1917 (2020) Where do we get to after a long wandering?
Sinners are charged with pushing huge rocks up to the top of the mountain. At this time, the shape of this mountaintop becomes a problem. The top of the mountain is so steep that the rock cannot be stopped for a while, and the area of the top is unusually narrow, so when a criminal barely puts the rock on the top of the mountain, the rock immediately rolls down. In other words, this punishment repeats forever, and there is no meaning in this infinite repetition, only pain. This is the content of the Sijeep myth. The meaningless repetition and pain of an endless routine. It's a fictional myth, but don't you feel that there is something similar to our life? It was the French author Albert Camus who first compared this Sisyp myth to human life, and the absurdity of life, which is only a continuation of meaningless repetition and pain in this myth, leads to an existentialist world.
According to the existentialist philosophy, humans are thrown out to the world without any meaning or purpose, and after being thrown out, humans seek purpose and meaning by themselves and complete meaning through longing for life.The greatest attraction of existentialism is human limitations. It is that humans are thrown into the world without purpose or meaning, and meaningless daily pain repeats every day, but paradoxically for that reason, we can find purpose and meaning in our lives, endlessly. It can also be said that one's existence can be newly defined every moment through one's own projection toward one's own limits. A film with this attractive philosophy was recently released in the theater district. Although it did not achieve good results in terms of box office due to the aftermath of Corona, it is a movie that contains so many things that movie enthusiasts add the modifiers "if there were no parasites" or "instead of parasites".
The movie <1917> talks a lot about its excellent filming technique more than anything else. The numerous connections of Long Takes that look like one-takes and the director's tenacity to woven the entire scene tightly provide viewers with an experience of experience, not just watching the movie. It is true that <1917> has put a great deal of effort into the filming, and it is definitely a good work technically, but it is a work that creates a desire to focus more on textual interpretation rather than interpretation of technical parts that have already been talked about. In particular, it seems to be possible to talk about the meaning of life while watching a movie through the philosophy of'existentialism', which was described by analogy to the Sizief myth.
A senseless punishment
The structure of the beginning and end of this film is quite similar. Specifically, the origin and destination are the same. It starts under the tree, passes through the trenches, and ends with a return under the tree. There are a lot of implications for this structure, but first of all, it is reminiscent of the Sijeep myth. Sijeep's punishment does not end. The infinity of this punishment stems from the paradox that comes from the place of departure to the place of departure, and it is a punishment that deserves to be called a senseless punishment.
Blake and Scofield in the movie <1917> start from under a tree and reach the end of the tree, which is similar to the paradox of the Sijeep myth with the same origin and destination. In addition, the senselessness and helpless atmosphere that dominates the whole movie further emphasizes the meaninglessness of the punishment that Sijiff carried. When Scofield gets a vehicle from another company and passes through the ruined city, one soldier recounts the meaninglessness of the war from the perspective of a veteran.
"Let's just take away this nothing, how many years have you been at war..."
The symbolic image of World War I, which is the background of <1917>, was the trench warfare, and the battle was very miserable. At that time, most of the battles were held in trenches, advancing, and retreating repeatedly, often resulting in a miserable long-term war. Death and life so vividly sat down in the same place and took the vitality of the living.
“There is only one way to end this war. Until the last person, it will only end when they all die.”
In the midst of death without glory and meaningless, the question of the meaning of life emerges. When Scofield visited McKenzie, the boredom of life that McKenzie showed may be natural in some way. It is self-evident that this war will end only when all the last ones die. Today's peace is nothing but a reservation for the death to come tomorrow. McKenzie was a car who found absurdity in a long and boring war and finally gave up everything.
This absurdity arises from being unable to find any meaning in the tedious and continuing war. The appearance of Scofield saying that his medals are useless to anyone, and the appearance of allied soldiers complaining while talking about war to take away useless land from military trucks, etc. Enhance the image. The feelings of meaninglessness and emptiness that dominate the whole film come to McKenzie as one of the most powerful boredoms for life, and the most powerful boredoms for life appear in the form of rejection of life.
