1917 analysis essay

‘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/.

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:

Teaching IR Christianly

Tim Milosch June 11, 2024

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

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

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, black writers week.

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

Christy Lemire

A Man in Full

Rendy jones.

Ultraman: Rising

Simon abrams.

Clint Worthington

Kinds of Kindness

Brian tallerico.

Glenn Kenny

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

The Hard Way, Or My Way? RIP Bill Cobbs (1934-2024)

Catherine Breillat Wants You to Think About (Movie) Sex Differently

Sundance x Chicago Brings Film's Premier Festival to the Windy City

Home Entertainment Guide: June 2024

an image, when javascript is unavailable

‘1917’: Film Review

Actor George MacKay carries Sam Mendes' audacious real-time WWI adventure, which alternates between ground-level and God's-eye perspectives.

By Peter Debruge

Peter Debruge

Chief Film Critic

‘A Quiet Place: Day One’ Review: Alien Invasion Prequel Arrives Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing 1 day ago
‘I Am: Celine Dion’ Review: The Canadian Diva Has Never Seemed Stronger Than She Does in Prime’s Revealing Doc 1 week ago
‘Flow’ Review: Latvian Animator Gints Zilbalodis Follows Mesmerizing ‘Away’ With an Endearing Cat’s Incredible Journey 2 weeks ago

(center) George MacKay as Schofield in 1917, co-written and directed by Sam Mendes.

How do you define heroism? For more than a century, movies have shaped our collective idea of the individuals and actions that qualify, often making the word appear out of reach to ordinary mortals. Now, along comes Sam Mendes ’ “ 1917 ” to smash those assumptions, revisiting a day in World War I when two ordinary British soldiers — Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman of “Game of Thrones”) and Schofield ( George MacKay ) — distinguish themselves by undertaking a mission for which neither is the slightest bit prepared.

Heroism reflects courage, of course. But that’s not the same as an absence of fear. There are scenes in “1917” when audiences will see Blake and Schofield panic-stricken, terrified and even in tears. Their errand calls for bravery, and yet, at times the pair can’t help but second-guess their decision to deliver a message that could save the lives of 1,600 fellow British soldiers. To do so, they must cross the battlefield in broad daylight, infiltrate booby-trapped German bunkers and confront the enemy face to face. One can hardly fault them for being afraid. If anything, the tension they feel makes the characters more relatable.

Reviewed at Arclight Cinemas, Hollywood, Nov. 21, 2019. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 119 MIN.

Production: A Universal Pictures release of a DreamWorks Pictures, Reliance Entertainment presentation, in association with New Republic Pictures, of a Neal Street Prods., Amblin Partners production. Producers: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, Callum McDougall, Brian Oliver.
Crew: Director: Sam Mendes. Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns. Camera (color, widescreen): Roger Deakins. Editor: Lee Smith: Music: Thomas Newman.
With: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong , Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch. (English, French, German dialogue)

More from Variety

Disney boosts focus on women’s sports with serena williams documentary on espn+, summer movie season testing 3d cinema’s recoverability, disney unveils terrifying new ‘alien: romulus’ footage, teases marvel’s ‘thunderbolts,’ gives ‘deadpool & wolverine’ alcohol-endorsed boost at cineeurope, nelson peltz reportedly sold all of his disney stock, earning $1 billion, after losing proxy fight, what media & entertainment execs are saying about using gen ai: the vip+/harrisx spring 2024 survey, disney drops federal appeal in florida lawsuit, ending desantis fight, more from our brands, dr disrespect knowingly sent explicit messages to a minor, former twitch employee says, this argentine winery believes it’s worthy of grand cru status—and it’s using science to prove it, scotus chevron rejection could upend ncaa, college athlete cases, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, american ninja warrior vet drew drechsel sentenced to 10+ years for child sex crimes, verify it's you, please log in.

Join Club LWLies
Get the Mag
Open search
Membership: Support our independent journalism
Podcast: Listen and Subscribe
YouTube: Watch our latest video essays

review LWLies Recommends

Review by Greg Wetherall @GregWetherall

Directed by

Colin Firth Dean-Charles Chapman George MacKay

Anticipation.

Mendes tackles World War One with a mouth-watering cast.

Scintillating synergy between sound and vision dazzles the senses.

In Retrospect.

A huge technical achievement. An immersive war film that’s low on plot but high on blistering action.

Sam Mendes’ gripping World War One drama is light on plot but displays plenty of technical panache.

S tories. Sometimes it’s simply the way you tell ’em. You could look to the heart-in-mouth beach landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, or the chilling depiction of Russian roulette of The Deer Hunter , and take both a reminder as to how the overcrowded war genre often requires a dash of the different to stand out.

Stepping away from the James Bond franchise for the first time in seven years, director Sam Mendes has turned to a story shared by his paternal grandfather from his time fighting in World War One. The upshot is 1917 , a film of threadbare plot but audaciously and thrillingly realised.

In the spring of 1917, the Germans initiated ‘Operation Alberich’, a plan to reinforce the defensive line in Hindenburg along the Western Front by way of strategic withdrawal. The very fact of their retreat suggested a beleaguered army on the back foot. It was a wily act of misdirection.

Against this historically verifiable backdrop, we find two young British privates, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay), tasked with delivering a warning to the company of 1,600 servicemen who are preparing to make the Big Push.

The fields that Blake and Schofield traverse to reach them are desolate. Rats scurry over decomposing horses in the sodden soil. Deep craters house the bloated corpses and skeletal remains of the fallen. Booby traps and land mines lie scattered in the pastures. The etiolated complexions of the living they meet along the way bear testimony to both the bitter asperities and sturm and drang of life on the front line.

Mendes marshals his lens like a third pair of eyes accompanying the men. While this maximises the film’s immersive attributes, the optics often resemble an RPG, creating moments where you might expect to look down and find a controller in your hand and an avatar on screen. It is a sensation not helped by the fact that characterisation is ditched quicker than a busted howitzer on the field of battle.

