In a 1973 interview with film critic Gene Siskel for the Chicago Tribune, French film director Francois Truffaut famously asserted that even films which claim to be “anti-war” instead wind up being “pro-war,” a sentiment he expanded upon in 1999’s “Truffaut: A Biography” by stating that “to show something is to ennoble it.”

While British film director Sam Mendes does portray the enlisted military protagonists of his World War I film “1917” as noble in their intentions and perseverance, there is no nobility to be found in the Sisyphean ordeals and consequences wrought by the war in which they fight.

Indeed, several of their fellow troops are shown pointing out the futility of a conflict which forces armies to destroy their own weapons, fortifications, land and livestock in retreat, simply so that their enemies will be denied the use of those resources.

Even without employing 3-D or IMAX footage, Mendes delivers a fully immersive film, by tasking cinematographer Roger Deakins with capturing absurdly extended takes, with virtually seamless breaks, to make the entire two-hour film appear as one long, continuous shot.

It’s a far less showy, but no less impressive, technical feat than the hand-painted animation of 2017’s “Loving Vincent,” but while I felt that film’s impressive visuals upstaged its strictly middling storytelling content, the single-camera perspective of “1917” fits hand-in-glove with the relentless pace and ever-present horrors Mendes intends his audience to feel, as close to firsthand as possible.

Two young British soldiers, Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are sent marching across France, on foot, to hand-deliver a message to call off an attack on German forces who appear to be in retreat. If the two soldiers fail to deliver their letter by the next morning, 1,600 of their fellow British troops, including Blake’s brother, will be ambushed and killed.

“1917” boasts no shortage of big-name British actors in its cast, from Mark Strong and Richard Madden to Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch, but they’re all glorified cameos in a film that’s dominated by the oppressive conditions of its war-torn environment, and humanized by the ever-escalating shell-shock of its would-be messenger boys.

One of the black-humored jokes of the “M*A*S*H” TV show that actually lived up to the movie was the observation that war is not just Hell, but is literally worse than Hell, because at least there are no innocent bystanders in Hell.

Mendes takes that train of thought a bit further, showing us a glimpse of those caught in the crossfire, as well as illustrating how a moment of compassion can be damning on the battlefield, and also by going into inescapable detail about just how awful those battlefields were, complete with muddy craters overflowing with bloated corpses and fattened rats.

Mendes was inspired to co-write the screenplay for “1917,” with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, by his grandfather, the novelist and veteran Alfred Mendes, who not only went on a wartime messenger mission similar to the duo in “1917,” but also developed a compulsive hand-washing habit as a result of all the foul things he had to lay hands on in the trenches.

Especially after seeing one particular scene, set in “No Man’s Land,” I understand the elder Mendes’ compulsion very well.

“1917” has already been recommended for an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. While it faces some solid competition on that score, if Deakins doesn’t take home an Oscar for Best Cinematography, then he’s being robbed.