The 2019 war epic, 1917, is the most recent Hollywood action film I’ve seen. It follows the journey of two World War I soldiers, Tom Blake and William Schofield, as they navigate the battlefields of the Western Front to deliver news that would save the lives of 1,600 of their comrades.
The image above is a screengrab from around halfway into the film, showing two characters in the frame pointing guns at one another. The blocking indicates a power dynamic and predicts who will win this stand-off. The character closest to us, and thus more imposing, is Schofield. The second character, an unnamed German soldier, is sitting on the floor with his gun held limply by his side, making him look smaller and weaker in comparison. The room is desaturated, dim and shadowy, and this—along with their dark uniforms—creates a dreary tone. Behind the German soldier is a window, offering a glimpse of the outside, a bright contrast to the gloomy interior. Through the window, we can see the ruins of the world around them, destroyed by the same warfare that continues inside the room.
In the lead-up to this scene, Schofield is outside and being shot at by the German soldier. A gunfight ensues, and the German is hit. Schofield then carefully approaches the building and ascends the stairs, the hand-held, shaky camera following closely and making the audience feel like they are in the middle of the action. The darkness surrounds him, and the music swells with intensity. Schofield carefully swings the door open to be met with the soldier, gun propped. The ensuing gunfight is quick, lasting only two or three seconds. Schofield shoots first, hitting the man in the chest, and is then shot in the head, the bullet ricocheting off his helmet. Schofield staggers back from the force of the shot and falls down the stairs, falling into unconsciousness. The scene cuts to black.
One of the most popular topics of conversation surrounding 1917 was its Long Take, where continuous shots and cleverly hidden edits were utilised to give the impression that the film took place in one uninterrupted take. This decision had important effects on the storytelling, audience immersion, and the overall tone and messaging of the film. Though 1917 is considered a Long Take, it was not done in a single shot. Several concealed cuts, only observable to a practised eye, made up the movie’s run. Yet these cuts and edits remained few and far between, intended to be ignored, giving the impression of invisibility.
In the absence of extensive and obvious editing, Long Takes will often depend on mise-en-scène to focus the audience’s attention, set a tone, and progress the story¹. As the camera follows Schofield through the dark house and up the stairs, we see the previously discussed elements of mise-en-scène—the costumes, lighting, tone, sound design and blocking—contribute to the overall impact of this scene.
This style of concealed cuts makes it only more blatant when, only a few seconds after the image above, the scene cuts to black as Schofield passes out. This is the first and only obvious moment of editing in the movie, and thus its impact is fully felt. The cut creates a sense of tension as we wonder whether Schofield survived the shot. It also serves as a narrative tool to communicate the passage of time: when Schofield finally wakes up, hours have gone by. He looks outside the same window, where the body of the German soldier still lies, to see the darkness of night.
Directors employ the Long Take for a number of reasons, from spontaneity to suspense-building². The film’s timeline mirrors reality almost exactly, so diegetic time coincides almost perfectly with the time it takes to tell the story³. In 1917, this creates the feeling of a ticking time bomb, where every second of real-time that passes correlates to less time for our protagonists to complete their mission. The mise-en-scène, in cases such as this, replicates temporal and spatial reality as near-precisely as possible⁴, resulting in a sense of heightened realism.
This realism is, of course, imagined. In opposition to real life, film exists as a choreographed spectacle⁵. In making a war movie and utilising choices like the Long Take which add to the tension and intensity, Director Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins have essentially made a spectacle of war. The danger here could be in the romanticisation of war and violence, making it seem honourable and important. Films like this can fall under the umbrella of war propaganda, seducing young people into the purported valour of nationalised violence.
The film’s choices in style and tone earned it critical acclaim and high profits, with a CinemaScore rating of A-⁶ and a global box-office gross of $384,580,017⁷.
Endnotes:
1. Abhijit Ghosh, “Analysis of Single-Shot and Long-Take Filmmaking: Its Evolution, Technique, Mise-En-Scène, and Impact on the Viewer,” Indian Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism 2, no. 2 (December 30, 2022): 4–12.