Unlike, say, Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark or Sebastian Schipper’s Victoria , 1917 is not comprised of a single continuous take. The film has more in common with the likes of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope or Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman , as it slips in a few discreet cuts (and one hard cut, roughly midway through). Bearing in mind the scale of the project, it’s an understandable concession and does not detract from the overall technical achievement.

Two particular collaborators are worth their weight in gold. Thomas Newman, who has worked on every Mendes directing credit since 1999’s American Beauty, conjures a remarkably versatile and effective score, while DoP Roger Deakins wrangles some exquisite sepia tones that fit the mode and mood of the picture superbly.

1917 is not an intellectual exploration into the politics and ethical quandaries thrown up by battle, but it is a lapel-grabbing and throat-throttling assault on the senses. It’s visceral, pulsating and, above all, greatly effective. A triumph in sound and vision that not only pushes this war epic up and over the top, but over the line too.

Published 7 Jan 2020

Tags: Colin Firth George MacKay Sam Mendes

Most Popular

LWLies 102: the Challengers issue – Out now!

Kinds of Kindness – first-look review

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga review – Miller you absolute mad man

Alice Rohrwacher: ‘The past must be a living thing’

Suggested For You

A brief history of women in World War Two movies

By Lena Hanafy

These films show the different ways women joined the war effort, often away from the home front.

articles Women In Film

They Shall Not Grow Old

By Adam Woodward

Peter Jackson marks the centennial of the end of WWI with a fascinating, fatally flawed exercise in historic preservation.

The astonishing true story of Hollywood and World War Two

Five Came Back reveals how a handful of famous directors went to war and came back changed.

Become a Member
Digital Editions
Write for LWLies
Access Information
Privacy Policy
The Scoring System

What are you looking for?

About Little White Lies

Little White Lies was established in 2005 as a bi-monthly print magazine committed to championing great movies and the talented people who make them. Combining cutting-edge design, illustration and journalism, we’ve been described as being “at the vanguard of the independent publishing movement.” Our reviews feature a unique tripartite ranking system that captures the different aspects of the movie-going experience. We believe in Truth & Movies.

David Jenkins
Hannah Strong
Marina Ashioti
Laurène Boglio

1917 Review: An Astonishingly Cinematic Masterpiece

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Kevin Costner Dishes on Not ‘Spoon-Feeding People’ Who See Horizon: An American Saga

Bosch: legacy star not returning for season 3, leaving potential storyline unresolved, long-awaited x-men rematch confirmed in new deadpool & wolverine trailer.

1917 is an astonishing cinematic achievement. Director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins elevate filmmaking artistry through technical brilliance and old fashioned, gritty storytelling. 1917 takes place at the height of World War I. The entire film is seen as one continuous camera shot. Every aspect of 1917 works in concert to be powerfully immersive. It is a fluid, riveting experience that utterly grips with stark realism. It is the clear Oscars front runner for best film of the year.

On April 6, 1917 , in a muddy British trench near the frontline in France, Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are summoned for an urgent mission . The general (Colin Firth) briefs them with new intelligence on German troop movements. The enemy has retreated, but heavily refortified their positions. An overeager British colonel (Benedict Cumberbatch) launches an offensive the next morning. He's heading into a trap.

Blake and Schofield must leave the trench, cross "No Man's Land", and traverse German occupied towns to deliver the general's orders. The mission is critical to Blake. His older brother (Richard Madden) is a lieutenant on the frontline. The daring soldiers thrust boldly into certain death . They must reach the colonel in time. Thousands will be massacred if they fail.

The no edit viewpoint is unlike anything you have seen in a movie. Blake and Schofield's journey takes place over a day and night, but feels like real time. You watch as they rush through seemingly endless, filthy trenches filled with injured men and broken spirits. They slog through muddy bogs, strewn with animal and human carcasses being devoured by ravenous rats. And that's just the beginning. The real dangers await in the devastated fields and towns that lay before them. 1917 spares no details of the carnage. You're with Blake and Schofield for every second. The enormity and urgency of the mission like a knife at their throats.

Oscar winners Sam Mendes ( American Beauty , Skyfall ) and Roger Deakins ( No Country for Old Men , Blade Runner 2049 ) do not allow the technical wizardry to supplant the plot. 1917 uses the no edit visual effect as a vital tool in telling the story. The film is an homage to Mendes' grandfather, who told him of the hardships and sacrifices made during the bloody war. Blake and Schofield embody the courage and conviction that the average man had to muster to survive. There are heartbreaking, gut-wrenching scenes of loss, camaraderie, and kindness. 1917 is the perfect example of expert collaboration. An epic story is brought to life without conceit .

The filmmakers use a variety of methods to enthrall. The continuous take deserves acclaim, but doesn't stand alone. The haunting, beautiful score by Thomas Newman ( The Shawshank Redemption , Road to Perdition ) is essential to establishing tension in the film. When Blake and Schofield navigate dark, dangerous places, the music slowly builds to nerve-wracking fright. One scene in particular, of a British soldier singing to his weary men in a forest, will stir your soul. It is a reminder that even in the midst of hell, there can be moments of beauty.

1917 could not be told without the incredible performances of its two lead actors. We see the film through Blake and Schofield's eyes. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay inhabit their characters flawlessly. Where Blake is gung-ho and inexperienced, Schofield is older, more cautious. Their relationship dynamics illustrate the selflessness needed to carry on such an impossible objective. George MacKay, a relatively unknown British actor, carries the weight of 1917 . He becomes a star in this film.

There are not enough superlatives to describe 1917 . Sam Mendes had already reached the pinnacle of his craft with American Beauty . He attains greatness again. 1917 is quite simply, a masterpiece. See it in the best theater possible. 1917 is a production of Dreamworks Pictures and Amblin Partners with distribution by Universal Pictures .

