War is beyond absurd, and while intending to capture that, 1917 somehow misses the point entirely.
Let there be no doubt - 1917 is a logistical and technical marvel. You have got to appreciate the efforts of every department to make these long unbroken shots possible. The actors, obviously, had no room for error, for minutes at a go. It's not just dialogue or body language, but entire pathfinding that needed to be spot on. The production design and set design had to entirely precise to the actors' movements, so the sets and props would begin and end at exactly the right time. The same applies to special effects, of course. Then there are those scenes with thousands of extras. On top of all the aforementioned complexities, making sure everyone is doing exactly the right thing must have been an immense logistical challenge. Finally, of course, there are the camera operators and cinematographer, where each move must be perfectly synchronized with the actor. Altogether, it's an incredible symphony with countless moving pieces, all coming together precisely to one, single clock.
1917 also features a strong script. It knows that a story like this is best told through simple, minimalist beats, and it delivers on that front. There's no attempt to delve into the depths of war, for good reason - this is a simple road trip, and is presented as no more and no less. The acting is top notch too, with some notable cameos. The music, sound, all accomplished.
So far, it seems like 1917 has all the ingredients to make an excellent film. So why doesn't it work?
Like with Birdman, the single-shot thing doesn't seem necessary, and indeed, at times shows up as a distraction. Let me explain why... To stitch together the various shots with this dogged, stubborn idea that there should be no cuts, the movie makes far too many disconcerting cheats. Even if you're not consciously aware, many of us know some thing's not quite right.
The film aspires to maintaining temporal continuity with no cuts, but it totally drops the ball on maintaining spatial continuity. There are far too many instances where the characters move from one location to another in a physically impossible way. Worse still, there are dramatic moments that are totally overruled by the next scene that logically shouldn't happen for a while. One particularly egregious example - without giving spoilers - is the film's most dramatic moment. Something really dramatic happens, but then, out of nowhere, some other characters appear, when in reality their arrival would have been telegraphed hundreds of yards ahead, and anticipating their arrival would have meant the previous scene wouldn't have happened in the first place. The entire film is riddled with these inconsistencies through and through.
This may sound like I'm nitpicking - I probably am. But let me be very clear - I have no issues with temporal and spatial discontinuities. The scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly where Tuco appears out of nowhere works because it is edited consistently. The audience has that expectation of a fragmented narrative, and so even subconsciously, there's no friction.
The problem with 1917 is that it creates the expectation of a seamless experience that is both spatially and temporally consistent, but it just isn't. As a result, it ended up being a constant immersion breaking experience for me. I do acknowledge that for many others this is not really an issue, but sadly, it simply is for me. The real shame here is that they could have maintained most of the effects of the long take, just by cutting at the right time. Two good examples of films that do this are Gravity or Elephant. It plays the long take to good effect, but knows exactly when to cut. Not only because it maintains immersion, but it actually enhances the effect of the long take. Or a more relevant comparison, Paths of Glory, particularly the trench sequences. Another interesting counterpoint would be Battlefield 1 - as a game, it must maintain perfect temporal and spatial continuity because it has no choice.
1917 is the perfect example of a film that had all the ingredients of something great but ultimately ended up being marred by the singular stubbornness of one singular idea. It still remains a remarkable achievement in some ways, but it could have been so much better.