I have to say, that I love war movies. They are epic and personal at the same time. They show heroism and decadence of people. When composed well, they provide thrilling sensations with their score and visuals. It is the most fulfilling experience, though, when the scale is relatively small. Take War Horse (2011) for example. It's about a goddamn horse and a man that feels strongly about it, during the events of World War I. Yet it shows so much about people on all side of that conflict, and is presented in a beautiful, engaging way.
Naturally, I loved 1917: it is a solid story and a wonderfully composed motion picture. One problem is, though, that this movie had a gimmick. Long before it was released, its technical challenges had been advertised and used as a promotional material to hype up the audience. The gimmick was that the movie had been edited to look like one continuous shot. I do admire auteurs wishing to go an extra mile for their vision, and such technic as a long shot has been used in very expressive ways. But in this case I feel like it has been completely unnecessary to rely on it. And for several reasons it even has hurt the movie.
So, why do directors use continuous shots at all? First of all, it puts you, as a viewer, right in the middle of the action. You feel like another grunt at a war. You get to experience chaos and immediacy of the events depicted instead of enjoying the luxury of your comfy chair. Another effect that is achieved with this method is the sense of intimacy between you and a character. You may not necessarily be in a thick of it with him, but you get to feel his inner state, his emotions in a more peaceful scenario. Talented movie directors and their DPs can achieve same effects with other technics, though, but in the right hands long shots are incredibly powerful.
Two brilliant Mexican directors showed that in their work. Alfonso Cuarón used his 2006 movie Children of Men to depict our society at its most desperate state. After humans stopped to produce children one man's life is shown as he tries to navigate the world and maybe give humanity its last hope. But he's just an ordinary Joe. Yet, there are many intense circumstances, where he is put under a lot of stress. And camera follows him closely, and viewer is literally being dragged around behind the protagonist. You don't relax until the character relaxes. It is thrilling. Then there is Alejandro G. Iñárritu's 2014 drama Birdman that has no action scenes, but oozes a personal, inner intensity and an emotional rollercoaster of one actor's mind as he comes to terms with his legacy.
While Cuarón shot his movie with long takes, he incorporated cuts and more classical composition. And still he was capable of setting up events that he wanted you to feel with your whole body expertly. Camera work and navigation had been done in such a way, that long takes did not spoil upcoming events for a viewer. You did not get a sense "Ah, there was not a cut for a long time, something is about to happen". Instead, you occasionally found yourself in the middle of something, only to retrace your steps and realize that it was seemless for a while now. On the other hand, Birdman was shown as a continuous shot, as it was mostly on a tight schedule (plot-wise) and you had to experience how suffocating and overwhelming the events are for the movie's hero. Tight corridors of the theatre behind the curtains and open streets of New York City only work if you get to escape one into another with the person you are following. Only to dive back again and get into intense, confrontational coversations and nerve-racking stage work.
Interestingly enough, Iñárritu wanted to repeat his achievement in his next movie, The Revenant (2015), but eventually backed out and did long, exhaustive takes mixed with classic cuts. And I think, it worked for the best. Because for every immediate moment that we got to experience with the protagonist of The Revenant, we also got scenes of beautiful naturally lit vistas. This was where in my opinion 1917 failed to provide any reason to be edited continuously. It is a marvelous movie, very well shot and composed. Roger Deakins is incredible at cinematography, there is no doubt about it. And this was the problem. It was clear, that long shots were intended to put you on the battlefield with the main characters, give you the sense of immediacy. But instead they were too beautifully shot, had perfect composition, and for these purposes often put camera in impossible places completely detaching me from being inside the movie. I was engaged, but it did not feel like it did in Children of Man or Birdman.
There were many places where it was obvious, that "this is where the cut between two long takes is". So while it looked continuous, most of the time this look was achieved with cheap and straightforward technics. I would prefer 1917 to have a series of long takes where it was benefitial and most expressive, while having a set of classically edited scenes in between. Film still works as it is, I simply don't think, that anything was added by having it completely continuous.
There was a plot reason as well to show everything in real time. The story started with two characters on an urgent mission to deliver a message 8 miles through the frontline and enemy territory. Having cameramen follow their every step Sam Mendes put an emphasis on their troubles and feelings. However, movie stated that such a mission would take them 6 to 8 hours, but we were watching a 2 hour movie. So, there clearly was an upcoming event, that had to cut time. Plus, one of the most advertised scenes was a climactic one, which spoiled some of the plot, as you had been shown a single character with no ammunition running at his most daring. During a day at that. Which, given a sense of time in the movie, provided you with another indication of the upcoming events. So there is that.
But I'm glad to say, that despite these concerns, even that climactic scene worked for me, having the context for it, and the long takes making the movie were breathtaking in many different ways. Highly recommend, and dont forget to praise the cameraman!