1917. The world war, which began on the Balkans, prolonged, and the front line was fixed, making the war completely meaningless. Patriotism and the glory of the battlefield disappeared, and humans only found the absurdity of life and death in the repetition of daily advances and retreats. This work is just a repetition of death and meaningless misery that appear for a moment, and it is similar to the appearance of Sijiff, carrying heavy rocks on his shoulders and constantly climbing the ramp. This figure is also a portrait of modern people not far away. It is not much different from our lives, where we live in repetitive everyday life under the threat of existence every day. It is only the difference in its distinctness.
Journey to find meaning
Then, where can the meaning of life be found in the meaninglessly repeated daily life? Or, before that, it must be verified whether the punishment given to Sisip is equal to the weight of our lives. In conclusion, most of life is meaningless repetition of everyday life. Even if we look at the pattern of the day, the physiological activities we must do to live and the social activities necessary to sustain physiological activities are already'imposed' on us.Just as Sisyphus carried a rock, we have a demand for social and physiological activity on our shoulders like a rock. And the whole life is just a collection of these day by day. Mechanical activities to maintain the life of organisms, not activities driven by the necessity of each individual ego, dominate our daily life. And the moment this boring life is over is obvious to anyone. It is only death, which means an obvious stop.
Camus''rebellion'
If life consists of suffering and eventually leading to death, you may think that it is meaningless. So, where is the reason for continuing a life so meaningless? Albert Camus, a philosopher and novelist who sadly passed away at a young age, had already asked the same question a century ago. Through his book, The Sisyphus Myth. He writes the first sentence of his book as follows and ponders the meaning of life.
“There is only one really serious philosophical problem. It is suicide. Judging whether life is worth living or not is the answer to the fundamental question of philosophy.”
Camus thought that when Sisyphus continued punishing without consciousness of meaninglessness and then suddenly asked "Why?" and became aware of the absurdity, receiving punishment and finding the meaning of life on his own. And in the process of finding the meaning of life, the meaning of life arises—the meaning of life arises only in the process and attempt—when a consciousness about absurdity awakens, humans resist absurdity and resist absurdity. The attitude of doing gives meaning to life . So, is Camus' philosophy entirely correct ?
Sartre's'Revolution'
Another contemporary philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, opposes Camus' ideas. "Resistance", how gentle is that? Sartre uses the word “revolution” to find humanism in human life seeking existence. Sartre, an extreme left journalist and philosopher, argues that *“the law to help the slaves on the other side is to help the slaves on this side”. Claims to have the power to correct. So, is Sartre's position right? Should we create a revolution to change the absurd world? And if that revolution is successful, will the absurdity of the world be erased?
*However, Sartre admits in his later years, "No matter what I say here, I can't save a child worker who is exploited from the other side of the world."
'Salvation' in 1917
Now is the time to return to the movie <1917>. The film <1917> observes the absurdity of life in a war, and asks the audience to ask themselves what it means at the end of that long journey. Scofield's journey to find meaning in an absurd world is a different way than Camus's'rebellion' and Sartre's'revolution'. While Camus's rebellion is personal, each individual saves itself, and Sartre's revolution allows more or less violent methods to save the community and compatriots, Scofield's method of finding the meaning of life in <1917> is to save lives. It is directly breaking through the absurdities of the world in a messianic way . This is an ideal, neither personal nor violent, literally reminiscent of the Bible's MESSIAH. So, does this movie seek Christian salvation? Isn't existence in religion and post-existentialism incompatible?
The film begins with Scofield reluctantly holding Blake's hand. The fate given to Blake becomes a common fate as Scofield joins Blake's hand. The orders given to the two who were called into the commander's barracks were to give orders to stop the attack to the Devonshire Company, which is preparing to attack. It's a dangerous order to anyone, but Blake is busy leaving for a while to prevent his brother's company from being wiped out. At this time, the two men move in a different direction than the soldiers in the trenches, but they pass through the unmanned area despite the surrounding pressure that it will be difficult to return. Then, he encounters a German fighter that falls through various difficulties.
The fire on the engine of the fighter quickly spreads to the cockpit, and the pilot is destined to be burned with the plane. At this point, Blake is willing to take a risk to save the enemy. Even at Scofield's pressure, Blake pulls the German soldier out of the plane and drags it to one side to check the condition. And while Scofield couldn't see, Blake was stabbed by the knife of a German soldier he saved and suffered fatal injuries.
