Regeneration (Raoul Walsh, 1915)

[Via_Chicago]

Yesterday I watched Raoul Walsh's 1915 masterpiece Regeneration, in large part after being inspired by its mention in Tag Gallagher's brief Walsh essay on Senses of Cinema. It's an astonishing film, but all the more so because it was made right on the heels of Griffith's Birth of a Nation. Even while Walsh worked with Griffith on that film, the Griffith narrative style is barely in evidence here. Instead, Walsh creates his own distinctive visual style, one that relies less on sheer narrative exposition (as does Griffith) and more on character and character identification. It's an interesting style and one I'd like to explore in more depth.

The story, that of a gangster "regenerated" (as it were) by his love for a beautiful, but slightly naive charity worker, is not all that interesting or compelling in and of itself. I was rather surprised to read comments (on the Kino VHS) to the effect of: "Man, you wouldn't fucking believe this gangster shit was made in 1915!" Apparently, said critic has never actually seen anything else from the era, most notably the Westerns of William S. Hart. Both Hart's pictures and this Walsh film display a common narrative arc: (A) hardened criminal meets beautiful girl, (B) said criminal softens and gives up his criminal ways, (C) however, his past catches up with him, and then (D) he finally makes the turn to that which is right. While Hart's vision is in some ways his own unique perception and interpretation of the civilizing of the American West, Regeneration demonstrates that it was also a common theme to American art at the time. In essence, these stories demonstrate the power that the Women's Suffrage (and social cause movements, going all the way back to organizations like the Knights of Labor) was already having in the teens (and is felt right up to the granting of suffrage in '20 and the beginning of the Prohibition era).

However, what makes Regeneration unique is not its story, as at least one critic (the aforementioned Kino box critic) has maintained, but rather its visualization. It's fascinating that already in 1915 Walsh was so far ahead of the game. Regeneration is, for me at least, something of an undiscovered treasure. It has a visual style in many ways totally unlike a lot of the American films of its era. It subtle and delicate camera movements don't establish space in the way that Griffith's did (I think here of that famous - and fucking glorious - crane shot in Intolerance), but instead they seem to narrow in on some kind of psychological truth. There is a great example of this early in the film, when the film's protagonist Owen is just a boy. After his mother dies, he's taken in by his quarreling and brutish neighbors. In one effecting shot, Walsh places the boy dead center in the frame, but he is overwhelmed to his left and right by the quarreling couple. Walsh then slowly lurches his camera forward with a simultaneous iris-in on the young Owen's face. The effect is profound, sublime, and utterly beautiful. While the narrative may try to contrive us into laying our sympathies with the boy earlier than this, it is this shot that allows the audience to fully identify with Owen. We suddenly understand, if not outright empathize (yes, empathize!), with Owen's plight. And all because of a simple camera movement.

I haven't seen enough of Walsh's later pictures to really make a solid comparison between this film and those efforts. Gallagher makes an interesting comment to the effect that in this film we already see Walsh attempting to create a cinema of invitation. That is, a cinema that actively attempts to involve its audience in its story. He notes the cut between the beautiful Maggie Weston beckoning to the audience and a group of gangsters on a pier shot directly from her POV. But I slightly disagree with Gallagher in its effect. At least in this film, like the earlier camera movement and iris-in, this two shot cut allows the audience to completely understand the almost saintly, un-earthly, and angelic appeal of Weston's charity worker character. We fall in love with her at about the same time as Owen does, completely thanks to Walsh's visual treatment of the story.

Regeneration is, in sum, a major masterpiece of its era, but to call it a template for the gangster genre is a bit outlandish. The film doesn't give two shits about the gangster lifestyle, and instead it cares about social issues, morality, and the civilization of the criminal world. Like Hart's Westerns of the same era, and Maurice Tourneur's sublime 1917 gangster pic Alias, Jimmy Valentine, crime is a moral force that only the civilizing power of women can stop.

Addendum: There's a great fucking intertitle in this movie, that comes shortly after everyone has to flee a ship that's caught on fire (and said intertitle only further proves the point that action setpieces were to have no bearing on the moral message of the film): "All the kiddies were saved."

[Michael Kerpan]

How did you see it? (Or did I miss something about its availability -- easily possible).

[ptmd]

I agree with everything you've said about the impact of the film and Walsh's direction, but Tourneur's Alias Jimmy Valentine actually came out in 1915, a few months before Regeneration. The "gangster" film is usually said to start with Griffith's "Musketeers of Pig's Alley" in 1912, but it was the release of the pioneering Walsh and Tourneur features in 1915 that really kickstarted the genre. I like Alias Jimmy Valentine a lot and the mise-en-scene is remarkable, but the fact that it derives from a turn-of-the-century stage play is obvious. Regeneration, on the other hand, still feels very fresh, due in no small part to the location shooting and the use of exterior space.

Michael, there's a first-rate Image DVD of the film. I believe it was one of the David Shepard projects.

[Via_Chicago]

How did you see it? (Or did I miss something about its availability -- easily possible).

I watched the old Kino VHS. Which, surprisingly, isn't all that terrible and features a pretty good accompanying piano score. And yes, there is also an Image DVD.

I agree with everything you've said about the impact of the film and Walsh's direction, but Tourneur's Alias Jimmy Valentine actually came out in 1915, a few months before Regeneration. The "gangster" film is usually said to start with Griffith's "Musketeers of Pig's Alley" in 1912, but it was the release of the pioneering Walsh and Tourneur features in 1915 that really kickstarted the genre.

You're right...my mistake.

I like Alias Jimmy Valentine a lot and the mise-en-scene is remarkable, but the fact that it derives from a turn-of-the-century stage play is obvious. Regeneration, on the other hand, still feels very fresh, due in no small part to the location shooting and the use of exterior space.

Your points about Alias are very well taken. It has what may be one of the best heist sequences in all of cinema (so says me), and this in 1915!

One of the other things that really keeps Regeneration fresh is that it doesn't end traditionally. Owen can't (both physically and spiritually) get the girl.