Movie and TV Reviews
1917 (2019)

A Moonlighting English Teacher

1917 Analysis (“The Ambiguity of War”)

Some have accused director Sam Mendez of ending his epic WWI film 1917 in a way that overly exalts individual heroism and glosses over the horrors of the war. But I think the film’s final scene is deceptively complex. On the surface, it may seem like a happy ending. Lance Corporal William Schofield has completed his mission and survived his trials, against all odds. He cradles the photo of his family, as the hopeful sunrise shines brightly on his face.

But as we see his wife’s scrawled note on the back of the photograph, “come back to us,” I couldn’t help wondering, after the harrowing two hours of this film. Can Will Schofield ever fully “go back” to his family? Is truly “coming back” — to his home, or even to himself — fully possible after what he has endured?

This sense of ambiguity pervades the entire film. And this is a perfect approach to take, considering the overall moral obscurity of war and the complexity of World War 1 in particular. As I watched 1917 , I couldn’t help recalling another story, which I’ve taught before: Tim O’Brien’s classic Vietnam War novel, The Things They Carried . In his proposed mission to tell a war story that is as “true” as possible, O’Brien asks,

How do you generalize? War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead.

Part 1 – Contrast and Paradox

In the first half of 1917, we see many paradoxical moments, all of which illustrate the way that the war defies generalization. Yes, the pace and suspense engage us, but Mendes also draws us in by constantly undercutting our expectations and contrasting beauty and goodness with horror and evil.

Once Schofield and Blake make their way to the underground barracks, there is a reprieve of momentary humor involving a rat. Then suddenly, the moment is disrupted by the jarring explosion the rat trips. The brotherhood and care displayed by Blake and Schofield are continually contrasted with the death and decay around them. The cherry trees the pair passes are clear images of life, beauty, and fruitfulness. But they have been disfigured by violence. They come upon numerous pastoral images — grazing cattle, a picturques farmhouse — which are also marred by the destructive technology of the war. And finally, the courageous and honor-driven Blake (who we assumed to be the protagonist up to this point) shows an uncanny sense of humanity in their first confrontation with an enemy soldier. Yet as he attempts to help the German pilot, he is killed in an absurd, unceremonious fashion. Confusion and ambiguity abound.

Part 2 – Inverted Archetypal Symbolism

This subversion of expectations continues when Schofield arrives in the village and awakes after being knocked unconscious. Here, the film’s imagery is rife with archetypal symbolism. Think of the patterns of the Bible or great epics like Dante’s The Divine Comedy . Schofield begins, like Dante, in complete darkness, then proceeds into a hell-like landscape. He quickly descends to what seems like the lowest point in the town, only to be reborn and seemingly baptized in the river.

In such patterns, a hero’s descent into the abyss and subsequent rebirth are typically followed by a consummation of the hero’s hopes — like Dante beholding God at the peak of his ascent or Odysseus’ return home. Likewise, we see Schofield ascend up a mountainside after his baptism, ending with a redemptive scene of a long-lost paradise, as soldiers are uplifted by the strains of a gospel song, promising hope and eternal rest to weary warfaring strangers.

But yet again, we see ambiguity disrupting these familiar patterns. At the bottom of Schofield’s descent, he does not find evil in the dark abyss. He finds instead the film’s most potent images of innocence: a cooing baby and a nurturing mother figure, reminiscent perhaps of the Biblical Mary. Then immediately after leaving this seemingly divine encounter, Schofield is thrust again into absurdity, as he chokes an unsuspecting, nameless soldier in a scene of animalistic violence. And in the film’s final act, after Schofield’s ascent and possible consummation of hope, he is suddenly forced to descend once again into uncertainty and violence. And as he attains what we assume to be his personal triumph, he is told, “Hope is a dangerous thing.”

Part 3 – Homecoming

As I said before, the film’s ending also captures well this realistic look at war’s defiance of generalization. It revisits the serene image of a tree, symbolically signaling yet another cycle of a “new beginning.” Mimics the calm tone from the opening scene, we can’t help feeling jarred. We can’t help questioning this sudden shift to a seemingly peaceful image. Is this really a new beginning for him? It’s hard to finish this film with a true sense of hope, after having endured two hours of suspense and brutality. And it is Schofield himself, after all, who scorns the idea of returning home at the beginning of the film.

Additionally, if we view the home or a house as a symbol for one’s self, an anchor to one’s identity, there are more questions than answers. Will he ever recover from the trauma he has faced? Is returning home a hopeful thought, or will it only bring further suffering? It’s hard to say, considering that he already said it’s better not to return. According to the general, such hope can be a dangerous thing. This theme and this ending certainly DO not suggest that war is simply a heroic endeavor.

Tim O’Brien wrote,

War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can’t believe it with my stomach. Nothing turns inside. It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe.

As many have said, the film presents a harrowing, realistic portrait of war, which transcends easy generalizations, ideological and political agendas, and even its own historical backdrop. Its story, score, camera work, and imagery all work to this end. We believe it. We believe it on a human level. In Tim O’Brien’s words, we believe it in our stomachs.

‘1917’ Co-Writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns Breaks Down That Ending

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Every Aaron Sorkin Movie Screenplay, Ranked

'the death of robin hood's director reveals new details about the hugh jackman-led movie [exclusive], here's where you can stream 'the boy and the heron' right now.

Spoilers for 1917 follow below.

The World War I drama 1917 is not your typical war film. First off, the movie plays out entirely in real-time as if it’s contained in a single shot. Obviously, given the pyrotechnics involved and various location changes, it’s not all actually one shot, but making it all appear as though it’s one shot was no easy task. It challenged all involved, including director Sam Mendes , cinematographer Roger Deakins , and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns .

But 1917 is also unique in that, because it plays out in real-time, there are no significant flashbacks to develop a character’s backstory, nor any “heart-to-heart” conversations that reveal what the characters’ lives are like back home. From the opening minutes of the film until the very end, we’re following Schofield ( George MacKay ) and Blake ( Dean-Charles Chapman ) on a breakneck mission to save 1600 soldiers.

