I haven't seen this, so I don't know if it's any good. Set your VCRs if you're interested and let's discuss after it airs.--MARIAN
"Regeneration" (105 minutes- Canada/England, 1997)
Directed by Gillies MacKinnon and starring
Jonathan Pryce, James Wilby, Jonny Lee Miller
David Hayman, Stuart Bunce, Tanya Allen
Dougray Scott, John Neville, Paul Young, Alastair Galbraith
Blurb says: "In 1917, war hero and poet Siegfried Sassoon is sent to a Scottish mental hospital after publishing an anti-war letter. "
MONDAY, March 22 on IFC (the Independent Film Channel)
at 1:15 a.m.
and 6 am.
That does sound interesting. I like anything that has to do with mental hospitals.
IMDB gives it over 7 points, so it might very well be worth watching:
It's a very good film. It's based on a novel by Pat Barker, which is good too. Owen and Graves also appear. W H R Rivers- the psychiatrist in charge- was a fascinating man. A mini-biography, with selections from some of his anthropological essays, was published a few years ago.
I'm "bumping" this to the top of the forum before I go home for the weekend. Set your VCRS for the wee small hours of Monday morning!
Well, with my normal technical expertise, my vcr got 90-some minutes of snow on the screen. Anyone else get it? Worth watching?
Well, if you missed the film, the novel (pt of a triligy) doesn't need any technical skills except turning pages.
What is the novel? Who is the author?
Regeneration, by Pat Barker. It's part of a trilogy- the other two are The Eye in the Door and The Ghost Road. Sassoon is not really part of the last two, although he's a major character in Regeneration.
I've only watched the first 30 minutes; will finish over the weekend. I don't know enough about Sassoon's life to comment on how correct the portrayal or the events are.
All I can say so far is that I'm looking forward to watching the rest of it and I like the acting. Also, I got a chill watching a scene where a younger poet tells Sassoon that he hasn't tried to write about his war experiences because he thinks of poetry as "the opposite of war," and Sassoon encourages the younger poet to give it a try--the younger poet being Wilfred Owen.
Owen's in the book also.
According to the movie, it Sassoon suggested the TITLE for this poem:
ANTHEM FOR DOOMED YOUTH
by Wilfred Owen
What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
- Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, -
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in The hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine The holy glimmers of goodbyes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.
It's available on DVD in the US, called, for some reason, "Behind the Lines".
Dear Marian-NYC: I am a descendant of Sigfried Sassoon, and did not like how my cousin was portrayed in this "film". I object to an author taking a historical figure like Sigfried Sassoon, and rewriting his timeline to fit a novel's point-of-view. It was well known that Sigfried was Gay, for instance, but it was not mentioned in the film at all. In fact, one of his boyfriends was Stephen Tennant-an ancestor of actor Steve Martin's ex-wife Victoria Tennant. And also the film made him out to be like a prissy jerk, when he was actually a serious opponent to what was going on during WWI.
Gay? Bisexual, surely, if he had descendants.
Not if he didn't enjoy it.
Phnaar! I stand corrected, thanks.
THANKS for posting to this thread (and not even anonymously!). Welcome to eMule!
I TOTALLY RESPECT YOUR OPINION OF THE FILM, I'm not arguing, just contributing:
There's a scene near the beginning of the film where Siegfried's homosexuality is made very clear. It's one of the conversations with Captain (Dr.) Rivers. They are talking about Siegfried's lover--I think he name is David but I'm not certain--who was killed in action. Dr. Rivers asks Sassoon why he doesn't talk about his plans for AFTER the war, and Sassoon says, "David and I made plans for our entire lives"--implying that because David was killed, Sassoon doesn't feel like making any new plans.
I didn't find the performance "prissy" at all, but I guess that would depend on what image of Sassoon you were comparing to.
I did look at pictures of Sassoon and Owen -- photographs of them, illustrating websites about their work -- and I thought that as far as mere appearance goes, the casting was excellent.
Oh, and I forgot to say:
Errors in "portrayal" and chronology are probably in the BOOK, previous to the film. (Again, I'm not defending the film--just commenting.)
To say Sassoon was gay is an anachronism in itself. The concept of gayness did not exist in 1917. There are discreet references- appropriate to the time- to SS's homosexuality- one to his dead lover near the beginning of the film, another when Rivers points out that the military could use other ways to discredit Sassoon if they wanted. There is also the scene where Sassoon inspects his soldiers' feet- a reference to Christ as well, but with homoerotic overtones.
It is not a film about homosexuality, but about the consciences and dilemmas of men in a horrible and murderous war. The important thing here about Sassoon and Owen is that they are poets trying to express their dilemmas.
While we're carping, there's nothing about Sassoon's fox-hunting either, which was far more well known at the time than his homosexuality.
Us rightpondians (sorry I'll stop it soon) can watch (tape) the film on Sat. 3 April, 11-30 BST, BBC2.
Post Edited (03-30-04 15:42)
I wonder if Mark Sassoon saw the film on television, in which case the scene with explicit reference to homosexuality might have been cut.
Ironic, censoring a film about censorship.
I've finally watched the tape, and enjoyed the film. If you hadn't told me he was gay I would probably have missed the references. Radio Times warned me that the film contained violence, swearing and nudity, and what do you know? they were all there.