment, he choosing his best friend, Lance Corporal Will Schofield. It isn't until Blake chooses Schofield that they learn of the dangerous nature of the mission: to hand deliver a message to Colonel MacKenzie leading another nearby battalion, they having to cross no man's land to what they have been told are now the abandoned German trenches to get to MacKenzie just past the nearby town of Écoust. The message, which must reach its destination by dawn tomorrow, is for MacKenzie to abort his troop's attack then on the supposedly retreating Germans who are in reality lying in wait, the Germans having planned this deception for months. The lives of MacKenzie and his 1,600 men are at risk if the message does not make it through in time, one of those men being Blake's brother, Lt. Joseph Blake. Blake and Schofield's stories as it pertains to them as soldiers in the bigger picture of the war, as soldiers trying to stay alive, as friends, and as human beings who have their own motivations are told for as long as they are able to survive on this mission. — Huggo
• It's been three devastating years into the costly World War I, and the Imperial German Army seems to have retreated from its position in the battle-scarred Western Front. But it's an elaborate scheme designed to lure the Allies into a deadly trap. On April 6, 1917, with the lives of 1,600 fellow soldiers hanging by a thread, best friends and British Army Lance Corporals Tom Blake and Will Schofield undertake a peril-laden mission to hand-deliver an urgent, life-saving message to Colonel MacKenzie's Second Battalion of the Devonshire line infantry regiment. Amid the horrors of an uncannily silent no man's land, the young brothers-in-arms must traverse nine miles of hostile enemy terrain in the French countryside to reach the 2nd Devons in time and call off the imminent attack. Now, two ordinary troopers walk into certain death. What makes a true hero? — Nick Riganas
• British trenches somewhere in France. World War One has been going on for the third year, heroic illusions have dissipated; general mood - boredom and fatigue. Stuff the belly, sleep, return home to Christmas Eve. On another quiet day, when nothing happens, two young soldiers, Blake and Schofield, are summoned to the general, who instructs them to send an important message to Colonel MacKenzie in the Second Devonshire Battalion, whose telephone connection was cut off by the enemy. — Peter-Patrick76 ([email protected])
• At the height of the First World War in April 1917 in northern France, two young British soldiers, Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) and Lance Corporal Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), are given a mission directly by General Erinmore (Colin Firth) to hand-deliver a message to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, calling off their planned attack on the German forces. The Germans have feigned retreat to the Hindenburg Line (it is 3 miles deep, artillery, defenses and fortifications never seen before) and are prepared to ambush the battalion of 1,600 men, Blake's brother Lieutenant Joseph Blake (Richard Madden) among them. Erinmore has aerial photos that show the German fortifications which will destroy the advance of the Devonshire Regiment, who aims to attack at dawn the following morning. As all phone lines are cut there is no other way to get the message across. Schofield wants to wait till dark, but Blake wants to save his brother and leaves immediately. They are 9 miles from their destination. It should take them 6-8 hours to get there at the most. Lieutenant Leslie (Andrew Scott) is in command of the trench from where the duo have to access the No man's land. Leslie doesn't believe Erinmore's analysis and says that the Germans are still manning their trenches. He calls it a trap but shows them the best way across the No Man's Land. Schofield and Blake cross no man's land to reach the abandoned German trenches, but Schofield injures his left hand along the way (when it snags in the 2nd line of barbed wire). In an underground barracks (the duo finds massive under bunkers in the German trenches with cots for soldiers to sleep), they discover a tripwire set by the Germans, which is promptly triggered by a rat; the explosion almost kills Schofield, but Blake saves him, and the two escape. They arrive at an abandoned farmhouse (Schofield fills his water flask with milk he finds in a bucket), where a German plane is shot down in a dogfight with Allied aircraft. Schofield and Blake save the burned pilot from the wreck. Blake persuades Schofield to get water for the pilot. When Schofield's back is turned, the pilot stabs Blake. Schofield shoots the pilot dead and comforts Blake as he dies, promising to complete the mission and to write to Blake's mother. Taking Blake's rings and dog tag, as well as Erinmore's letter, he is picked up by a passing British unit (led by Captain Smith (Mark Strong)) and dropped off near the bombed-out village of Ecoust-Saint-Mein. Smith tells Schofield to have witnesses when he gives the orders to Mackenzie. Smith knows that some men just want a fight and Mackenzie may not call off the attack even after being ordered. A destroyed canal bridge near Ecoust-Saint-Mein prevents the British lorries from crossing, and Schofield chooses to part with them. He uses what is left of the bridge to cross alone and comes under fire from a sniper. Exchanging shots, Schofield wounds the sniper and advances, whereupon he and the sniper shoot each other simultaneously; the sniper is killed, while Schofield is struck in the helmet and knocked unconscious. He awakens at night and makes his way through the flare-lit ruins of the town. After evading a German soldier, he discovers a French woman hiding with a presumably orphaned infant. She treats his wounds, and he gives her his canned food and milk from the farm. Despite her pleas, Schofield leaves, after hearing the chimes of a nearby clock and realizing that time is running out. Encountering German soldiers who were occupying Ecoust, he strangles one to death and escapes pursuit by jumping into a river. The river carries him while the cherry blossoms fall. He is swept over a waterfall before reaching the riverbank. Schofield reaches the 2nd Battalion in the morning only to find that the attack has already begun, and that Blake's brother is among the first wave to go over the top. As the company starts to move toward the front, Schofield tries to reach Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). Realizing that the trenches are too crowded for him to make it to Mackenzie in time, Schofield goes "over the top" and sprints on the open battlefield parallel to the British trench line, just as the infantry begins its charge. He forces his way in to meet Mackenzie, who reads the message and reluctantly calls off the attack. Schofield looks for Blake's brother, and finds him, who was among the first wave and is bloodied but unharmed. Schofield informs Joseph of his mission and of Tom's death, passing on Tom's rings and dog tag. Joseph is deeply upset about his brother but thanks Schofield for his efforts. Schofield asks for permission to write to their mother about Tom's heroics, to which Joseph agrees. Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree and looks at photographs of his family; on the back of one of them is the message Come back to us.

Contribute to this page

• IMDb Answers: Help fill gaps in our data
• Learn more about contributing

More from this title

More to explore, recently viewed.