In the final moments of the movie, however, a secret about Schofield is revealed that recontextualizes the entire ordeal. We know that Blake was hell-bent on saving the 1600 men because his brother was one of them, but unfortunately Blake lost his life along the way. Schofield persevered, taking more and more risks after Blake died, all to possibly prevent the soldiers from walking into an ambush with no guarantee he’d make it in time.

But during the film’s final scene, we get a look inside the container Schofield has been protecting this entire time. In it contains a picture of his wife and child. Yes indeed, Schofield did all of this at a potentially immense personal cost, making the sacrifices of those lost during World War I all the more palpable.

When I interviewed Oscar-nominated co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns about her work on the film, I asked how she and Mendes hit upon this particular story point and why they chose to reveal it at the very end of the movie. As she explains, it was all in service of being as realistic as possible:

“So the two big things you learn about Schofield, his name and the fact that he has a family, all come in the final five minutes of the film. And there were a bunch of reasons for us doing that. Partly, again, reality. He's spent at least six months with Blake, so he's not going to wake up in the morning next to Blake in that first scene and go, ‘Oh I'm missing my wife and child, my children.’ Because that's not how people speak. The same with Blake. He would never be like, ‘Oh I miss my mom. I hope she's alright and I wonder how my brother's doing.’ You know, it's just not a reality, not how we behave.”

Wilson-Cairns also pointed to the contrast between Blake’s emotionally extroverted personality and how Schofield keeps his emotions internalized throughout the film—up until the moment that Blake dies:

“And the other thing about Schofield is he's incredibly contained at the beginning of the film. He holds everything in. If you watch the No Man's Land scene again, you'll notice that Blake looks at everything. He looks at the dead horses, he looks at the dead Germans, he looks at the crows and the rats. His fear is him taking it all in, whereas Schofield, who's been there before, looks only ahead. He's only focusing on the next people he's got to get. He doesn't linger over the bodies, so he's really shot-off from the world. He keeps his family in that little tin. And when they survive the collapsing of the tunnels, he looks at it, but he can dare only look at it for a flash. He has to keep everything locked away because that's the only way he'll survive out there. He cannot think of himself as a father and as a soldier, because he would be too afraid to be a soldier because he wants to get back to his kids. To me, that felt very natural, felt pretty human and it allowed us to, with George, include every action of Schofield through the film.”

By the end of the film, however, Wilson-Cairns says Schofield has become a bit more like Blake:

“So we thought at the end, he's become a bit more like Blake. In a way, after Blake dies, he takes Blake on. Blake becomes a part of him. So when he goes through all that second half of the film, he's more like Blake than ever before. He takes chances, he runs, he does everything he can because he's made this promise to his dying friend. And so we wanted that last scene of the film to really get that he's just a tiny bit more like Blake there. Although he's still back against the tree, the way we found him at the very beginning, he's now a changed man. He's gone through something. And the fact that he can read that ‘Come home’ letter and not dissolve is sort of proof of that at a very character-driven level.”

Indeed the final shot of the movie mirrors the opening shot of the film, and is all the more impactful given that it comes at the end of journey during which we followed Schofield’s every waking hour on his quest to save thousands of lives. That he’s able to rest in peace is certainly indicative of how the journey has changed him, and it’s fascinating to hear Wilson-Cairns explain the thought process behind crafting the closing moments of this phenomenal film.

For more on 1917 , check out my full interview with Wilson-Cairns on how she and Mendes wrote the movie right here .

Entertainment

Breaking News

Opinion: As conservatives target same-sex marriage, its power is only getting clearer

An LGBTQ+ Pride flag outside the Supreme Court building

Copy Link URL Copied!

It’s been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he expressed a desire to “revisit” other landmark precedents, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, codified nationally by the Obergefell Supreme Court decision, nine years ago Wednesday

Since that ruling, the LGBTQ+ and allied community has done much to protect the fundamental freedom to marry — passing the Respect for Marriage Act in Congress in 2022; sharing their stories this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the first state legalization of same-sex marriages, in Massachusetts; and in California , Hawaii and Colorado launching ballot campaigns to repeal dormant but still-on-the-books anti-marriage constitutional amendments.

Boyle Heights, CA - March 05: Brandon Ellerby, right, of Los Angeles, casts his ballot during Super Tuesday primary election at the Boyle Heights Senior Center in Boyle Heights Tuesday, March 5, 2024. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

California Democratic Party endorses ballot measures on same-sex marriage, taxes, rent control

The party’s executive board voted Sunday on which measures they would endorse.

May 19, 2024

This winter, I worked with a team at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law to survey nearly 500 married LGBTQ+ people about their relationships. Respondents included couples from every state in the country; on average they had been together for more than 16 years and married for more than nine years. Sixty-two percent married after the court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, although their relationships started before before that. More than 30% of the couples had children and another 25% wanted children in the future.

One finding that jumped out of the data: Almost 80% of married same-sex couples surveyed said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned. Around a quarter of them said they’d taken action to shore up their family’s legal protections — pursuing a second-parent adoption, having children earlier than originally planned or marrying on a faster-than-expected timeline — because of concerns about marriage equality being challenged. One respondent said, “We got engaged the day that the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs decision and got married one week after.”

Eddie Daniels, left, and Natalie Novoa get married at the L.A. County Registrar office in Beverly Hills.

World & Nation

Same-sex marriage ruling creates new constitutional liberty

The Supreme Court’s historic ruling Friday granting gays and lesbians an equal right to marry nationwide puts an exclamation point on a profound shift in law and public attitudes, and creates the most significant and controversial new constitutional liberty in more than a generation.

June 26, 2015

As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple: The freedom to marry has been transformative for them. It has not only granted them hundreds of additional rights and responsibilities, but it has also strengthened their bonds in very real ways.

Nearly every person surveyed (93%) said they married for love; three-quarters added that they married for companionship or legal protections. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83% reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, and 75% reported positive changes in terms of life satisfaction. “I feel secure in our relationship in a way I never thought would be possible,” one participant told us. “I love being married.”

The evolution of same-sex marriage

I’ve been studying LGBTQ+ people and families for my entire career — and even still, many of the findings of the survey touched and inspired me.

