Is this the best film that no-one has seen?

[plastic penguin]

This film bombed at the box office, yet this is IMHO one of the greatest films ever made. The script, story and actors are all superb, shocking in a Schindler's List style.

Have butchers at this

 

[strapped for cash]

I saw Regeneration when it came out (and later read the book).

I was interested in the subject matter, as I studied the war poets as part of my English Lit. A Level which, alarmingly, was more than two decades ago.

It's a very good film, and Owen's "Parable of the Old Man and the Young" lends the conclusion genuine poignancy. I'm not sure I'd count Regeneration among "the greatest films ever made," however, which is a bold claim indeed.

I see the DVD is now available for less than £10. I tried to track it down several years ago, but could only locate overpriced second hand copies. To the best of my knowledge, the BBC only screened Regeneration once, so it's perhaps unsurprising the film didn't find a larger audience.

I watched an afternoon repeat of Who do You Think You Are? recently, in which Hugh Dennis traced his grandfathers' history. One clearly went through hell in Normandy, before moving on to Ypres. For decades after he woke early to tend his garden, a form of "therapy" learnt after suffering shellshock. On hearing his story I thought immediately of Regeneration and Owen's poem.

Unfortunately we learn nothing from history, with much of Europe shifting further right (support for the Front National is surging in France, far right parties are winning ground in other countries, while large numbers of Brits seemed unconcerned by Nigel's alliance with a Holocaust denier). Nice times we're living in.

 

[plastic penguin]

Understand about my comments being a little OTT. As an enthusiastic amateur scriptwriter, I view films in a slightly different way.

A couple of examples of the dialogue which, to me, is mustard. Can't find the screenplay online anywhere, so I'm having to take this directly from the film, and hope my interpretation is correct.

The scene where Capt. Rivers is assessing Sassoon notes. Sassoon is sitting the other side of the desk.

Rivers: Why do they call you 'Mad Jack'?

Sassoon: Graves has been telling secrets, has he?

Rivers: He's very concerned for you.

Sassoon: Because I liked going out on patrol, looking for Germans to kill.

Rivers: Taking unnecessary risks is the first sign of a war neurosis.

Sassoon: I didn't know that.

Rivers: Nightmares and hallucinations come later. Do you suffer from nightmares?

Sassoon: When I first got back, not now.

Rivers: And the erm... hallucinations?

Sassoon: When I woke up, the nightmares didn't always stop. I used to see corpses, men with half their faces shot off, crawling across the pavement.

Rivers: And you were awake when this happened?

Sassoon: Yes. Wrote one or two quite good poems at the time.

Rivers: I would like to see them.

Sassoon: Shouldn't you be asking me about my declaration? That's what got me sent here.

Rivers: You threw away your Military Cross -- you must've been in agony when you did that?

Sassoon: Agony is lying in a shell-hole with your leg shot off... I was upset.

Later in the scene, just as Rivers and Sassoon are leaving the office.

Sassoon: Oh, my bedroom door doesn’t have a lock on it.

Rivers: None of them have.

Sassoon: Uh!

Rivers: Privacy isn’t part of the cure, I’m afraid.

Sassoon: So you don’t think I’m mad, do you?

Rivers: I don’t think you’re even suffering from war neurosis. You seem to have a powerful anti-war neurosis…you realise it’s my job to change that.

Rather than boring the life out of you, I'll add one powerful piece of dialogue. This is such a corkscrew moment, as Owen tells Sassoon of his time on the front line.

Owen: Sometimes, in the trenches, you get a sense of something ancient. One trench we held, it had sculls in the side, embedded, like mushrooms. It was actually easier to believe they were men from Marlborough’s army, than to think they were alive a year ago. It is as if all other wars had distilled themselves into this war, and that made it something you almost can’t challenge. It’s like a very deep voice, saying: ‘Run along, little man, be glad you’ve survived

That is dialogue heaven, and also demonstrates what a sad bar steward I am.

 

[strapped for cash]

Out of interest, PP, what do you like so much about the script, and why?

 

[plastic penguin]

Out of interest, PP, what do you like so much about the script, and why?

Pretty easy question to answer: These Hollywood action films are no-holds barred, all-action affairs. That's okay to a point, but I can't gravitate to Bruce Willis (or similar actors)running around showing off their oily biceps.

