War is a subject that has always had a very peculiar relationship with art – it’s an experience that is both personal and sprawling, and which has constantly been viewed differently through the wide array of lenses and perspectives that have attempted to examine the conditions and circumstances surrounding armed conflict, whether looking at the battlefield itself, or the ways it impacts civilians. As far as stories of the Second World War tend to go, there has always been quite a contentious relationship between film and how it is portrayed on screen, despite it having seemingly endless opportunities to say something compelling and insightful. Steve McQueen, who has quietly established himself as a master of these small, intimate stories about ordinary people struggling to find their place in the world as a result of circumstances outside of their control, takes us both to 1940, following the trials and tribulations of the population of London, who are constantly under attack from enemy forces, who set out to level the capital and hopefully weaken one of the strongest members of the Allied forces. This is the subject of Blitz (named after this period of violence and destruction), in which McQueen tells the story of a young boy who is placed on a train during the efforts to evacuate the most vulnerable populations from the perilous London streets, but who decides that he does not want to be separated from his mother, and makes his way back to the city, not being aware of the dangers that lurk just out of sight. His mother learns about his escape and sets out on her own frantic search for her son, both of them seeing a very different side of London than they had previously experienced. One of our great socially-conscious filmmakers, McQueen, was an intriguing choice for such a film, but based on the diminishing returns and the fact that Blitz often struggles to establish itself as anything we haven’t seen countless times before, which ultimately leads to quite a disappointing and slightly derivative wartime drama that doesn’t say anything particularly profound or captivating beyond the immediately obvious.

From a distance, we can certainly understand and appreciate the appeal of a film like Blitz, since this particular moment in British history is fascinating, and we haven’t seen too many in-depth works that revolve around the experiences of ordinary Londoners as they anxiously await their fate, knowing that the threat of their demise is far more likely than they would like to admit. McQueen has positioned himself as an essential voice in terms of historical storytelling, but has gradually started to make his way back home, since most of his previous successes have been telling stories set outside his home country, which made his inevitable return to London all the more intriguing, even if the topic he chose felt slightly too broad – and based on what we know about the inception of this film, Blitz was clearly aiming to be the definitive examination of this historical period, which is as ambitious an endeavour as we’d imagine, and clearly not something that could have been compressed into a single two-hour film, let alone one that seems to be restricting its perspective by focusing on certain ideas that don’t necessarily reflect the nuances of the period and all it represents. At the heart of Blitz, we have the story of a mother and her son, separated by her desire to protect him from what she (and her fellow residents) know is imminent danger, but his refusal to retreat leads to a chase throughout the streets of London, where the pair try their best to be reunited, but consistently find themselves in danger. McQueen sets out to explore the various social castes that existed throughout the city at the time, introducing various characters that represent a range of historical archetypes, in what we can only imagine was his attempt to provide a sweeping overview of the kinds of people that populated the city – the intentions are admirable, but it falls apart in the execution, for several reasons that become clearer as the film progresses.

Despite being a critically acclaimed filmmaker with several important films under his belt, McQueen struggled to put this film together. It is the first film that he has written solo, with the lack of a co-writer leading to quite a severe set of limitations in terms of the scope of the story, as well as the intricate, character-based details that are essential for such a story. It also seems as if the film was written in clear compartments, focusing on individual scenarios that are subsequently tacked together in a way that does not feel entirely authentic, but rather as if McQueen was aiming to provide the broadest and most complete depiction of London at this time, not realising that it was feasibly impossible to tell every potential story, especially in such a short timeframe. However, the most severe aspect of Blitz when it comes to stirring our concern is a slightly odd criticism, but one that is relevant nonetheless: McQueen does not have the emotional sincerity to make this film, or at least allow it to come across as convincing or engaging. He’s a very gifted filmmaker, but his work has always been effective because it’s harsh, callous and direct, and while a director who avoids sentimentality and heavy-handed emotions is a good quality in the vast majority of cases, Blitz (as it was written) was not the beneficiary of his techniques. This is a film built on the common humanity found in a city of people who are trying to work as a community to help one another – and while he does attempt to infuse it with layers of sincerity, he doesn’t entirely succeed, since the final product lacks a fundamental honesty that could have either been rectified by choosing a more simple, straightforward approach, or leaning more into the picaresque nature of the narrative, following the young protagonist as he weaves through the streets of London, which would require the removal of the other half of the plot, where his mother frantically searches for him, which ultimately may have been beneficial, since those segments are overwrought and unnecessary. Blitz is a film that struggles with its own identity and doesn’t quite know what it wants to be, and it struggles to establish itself as anything particularly compelling after its foundation has been revealed.

The nature of Blitz meant that McQueen had the opportunity to recruit a large ensemble of actors, which has often been his preference, with many of his films containing sprawling casts consisting of major stars, recognisable veterans and a few newcomers, all of which work together to bring these stories to life. The two anchors of this film are Saoirse Ronan, working with McQueen for the first time, and the young Elliott Heffernan, who makes his acting debut in the central role of George, a precocious ten-year-old whose decision to rebel against authority places him and many other characters in enormous peril. Heffernan is fantastic, and deserves to be credited for his wonderfully evocative, rich performance that feels far more complex than the film was interested in being, which is one of the many disappointments associated with McQueen’s approach, since he didn’t seem to realise the potential he had to develop this character as more than just a moody, rebellious child, which is all he ends up becoming by the time the film reaches its peak. Ronan, on the other hand, feels severely miscast, lacking the maternal qualities that make her performance as this character even vaguely convincing. Her inconsistent accent and the fact that her storyline is mostly superfluous, despite having the potential to be truly moving at the best of times. The film is filled with several other actors who take the opportunity to work with McQueen – veterans like Kathy Burke and Stephen Graham add much-needed gravitas, whereas younger performers like Harris Dickinson (who continues to add interesting projects to his steadily-growing body of work) and singers-turned-actors Paul Weller, Benjamin Clementine and Celeste, all do wonderful work, but feel far too limited in what they were given to do. Every one of these characters could have been the focus of this film, since they’re clearly well-conceived, with only the extent of their involvement being too diminished for any of them to leave much of an impression, since there was simply not enough time to explore any of them in any real detail.

Blitz is the rare case of a film that has a fantastic concept that is derailed almost entirely by the execution, or rather, the choices made in realising these ideas. There are several very promising elements, but the decision to construct it as a single two-hour film rather than a miniseries feels like a missed opportunity, particularly since there is an argument to be made that McQueen’s defining work will be Small Axe, a long-form project in which he was able to take advantage of the growth in prestige television to explore several different subjects in a smaller but not any less daring way. An episodic version of this story, in which an hour can be dedicated to the protagonist’s encounters with various characters, would have allowed for a more complete, engaging exploration of London during the Blitz, since the lack of detail and the fact that the story bounces between characters without fully developing them, is one of the most notable weaknesses of this film, and the reason it never amounts to being anything other than marginally compelling. McQueen works sporadically, so it might be some time before we see his next project – but hopefully it will be something more enthralling and consistent than Blitz, a film that doesn’t manage to stir even an ounce of enthusiasm, and ultimately just becomes a bundle of missed opportunities from top to bottom, an unfortunate but understandable turn of events that is not any less disappointing once we see all these ideas in motion, noticing just how much potential it squandered in the process.