I actually completely agree with you on 1917. I am a big fan of both Mendes and especially Deakins, but when I watched the film, whilst it is technically superb, I kept thinking about the production logistics, which kept me at an emotional distance. I've watched it a couple of times since, and even on a small screen at home, because I've worked in film/TV, I keep thinking about the army of offscreen crew that would have been involved.

To the issue of long takes in general, they can work wonderfully, but are better placed near the start (such as in Touch of Evil or The Player) so the viewer isn't placed at a distance one the main narrative kicks in. On the other hand, sometimes long takes do work brilliantly without drawing attention to themselves. De Palma can be very showy, but some of the long steadicam takes in the climax of Carlito's Way aren't immediately noticable, because the narrative is so absorbing and the viewer is fully invested in Pacino's character by that point.

Goodfellas is another example of a long take well done, which I write about in a bit more detail here. The decision to film that sequence in a long take underscores Karen's disorientation and bewilderment at her new boyfriend very cleverly. So it serves the story.

The film Victoria on the other hand - genuinely shot in one take with no digital joins - is astonishing. I did not feel the same way about that as I did about 1917. It fully drew me in emotionally. Quite a rollercoaster. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it, as there is a genuine sense that this isn't being done because-we-can but because experiencing the events in real time heightens the drama and immersive experience for the viewer. It is quite amazing.

Great article by the way.