Individual respondents talked about the ways that marriage expanded their personal family networks, granting them (for better and worse!) an additional set of parents, siblings and loved ones. More than 40% relied on each other’s families of origin in times of financial or healthcare crisis, or to help out with childcare. Some told of in-laws who provided financial assistance to buy a house, or cared for them while they were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

In his dissent in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, seen here in 2011, showed contempt for his colleagues.

Analysis:: Antonin Scalia’s dissent in same-sex marriage ruling even more scornful than usual

The legal world may have become inured to wildly rhetorical opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, but his dissent in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision Friday reaches new heights for its expression of utter contempt for the majority of his colleagues.

And then there was the effect on children. Many respondents explained that their marriage has provided security for their children, and dignity and respect for the family unit. Marriage enabled parents to share child-rearing responsibilities — to take turns being the primary earner (and carrying the health insurance), and spending more time at home with the kids.

The big takeaway from this study is that same-sex couples have a lot on the line when it comes to the freedom to marry — and they’re going to do everything possible to ensure that future political shifts don’t interfere with their lives. As couples across the country continue to speak out, share their stories — and in California, head to the ballot box in November to protect their hard-earned freedoms — it’s clear to me that it’s because they believe wholeheartedly, and with good reason, that their lives depend on it.

Abbie E. Goldberg is an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and a psychology professor at Clark University, where she directs the women’s and gender studies.

Opinion: Interracial marriage went from criminal to commonplace. Could it go back?

June 9, 2024

Los Angeles, CA - June 02: Participants at the 2024 West Hollywood Pride Parade Los Angeles, CA. (Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

Newsom urges California voters to protect same-sex marriage amid Supreme Court distrust

June 7, 2024

A demonstrator waves the intersex-inclusive Pride flag during the We The People March on July 2, 2023 in Los Angeles.

The U.S. has caught up to California on views of LGBTQ+ rights, poll shows

June 6, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

President Joe Biden, speaks during a presidential debate hosted by CNN with Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump, Thursday, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Opinion: Joe Biden has always put duty to country first. Will he do it again now?

A patron watches President Joe Biden debate Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump during a debate watch party Thursday, June 27, 2024, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Granderson: Debate showed Biden and Trump are terrible, but not equally so

June 28, 2024

Leis and flowers adorn crosses at a memorial for victims of the August wildfire above the Lahaina Bypass highway, Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2023, in Lahaina, Hawaii. The wildfire that tore through the heart of the Hawaii island of Maui this summer showed how older residents are at particular risk from disasters. Sixty of the 100 people killed in the Maui fire this summer were 65 or older. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

Opinion: Did Hawaii just pave the way for court enforcement of California’s climate promises?

an aerial view of Whittier Blvd collaged with a handwritten note adding "East" to a "Los Angeles" sign

Is city status right for East Los Angeles?

Newsletters
Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

This Clarence Thomas Dissent Reveals His Favorite Tactic for Constitutional Mayhem

This is part of Opinionpalooza , Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. Alongside Amicus , we kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law . The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus . (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch !)

Justice Clarence Thomas is a master at the art of bogus history—rewriting the past to give the Constitution a new, dubious meaning that happens to align with the Republican Party platform. Even by his own lofty standards, the justice outdid himself in Moore v. U.S. , last week’s major tax case. Thomas’ dissent is a masterwork of partisan historical revisionism, manipulating reality so seamlessly that an unsuspecting reader might actually think he is telling the truth. He isn’t, not even close: Thomas’ goal in Moore is to eviscerate the 16 th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax in 1913. And, as is so often the case, the justice marshals his argument by diminishing a progressive constitutional amendment as some illegitimate affront to the Framers’ original, divinely inspired design. At this point, it is unclear whether Thomas even acknowledges the full validity of the amendments that made this nation more equal and egalitarian. He is, at a minimum, committed to reading many hard-fought post–Civil War constitutional reforms out of the law altogether.

Conservative attorneys manufactured Moore as a preemptive challenge to a potential future “wealth tax” on affluent Americans’ net assets, including personal property. They seized upon an obscure 2017 provision of the Trump-era tax cuts that taxed shareholders of U.S.–owned corporations located overseas by collecting money on undistributed income. These lawyers argued that the tax was unconstitutional under the 16 th Amendment, which allows Congress “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” The word income , they argued, has a “realization requirement”—meaning that the money must reach a taxpayer’s pockets before the government takes a cut of it. This theory would forestall a wealth tax, since Elon Musk, for instance, hasn’t yet made money on the tens of billions of dollars in Tesla stock he owns.

The Supreme Court wound up ducking the “realization” issue altogether, holding simply that a company’s undistributed income can be attributed to its shareholders. Thomas wrote an angry dissent chastising the majority for “ignoring” the larger question. He embarked upon a journey through a version of history that had not, in fact, occurred, to shrink the 16 th Amendment down to a “narrow meaning” that only “slightly altered” the original Constitution. In the process, he elevated a muddy accommodation for slavery over a signal triumph of the Progressive Era. That’s business as usual for our amateur historian in chief.

Thomas’ sleight of hand revolves around the direct tax clause of the original Constitution. This provision was part and parcel of the three-fifths compromise, which counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation and certain taxes. There was, at the time, a common form of taxation that imposed a “head tax” on each individual taxpayer. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention called this a “direct tax.” In exchange for counting slaves as three-fifths of a person with regard to representation—boosting its share of seats in Congress—the South agreed to count slaves as three-fifths of a person with regard to any future “direct tax.” The slave states demanded and received another safeguard: Any direct tax had to be “apportioned” among the states according to their population (with each slave counting as three-fifths of a person). This system would impose wildly disparate tax burdens on Americans and has always been seen as basically impossible.