2. Ghosh, “Analysis of Single-Shot and Long-Take Filmmaking”
3. Edgar-Hunt, Robert, John Marland, and Steven Rawle. Basics Film-Making 04: The Language of Film. Vol. 4. Ava Publishing, 2010.
4. Henderson, Brian. “The long take.” Film Comment 7, no. 2 (1971): 6-11.
5. Wilson, George M., Christian Metz, and Michael Taylor. 1974. “Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema.” MLN 89 (6): 1068.
6. D’Alessandro, Anthony. 2020. “‘1917’ Great $37M, ‘Like a Boss’ Bests ‘Just Mercy’ for 4th With $10M; Why Kristen Stewart’S ‘Underwater’ Went Kerplunk – Update.” Deadline, January 13, 2020.
7. “1917 – Box Office Mojo.” Box Office Mojo.
Bibliography
“1917 – Box Office Mojo.” Box Office Mojo. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2969994753/.
Abhijit Ghosh, “Analysis of Single-Shot and Long-Take Filmmaking: Its Evolution, Technique, Mise-En-Scène, and Impact on the Viewer,” Indian Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism 2, no. 2 (December 30, 2022): 4–12, https://doi.org/10.54105/ijmcj.b1023.122222.
D’Alessandro, Anthony. 2020. “‘1917’ Great $37M, ‘Like a Boss’ Bests ‘Just Mercy’ for 4th With $10M; Why Kristen Stewart’s ‘Underwater’ Went Kerplunk – Update.” Deadline, January 13, 2020. https://deadline.com/2020/01/box-office-1917-star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-like-a-boss-1202826743/.
Edgar-Hunt, Robert, John Marland, and Steven Rawle. Basics Film-Making 04: The Language of Film. Vol. 4. Ava Publishing, 2010.
Henderson, Brian. “The long take.” Film Comment 7, no. 2 (1971): 6-11.
Wilson, George M., Christian Metz, and Michael Taylor. 1974. “Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema.” MLN 89 (6): 1068. https://doi.org/10.2307/2906955.
Nathan Chow
Hey Adesire
Your assessment of 1917 presents a thorough and insightful analysis of the film’s use of the long take, mise-en-scène, and temporal realism. The commentary you have provided effectively bridges personal observation with scholarly perspectives, such as Abhijit Ghosh’s work on long-take filmmaking and the semiotic observations of Wilson and Metz. The critique is improved by the film’s stylistic choices being situated within broader cinematic practices, and theories.
Your analysis shows the immersive power of the long take. It connects well to the story’s urgency over time. However, it could more fully explore the potential limits of this method. While the critique acknowledges multiple moral implications surrounding war’s romanticization, it does not thoroughly explore the important tension that exists between realism, and spectacle. I think that further exploration of the briefly mentioned “nationalized violence” could help the analysis asses how the film balances its artistic intentions and it would clarify the moral responsibility of depicting war.
The compelling analysis accurately draws attention to power dynamics, and mise-en-scène, but it could better connect to broader themes like humanity’s fragility in chaos. Overall the your analysis effectively describes and analyzes the film, but it could expand its moral considerations, and engage more analytically with the film’s wider ethnic implications.
Martin Kalousek
The essay here written by Adesire summarizes all points and aspects of this famous longshot very well. They mention the scene and mood set between the soldiers and the use of no camera cuts as it follows them through the trenches further immersing you in this amazing movie. I could say I am well aware of this shot and a huge fan of it. Adesire mentions this impact as I agree, most people with basic movie knowledge recognize this scene and those who have witnessed it remember it forever. As mentioned in the review this creates a raw feel and not taking you out of the action for even a second it almost feels like a virtual reality scene! I wish the image showed the chaos a bit more and chose the field scene showcasing waves of infantry getting mowed down as the character slowly loses touch of reality. I think that is where the longshot shines and has the most impact. The sources cited all match and are scholarly so in summary I thought this essay was capable and valid. I do disagree with the conclusion as this movie paints also the most ugly side of war, not just “romanticisation of war and violence”, it wants to make you sick to your stomach and hate the idea of war.