Fabricating Surreality: The Revenant vs 1917

I watched both of these movies over weekend and one thing stuck with me.
There is genuinely something out of control and uncontrollable about The Revenant but 1917 kinda felt staged and orchestrated. It didnt feel like the production was too massive to control and sam mendes using his genius made the movie what it is. It felt like everyone involved wanted to make an awards movie with selling point being - "immersive war epic".

I respect sam mendes's ambition but i hoped it came from a place of positivity and not cynicism. Carrier-wise it is very clear that inarritu was never making revenant to get awards attention or getting his career back on track. He was making it just to see if he had what it takes to make an epic movie his own way. But sam mendes, while he did want to rise upto the challenge, it felt like he watched movies like gravity/revenant 100 times to see if he can one up them but in the end 1917 felt staged and fake.

I am not sure how much 1 take approach contributed to my disappointment but this movie feels fake.

Was his career off track? Wasn't he coming off a Best Picture win with Birdman?

__________________

Even a sleight-of-hand is a trick worth appreciating! And 1917 had to be staged and orchestrated. Otherwise pulling it off was impossible.

__________________
My Favorite Films

Considering that Mendes dedicated the film to his grandfather who served in WWI, I don't think he's necessarily being cynical about it - if anything, you could interpret it as him making a more personal story after having done journeyman work for the Bond franchise. Conversely, one could interpret The Revenant as a film that subscribes to the idea of a difficult production being an inherently better one and that "suffering for your art" automatically makes said art better (see also: Birdman and, to a lesser extent, his work before that).

I will agree that I think the one-take approach is flawed precisely because you are aware of how much has to be staged in order for it to work properly, which is why the better attempts at it actually acknowledge the fabrication - Rope shamelessly disguises its cuts by zooming in and out on dark surfaces when it's time for a shot change while Russian Ark is framed as one big dream sequence that travels through a museum that's essentially come to life. It can work for smaller sequences of a film, but even then you can still have a problem if they're being done just for their own sake rather than advancing the story in a way that's genuinely interesting to watch.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Getting his career "back on track" after Biutiful's Oscar noms, then Birdman's Oscars sweep (among other major media accolades/recognition) and overwhelming hype campaign?

But even from just a cursory glance at The Revenant's release — from the on-location reports, post- press runs, and its relentlessly self-important marketing campaign — it's not really that "out there" to think the film was fueled (at least partly) by a strong desire for attention/special recognition.

The Revenant and 1917, have one thing in common, they are both overblown. Take some of the over the top stuff out of those movies and both would be greatly improved. Less is more...

I think OP meant that Inarritu wasn't making The Revenant for those particular reasons, though of course you or I could disagree with him on that front. We're a good few years out from its release and it's now pretty easy to be all "whatever" about its rather simplistic revenge/survival story that mostly gets by on more superficially tangible elements like the cinematogaphy or DiCaprio rather than being particularly substantial in its own right.

did you miss "was never" ? in the sentence ?

I did not. The question remains the same. I understand he wasn't making the film for those reasons, but I was just curious why that would even have been considered as an option.

I must say, Lubeski's camerawork is why I tend to go back for a rewatch these days.

Rather than 1917, Avatar would have been a better point of reference for a discussion. A decade on its practically a white elephant of Hollywood.

I genuinely think revenant needed that self -indulgence. The so called torture porn in the movie is essential for giving it the surreal feel...ever walked in a desolate snowy plains let alone woods ? there is something majestic and enormous and scary about it. Revenant is about the contact between humans and nature. Its is not just about revenge. It is about existentialism of human species.

1917 however did feel show offy...the soldier running across army just feels fake with no point to it.

not for me...avatar still amazes me if I watch it on the big screen. There is no safety net when you are creating a planet in such detail. It is filled with rich history.

I found the movie pretty thin. Yeah visually stunning of course. But as a complete package, it's the same old good vs evil storyline. But 1917 and the Revenant at least have a better and engaging plot. The Revenant being inspired by a true character in history. And 1917 being narrated by the director's grandpa (at least that is what I remember). So there is an instant human aspect to it.

12+ years on, I don't even hear anyone talking about Avatar. Even you would find it hard to trace the movie in those endless "best movies of the decade" list you find on YouTube or any website.

Why do so many people dislike Avatar. It's not a great movie, but I'd say it's good as in John Wick good, or of that popcorn quality, unless I'm wrong?

There is nothing wrong in liking a movie. You like it, you like it. There is "stigma" like thing attached to it. There are a few movies I like which are rated below 4 on IMDB!

Oh yeah is the stigma just borrowing from Pocohantas?

I think there's an important distinction between a film that's good because it's crisply edited and well-shot, and a film that's good because of its effects. Both are sort of superficial, but the former is a huge chunk of moviemaking and the latter is just an optional element of the form.

I don't think of Avatar as having any genuine world-building in it. There's no real story or pattern to it, just scale. Five hundred species that have extra legs or are unusual colors is the kind of creativity an algorithm would come up with.

I personally don't consider Revenant torture porn, and I did like it. By over the top I'm thinking of the scene where he falls off a huge cliff, survives by hitting tree branches all the way down, then crawls inside his dead horse to keep alive. To me that was like video game movie silly.

I liked the part of Avatar that had the CG characters living in a complex & alien ecosystem...but the space marines bit was just stupid and way overused in sci-fi. Ultimately Avatar is hated today because Cameron went ahead and made like a zillion more sequels...which then makes the whole Avatar universe seem like crap.

Oh well aren't people quick to judge since these Avatar sequels have not come out yet?

But if I were to pick between The Revenant and 1917, I'll pick The Revenant.

During my first viewing of the revenant back in 2015 in theater, the scene where he crawls into the horse is the epitome of surreality. Until then I could comprehend the movie being an expensive wilderness production. But that scene transcends cinema for me. It felt like i was watching something so raw.

If you notice, just few minutes before he falls off the cliff it is broad daylight and as he falls of the cliff it is kinda cloudy and by the time he is climbing into the horse, it is snowing tremendously..all this increases the feeling of surreality while watching the movie. That to me is peak cinema.