Now Blake's fate becomes Scofield's. Scofield, complaining, "Why did you bring me," grabs Blake's cold hand once again and is willing to take on his fate. From now on, Scofield jumps through death, through hell, into the middle of the battlefield in order to carry out his destiny. This change in sentiment may not have been merely due to the soldier's responsibility to carry out the order. For Scofield's sense of solidarity, it would be appropriate to quote John Dunn's poem and Hemingway's novel title.
Someone's death reduces my life because
I am one with humanity. So
, do not send anyone to find out whose death is ringing the bell ? The bell rings for you.
-John Dunn, for whom does the bell ring?
The audience cannot directly know where Scofield's internal changes originated. It can only be guessed. Personally, presumably, it led to Schofield commits inryujeok solidarity thinks. Humanity is, after all, a collection of many others, and the existence of'I' is another other person belonging to the whole. In other words, when others are hurt, I, too , are hurt as part of the whole . Therefore , saving others is also saving yourself at the same time. In the middle of the battlefield where even life becomes meaningless in the midst of meaningless death , life regains its meaning through each other's hands and a step toward saving someone.
The fate at this time doesn't matter whether it was handed over to another person or something you discovered. If it has any meaning to oneself in the end, it will have meaning in itself, and in a meaningless world, it becomes the meaning that each other can save each other. In addition, the setting of the movie in which Scofield, who is not an excellent military commander or a war hero who wipes out the enemy with a single gun, saves the lives of one thousand and six hundred people. It can be thought of as the meaning that there is an image of a capable savior. And although that salvation is temporary, it is only a brief reservation for the soon to come death. The weight and meaning of the footsteps running for that moment, that short moment is by no means light.
<1917> tries to confirm the meaning of existence through the image of a messianic savior. If Camus wanted to find meaning in Sisyp's punishment through personal rebellion, Sartre tried to bring God down through revolution and liberate numerous Sisyps. On the other hand, <1917> just wants to save numerous Sijiffs. Neither is Camus' personal liberation nor does he use violent means like Sartre. Camus' philosophy was overly passive , and Sartre had already failed. Therefore, even though the meaning of existence viewed through <1917> is too idealism, it will be worth noting .
Where do we get to after endless wandering?
Death is inevitable. The fact that the end of the pilgrimage of life is death remains the same. The savior also performed salvation, but he could not escape the death that had come upon himself. Scofield loses Blake in a battle where only death exists, passes through the burning Eden, symbolized by the burning cross, and is pushed into the forest by the river.
Scofield follows the song from the forest. And the song we hear together through Scofield reminds us of the prayers of pilgrims on their way to the promised golden field, passing through a long dark and rough road. Here these pilgrims are foreshadowing the death that will soon come upon them. They are just listening to the song, hoping to arrive in paradise at the end of this meaningless journey. When this song is over, they will soon throw themselves in the midst of meaningless death.
After the song is over, signals indicating the charge come from all over the friendly trenches. Scofield is still wandering with countless soldiers plunging into the unknown death. And he runs across the middle of that meaningless death when everyone runs toward a meaningless death. That desperate step was to stop the attack, but at the same time to rescue one of Blake's older brothers who left first. And the desperate wandering and desperate steps to save just one person arrives at the destination with the'weight to save everyone'. In other words, the ending of this movie is a proof of the Jewish proverb, "He who saves one life saves the whole world."
After countless wanderings, it is the commander's barracks again where the order to cancel the attack is delivered. McKenzie, trying to force the attack, gives an order to stop the attack with a displeased expression. Scofield finds Blake's older brother, tells Blake's news, and then rests against a tree, ending Scofield's journey in the film. This sensational scene suggests that Scofield's role in this film is over and that a new hand of destiny will lead him somewhere again.
Scofield has come down the slope once with the rock on his shoulders, and soon a new fate will appear to him, saying that he must push the rock back to the top of the mountain. If so, does life become meaningless because of this infinite repetition and death waiting at the end? Not like that. As Scofield's journey has shown, life will be meaningful if he has accomplished so many miracles in the process of carrying out his task. Just because life runs toward death does not mean that even the process is meaningless.