Thus, as professor Bruce Ackerman has definitively shown , the direct tax emerged as a sordid trade-off with the slave states, giving “a fig-leaf for antislavery Northerners opposed to the explicit grant of extra representation for Southern slaves.” Yes, the South got extra representation because of its slaves, but it also had to pay more taxes—except that the delegates all knew that new direct taxes were highly unlikely, in part because of how this compromise was structured. In fact, they weren’t even sure what a direct tax might look like , beyond the head tax imposed on individuals. Famously, by James Madison’s account, when one delegate asked the convention “what was the precise meaning of direct taxation,” nobody answered . In 1796 the Supreme Court clarified that a head tax was “direct,” as would be an express tax on land. But nothing else qualified.

Pause here and turn to Thomas’ account, which elides almost all the above. According to the justice, the direct tax clause was part of a “delicate” constitutional balance carefully hammered out at the Constitutional Convention to protect states from an overbearing federal government. Dismissing the clause’s roots in slavery, Thomas claimed that it embodied “federalism principles” designed to give “state governments a fiscal safe haven against expanding federal authority.” The limitation, by his telling, was meant to temper “the destructive force of the federal taxing power,” preventing “unjust taxes” that intrude on state sovereignty. He totally whitewashes the real basis of the clause—a fierce dispute between North and South over the Constitution’s accommodations for slavery.

Somehow, it gets even worse. Turning back to actual history, the Supreme Court understood the direct tax clause in its accurate historical context until 1895, when it abruptly struck down the federal income tax in a notorious case called Pollock . As professors Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath illustrate in their book The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution , the court of this period was dead set upon enshrining the legal supremacy of wealthy individuals and corporations. To that end, it redefined the phrase direct tax to encompass income for the first time. And because it was functionally impossible to apportion a tax among the states, the decision essentially outlawed any federal income tax.

There was not much law in Pollock : Rather, the five justices in the majority based their decision on overt hostility toward a fairer tax system. Justice Stephen Field wrote that the income tax constituted “class legislation” that discriminated against rich people, indistinguishable from a special tax on Protestants or Jews. Field framed the tax as a violation of the equality principles enshrined in the post–Civil War amendments. This claim was especially perverse because, as Justice John Marshall Harlan pointed out in dissent, the direct tax clause was rooted in slavery, and the postwar amendments were designed to rid the Constitution of the institution’s stain.

Predictably, Thomas embraces Pollock as the correct reading of the original Constitution. But Americans of the era disagreed. Progressive reformers mobilized to ratify the 16 th Amendment, one of their most enduring victories, in 1913. The amendment marked a “ massive political repudiation ” of the court’s oligarchical constitutionalism, overruling Pollock and handing Congress the sweeping power to tax income “from whatever source derived.” To Thomas, however, the 16 th Amendment was barely a footnote, a “narrow” change that “left everything else in place, including the federalism principles bound up” in the direct tax clause. (These are “principles” that Thomas just made up.) In Thomas’ account, this groundswell of nationwide support for the income tax—culminating in a grueling and successful crusade to amend the Constitution—was a mere technical tweak with extremely limited effect.

Which leads to the justice’s final, most antidemocratic attempted move in his Moore dissent: transforming the 16 th Amendment from a populist expansion of Congress’ taxing power into a novel restriction on that power. Recall that the amendment allows taxation of income, “from whatever source derived.” There is a wealth of evidence that lawmakers included this phrase to ensure that courts would not artificially narrow the definition of income —a word that was, at the time , widely understood in broad terms , encompassing both realized and unrealized gains . Yet Thomas spurned the historical record in favor of some characteristic sophistry: The word derived , he wrote (without any evidence or support), is a “near-synonym” for realized . It therefore “points to the concept of realization” as an extratextual limitation on Congress’ taxing power.

Responding to Thomas’ opinion, the legal historian Fishkin derided this word game as “an absolute classic of the genre” in which Thomas excels: “to read language that is quite obviously on its face intended to be as broad as possible as instead narrowing language.” The purpose of that phrase, he told me, “was not the word derived . It was the word whatever . It meant—because this was a point of contention at the time—that even income from land could be taxed. It didn’t matter what source the income was derived from. That’s the straightforward and obvious meaning.” Fishkin added, “The word derived happens to be the one he’s playing games with, but really, the text doesn’t matter here. There’s always a word somewhere you can use. The point is that he wants to put in a realization requirement.” And Thomas, ostensibly a committed textualist and originalist, brazenly manipulated both text and history to do it.

There is a profound irony here. The Supreme Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock was obviously wrong , invalidating more than three decades of the income tax. The American people ratified the 16 th Amendment to overrule Pollock . Yet the court initially refused to accept the amendment: It defied the will of the people in 1920’s Eisner v. Macomber , elevating Pollock ’s repudiating interpretation of the vestigial direct tax clause over the 16 th Amendment to limit income taxes once again. Macomber was a hallmark of the court’s Lochner era , when it regularly rewrote the Constitution to favor moneyed interests. It abandoned that approach several years into the New Deal, in the face of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing threat. With Thomas’ Moore dissent, history is repeating itself. The justice wants to turbocharge the direct tax clause (like the Supreme Court did in 1895) and mutilate the 16 th Amendment (like the Supreme Court did in 1920) to reduce the tax burdens on the ultrawealthy. Why? Legal realists can debate the impact of his billionaire friends on Thomas’ jurisprudence.

But there’s another, more explicit bias at work: He simply does not grant constitutional amendments the same respect that he gives to the original Constitution. His jurisprudence is inspired by “natural law,” a theory that interprets the Constitution as, essentially, a divine revelation to the founders that codifies rights bestowed by a higher authority . Under this view, the product of the Constitutional Convention was nearly perfect, minus its accommodation for slavery—yet, as his Moore dissent illustrates, the justice is willing to downplay or write off this glaring defect when necessary.

Thomas will embrace the 14 th Amendment’s equal protection clause to outlaw affirmative action , but he otherwise gives remarkably short shrift to the Reconstruction amendments. These amendments fundamentally altered the balance of power between states and the federal government, giving Congress vastly more authority to enforce a panoply of civil rights. But Thomas routinely interprets them as marginalia at best— shooting down , for instance, Congress’ prerogative to stamp out race discrimination in voting. In these opinions, the justice insists on enforcing aspects of the original Constitution that, he claims, allow states to suppress civil rights and civil liberties without federal interference. The Reconstruction amendments, in his preferred narrative, fall away as an irrelevant relic rather than the radical transformation of the Constitution that they were meant to be.