The films I like need to be challenging, and this is where Regeneration really floats my boat: The film really engauges the question, and the whole darn point of warfare. Also, unlike most films it doesn't pander to what I would call 'typical stereotype'. By that I mean there's no huge moustaches or biggles scarves or their back teeth aren't superglued together, so they don't sound like a modern Terry Thomas. And last, because I get bored with long films (2-hours plus), it's refreshing to see a film that doesn't drag on and on and on...

The masterstroke of director Gilles MacKinnon is how he introduced the trench flashbacks at just the right moment for the film. It would be all too easy to 'over cook' the trench action scenes. Likewise, if they were too stretched it wouldn't work.

I'm not a huge war film fan, as most demonstrate the above traits: Most have the main protaganists as officer class, and they all speak very twee: "We'll take-orff at 1600 hrs" or "that was a wizard prang..."

As WWII researcher, I've come across airmen, one in particular, who was badly burnt after his Sunderland flying-boat was hit. He said hardly a night goes by without nightmares. "How do you cope with that?" I asked. He replied, "You don't. Just have to look at these nightmares as a scar of honour."

As I mentioned earlier in thread, I try and look beyond the production as just a film.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm not so dismissive of "Hollywood cinema," which is a loose descriptor at best. I'd also argue, non-confrontationally, that you're espousing a stereotypical view of Hollywood filmmaking, after objecting to stereotypes above.

As I've stressed on the film club thread, it's problematic to think in terms of a Hollywood/art cinema binary, not least because different national cinemas have been in dialogue throughout film history.

This doesn't mean I entirely disagree with your point. I mentioned Owen's poem as, in my view, it speaks of war's horror, futility and legacy more economically and effectively than multiple graphic action scenes.

At the same time, many Hollywood war films don't fit your description -- Platoon; Patton; Full Metal Jacket; Apocalypse Now; The Thin Red Line; Schindler's List; Dr. Strangelove; The Americanization of Emily; M*A*S*H; Casablanca; The Longest Day; All Quiet on the Western Front...

Sorry to get all academic on you. I get a little frustrated by blanket dismissal of Hollwood cinema as commercial trash, even though this is true of some Hollywood films that may or may not star Bruce Willis.

Your reference to MacKinnon also raises interesting questions about film authorship. It's again oversimplification to speak of the director's genius.

Who is the Regeneration's author? Is it MacKinnon, Barker, Allan Scott, Owen and Sassoon, cast members, crew (from those on set to below-the-line workers), the audience (including critics and academics proffering interpretation), all of the above to some degree, and others besides?

 

[plastic penguin]

The original novel was by Pat Barker. The film was adapted from that novel.

Not said all US/Hollywood films are rubbish, just I tend to avoid them... generally speaking I can't attach myself to the characters or the script. But then I am approaching the whole film genre from a different angle than most on here.

I can only express my own personal view based on scriptwriting I've done over recent years.

If anyone, whether youngster or adult, asked about shell shock and the diversity of effects, then you could'nt do much better than to sit them down and spin Regeneration.

As the 11th November is only a couple of weeks away, a nod should go in the direction of James Wilby, Jonny Lee Miller, Stuart Bunce, Jonathan Pryce... for such a convincing portrayal.

 

[strapped for cash]

The original novel was by Pat Barker. The film was adapted from that novel.

Aye, that's why I referenced Barker above as one of the film's many authors.

Not said all US/Hollywood films are rubbish, just I tend to avoid them... generally speaking I can't attach myself to the characters or the script. But then I am approaching the whole film genre from a different angle than most on here.

Fair enough. I doubt I'll radically alter your view on this.

As an historian of Hollywood cinema and industry, I must acknowledge that I'm approaching this discussion from a very different perspective.

The phrase "Hollywood cinema" encompasses a wealth of movies, eras, industrial contexts, subjects and methods. It therefore bothers me a little when people dismiss "Hollywood" movies as mindless entertainments (I'm not paraphrasing your comments here; I just regularly encounter this caricature).

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of **** out there, but there's so much more besides.

If anyone, whether youngster or adult, asked about shell shock and the diversity of effects, then you could'nt do much better than to sit them down and spin Regeneration.

No complaints about this observation. Interested parties might also read Barker's book, or study the war poets and their work.