I think it's definitely anti-war.
I mean, MAJOR SPOILERS
WARNING: spoilers below
after delivering his letter, almost dying, losing his friend, having to kill multiple people (including one with his bare hands), and various other traumas, he delivers the message and the attitude toward him is . . .okay, well, we'll all probably die tomorrow.
I think that the bittersweet coda with Blake's brother gives some emotional closure, but despite him achieving his mission the ending is in no way triumphant. Only exhausting.
after delivering his letter, almost dying, losing his friend, having to kill multiple people (including one with his bare hands), and various other traumas, he delivers the message and the attitude toward him is . . .okay, well, we'll all probably die tomorrow.
I think that the bittersweet coda with Blake's brother gives some emotional closure, but despite him achieving his mission the ending is in no way triumphant. Only exhausting.
...that being said though, at the risk of nit-picking, I don't think I can quite say that I felt
1917 was an anti-war film on the whole (and for clarification, I in no way mean that as any sort of criticism of the film, since there's more than one "right" way to make a War movie, after all). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it felt like borderline
pro-war propaganda like
Sergeant York or anything, but when I compare it to something like
Paths Of Glory, a movie that objectively feels anti-war all-around,
1917 doesn't necessarily feel anti-war so much as it just feels honest about the overall unpleasant nature of armed conflict, since the negative aspects of that phenomenon are so inherent and obvious, any movie that tries to portray war with any amount of honesty is bound to depict that negativity to some degree (so you could say that I feel the opposite of Godard's famous quote on this subject). And, even though he didn't get much gratitude for it, I think that just the fact that Schofield ends up succeeding and saves so many lives keeps the film from feeling 100% anti-war in the end, and, despite the human cost of World War I it portrays along the way, it still partly ends up being a tribute to the heroism he displays, something that an anti-war film wouldn't really have, y'know?