In Moore , the 16 th Amendment gets the Thomas treatment. His (misleading) account of the amendment’s enactment largely erases the progressive reformers who pushed it over the finish line—as if, to his mind, they have no legitimate role to play in the story of our founding charter. They are written off as interlopers who foolishly tinkered with our God-given Constitution, inserting errors that must be corrected by black-robed rulers who just know better. It’s a frighteningly arrogant approach to judging, one that effectively closes off amendments as a way to fix the court’s mistakes. The Constitution begins with the declaration “We the People” and invites future generations to help build a “more perfect union.” But to Thomas, the wealthy white men who wrote those words got almost everything right the first time, and the people must never be trusted to build upon their flawed work.

Trump’s Debate Performance: Relentless Attacks and Falsehoods

The former president’s remarks onstage, repeated often on the campaign trail, were striking with his opponent standing a few feet away.

Share full article

By Michael Gold

June 28, 2024 Updated 2:16 a.m. ET

For most of Thursday night’s debate, former President Donald J. Trump verbally pummeled President Biden, painting his political opponent as an ineffective leader with a torrent of attacks that were frequently false, lacked context or were vague enough to be misleading.

Mr. Trump went directly after Mr. Biden’s personal character, calling him “weak” and little respected by global leaders who were “laughing” at him.

He tried to accuse Mr. Biden of corruption, dubbing the president as a “Manchurian candidate” who was “paid by China,” a nod to frequent accusations of undue influence for which there is no evidence.

He directly blamed Mr. Biden for a wave of immigrants “coming in and killing our citizens at a level we’ve never” seen, a hyperbolic claim that is not backed up by available statistics.

And in a wild misrepresentation of facts, Mr. Trump claimed falsely that Mr. Biden “encouraged” Russia to attack Ukraine, even though Mr. Biden has consistently tried to rally support for Ukraine and his administration took active steps to warn President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia not to invade.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

1917 (Film)

By sam mendes, 1917 (film) quotes and analysis.

"Alive, as far as I know. And with your help, I’d like to keep it that way." General Erinmore

Blake is requested by General Erinmore to speak about a very important matter. The general asks Blake if he has a brother in the Second Devons, to which Blake replies that he does. General Erinmore says that Blake's brother is alive and that with Blake's help he would like to keep it that way. This alludes to the fact that Erinmore is sending Blake on a mission that could definitively change the course of the war and save many lives, including Blake's brother's.

"Deliver this to Colonel MacKenzie. It is a direct order to call off tomorrow morning’s attack. If you don’t, it will be a massacre. We will lose two battalions. Sixteen hundred men, your brother among them. You think you can get there in time?" General Erinmore

This is the moment when Erinmore explicitly gives his orders to Blake and Schofield, outlining just how high the stakes are.

"Will you write to my mum for me? Tell her I wasn't scared." Blake

In a heartbreaking moment, as he is dying after being stabbed by the German pilot, Blake makes this request of Schofield, asking him to write to Blake's mother to tell him that he was not scared, even when he was on the brink of death.

"Look, the last time I was told the Germans were gone, it didn’t end well. You don’t know, Blake. You weren’t there." Schofield

Schofield, who participated in the Battle of Somme, wants to wait until later to begin the mission, fearing that they will run into Germans if they leave immediately. He tries to convince Blake that they should not be too hasty, but to no avail.

"Shut up! We’ve fought and died over every inch of this fucking place, now they suddenly give us miles? It’s a trap. But chin up. There’s a medal in it, for sure. Nothing like a scrap of ribbon to cheer up a widow." Lieutenant Leslie

The lieutenant in charge of helping Schofield and Blake cross enemy lines into no man's land is a cynical and angry man, who does not have much hope for their mission, as demonstrated in this quote.

"Patch it up. You’ll be wanking again in no time." Blake

After Schofield cuts up his hand on a wire fence, Blake urges him to make sure it's covered, with a cheeky joke about masturbation.

"I’m sorry about your friend. May I tell you something that you probably already know? It doesn’t do to dwell on it." Captain Smith

After Blake dies, Schofield meets up with some British troops, including Captain Smith, who gives him this terse advice, and urges him not to dwell on the death of his friend.

"I have heard it all before. I’m not going to wait until dusk, or for fog. I’m not calling back my men, only to send them out there again tomorrow. Not when we’ve got the bastards on the run. This is their last stand." Colonel Mackenzie

When Schofield finally does deliver the message to Colonel Mackenzie, he has this to say. He does not want to withdraw, as he believes that this is his battalion's only chance at victory, and he has grown impatient with the war.

"Tom’s here? Where is he?" Joseph Blake

When Joseph Blake, Tom's brother, first meets Schofield, he becomes excited that Tom must be there. It is a tragic moment of dramatic irony, because as the viewer knows, Tom is dead.

"He was a good man. Always telling funny stories. He saved my life." Schofield

Schofield says this as consolation to Joseph after informing him that his brother Tom has died. He says simply that Tom was a good friend and a funny companion, as a way to comfort Joseph.

GradeSaver will pay $15 for your literature essays

1917 (Film) Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for 1917 (Film) is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Summarize for me

Sorry, this is a short answer space only. Your link also doesn't work.

What is the first obstacle they encounter on their journey

"1917" is a 2019 war film directed by Sam Mendes that tells the story of two British soldiers, Lance Corporal Schofield and Lance Corporal Blake, who are tasked with delivering a message to stop an attack that will result in the massacre of 1,600...

What region do they cross in the movie?

Blake and Schofield must cross the region known as "No-man's land".

Study Guide for 1917 (Film)

1917 (Film) study guide contains a biography of director Sam Mendes, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

About 1917 (Film)
1917 (Film) Summary
Character List
Director's Influence

Essays for 1917 (Film)

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.

Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes’ 1917 with Coppola’s Apocalypse Now

Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)

Introduction

IMAGES

📌 1917 Film Analysis Essay
The Russian Revolution in October 1917
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (1917 ed.)
1917: The Ambiguity of War (Analysis
Russian Revolution 1917 Essay
The Russian Revolution of 1917 From the Perspective of Claude Anet

VIDEO

Скрытая часть переворота 1917 года. Андрей Фурсов
Finishing our 1917 Reaction
Did you know that in the 1917 movie... #shorts
Что случилось в 1917 году
1917
1917 (2019)

COMMENTS

'1917' by Sam Mendes: Analysis of Film Essay (Movie Review)
Overview. 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 ...
PDF 1917 Film Analysis
May 5, 2020. 1917: Film Analysis. War films are a unique genre of cinema that often bring the audience into a taste of. difficult history. Modern War movies have often paid tribute to wars in their own respects by. glorifying the characters as heroes based on their accomplishments in war. Many audiences are.
Keep Your Eyes on the Trees: An Essay on 1917, the Most Profound Film
1917 certainly is not a "one trick" movie, nor is it "soulless" or "bad" or "bombast" or a mere slice of cake. No, it 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 (Film) Study Guide
Essays for 1917 (Film) 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. Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes' 1917 with Coppola's Apocalypse Now; Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)
1917 movie review & film summary (2019)
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 ...
1917 (Film) Part 1 Summary and Analysis
1917 (Film) Summary and Analysis of Part 1. Summary. April 6, 1917. We see two soldiers asleep in a field, Blake and Schofield. Sanders, another soldier, wakes them up unceremoniously. As they assemble, Blake reads a letter from back home, but Schofield has received no mail. Blake talks about the fact that he thought the food would be better in ...
1917 (Film) Summary
Essays for 1917 (Film) 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. Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes' 1917 with Coppola's Apocalypse Now; Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)
The Main Theme of '1917'? The Innocence That War Destroys
Email us at [email protected]. After watching the new movie "1917" this month, I was reminded of a poem written by Siegfried Sassoon in the summer of 1918, or just over a year after Sam Mendes ...
'1917' Review -- Variety Critic's Pick
Editor: Lee Smith: Music: Thomas Newman. With: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong , Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch. (English, French ...
Review: Sam Mendes' World War I drama '1917' is a technical triumph
Nov. 25, 2019 3:01 PM PT. Sometime after nightfall in "1917," a gravely virtuosic dispatch from the front lines of World War I, a British soldier, Lance Cpl. Schofield (George MacKay), makes ...
'1917' Review: Paths of Technical Glory
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 ...
Script Analysis: '1917'
This week: 1917. Download the script here. Written by Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns. Plot Summary: April 6th, 1917. As a regiment 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.
1917 review
The upshot is 1917, a film of threadbare plot but audaciously and thrillingly realised. In the spring of 1917, the Germans initiated 'Operation Alberich', a plan to reinforce the defensive line in Hindenburg along the Western Front by way of strategic withdrawal. The very fact of their retreat suggested a beleaguered army on the back foot.
1917 Review: An Astonishingly Cinematic Masterpiece
1917 is an astonishing cinematic achievement. Director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins elevate filmmaking artistry through technical brilliance and old fashioned, gritty storytelling ...
1917 (Film) Themes
Essays for 1917 (Film) 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. Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes' 1917 with Coppola's Apocalypse Now; Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)
1917 Analysis ("The Ambiguity of War")
Some have accused director Sam Mendez of ending his epic WWI film 1917 in a way that overly exalts individual heroism and glosses over the horrors of the war. But I think the film's final scene is deceptively complex. On the surface, it may seem like a happy ending. Lance Corporal William Schofield has completed…
1917 Ending Explained: Co-Writer Breaks Down the Final Scene
1917 co-writer Krysty Cairns-Wilson explains how they created the ending to the World War I movie and how it connects to the opening scene.
1917: The Ambiguity of War (Analysis
This video examines what I find to be the central thematic message of 1917 -- that the experiences of soldiers and war itself are impossible to simplify or g...
In The Moment: A 1917 Video Essay
People who helped me on the Chapter 5 stuff:Amandeep Madra: https://twitter.com/amanmadraAngelina Sandhu: https://twitter.com/Angelina_SandhuG.S. BhattiReddi...
1917 Analysis
2 Pages • Essays / Projects • Year Uploaded: 2022. Good morning everyone, I am Sam Mendes, and I am the director of the newly released film, 1917. I was lucky enough to hear of my grandfather's experiences of ww1 back when I was a kid. My aim whilst making this film was to create a one-shot narrative that conveyed, the war experience.
Instant analysis of the presidential debate with CNN experts
Read CNN's analysis and commentary of the first 2024 presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in Atlanta.
1917 (Film) Literary Elements
Essays for 1917 (Film) 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. Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes' 1917 with Coppola's Apocalypse Now; Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)
Opinion: As the right wing targets same-sex marriage, its power gets
As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple ...
This Clarence Thomas Dissent Reveals His Favorite Tactic for
Conservative attorneys manufactured Moore as a preemptive challenge to a potential future "wealth tax" on affluent Americans' net assets, including personal property. They seized upon an ...
1917 (Film) Essay Questions
Essays for 1917 (Film) 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. Excellence in War Film: Comparing Mendes' 1917 with Coppola's Apocalypse Now; Wikipedia Entries for 1917 (Film)
Trump's Debate Performance: Relentless Attacks and Falsehoods
Mr. Biden got in a few licks, including some of the debate's more memorable moments. He said Mr. Trump had the "morals of an alley cat" and accused him of having sex with a porn star while ...
Crime Labs Are Drowning in Work. That Hurts Us All
In Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court again insisted that lab techs must testify in court about their findings. It's a distraction from their day job.
1917 (Film) Quotes and Analysis
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) study guide contains a biography of director Sam Mendes, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.