Purely Joyful Movie!

A different way of telling a story

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Copyright 1955 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 15 December 1955. U.S. release: December 1955. U.K. release: February 1956. Australian release: 16 February 1956. Sydney opening at the Regent. 9,360 feet. 104 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Lord Alan Esketh (Michael Rennie) and his American wife (Lana Turner) come to Ranchipur to buy an Arabian horse from the Maharani.NOTES: Although Fox released publicity headed "India Bows in CinemaScope", 2nd unit locations were filmed in Lahore, Pakistan. The palace gardens were photographed in the remote Kingdom of Swat. Using doubles to impersonate the film's principals, photographer Charles G. Clarke shot over 10,000 feet of background footage. This movie is actually a re-make of Bromfield's 1937 novel "The Rains Came" which was filmed under that title in 1939. This 1955 version was nominated for an Academy Award for Special Effects, losing to "The Bridges at Toko- Ri". Reported negative cost: $4.8 million. Initial domestic rental gross: approx. $4.3 million. This shortfall was more than made up by overseas rentals. Disregarding some exaggerated and purely book-keeping items, I think it fair to estimate the studio made at least a $2 million dollar profit on this film.COMMENT: Although it suffers in all departments by comparison with the previous movie version, including the much-vaunted climactic special effects (some of which have obviously been boldly lifted from 1939), this steamy melodrama still offers a fair amount of entertainment, thanks both to lavish production values and its stellar cast. Negulesco has even directed some sequences with a fair amount of style.Merle Miller has obviously tried to avoid duplicating any of "The Rains Came" script. It is almost a different film. Unfortunately his script is wordy and dialogue-bound and he has obviously fallen in love with his own words. Every scene is over-written and constructed like a TV play. Negulesco's bland direction does not help, but the players oddly enough often overcome the unbelievable nature of the characters and the often tedious wordiness of the dialogue. Burton makes a late entrance but is more convincing than Power WAS, while Joan Caulfield does rather charmingly by this version's smaller role for Fern. Fred MacMurray also does yeoman service (despite a ridiculous off-camera plot turnaround at the climax). Miss Turner's obvious dramatic inadequacies are something of a liability, though her (doubtless unintentional) overblown, faded blonde presence is admirably suited to the revamped role. Eugenie Leontovich in a rare film appearance does a Maria Ouspenskaya impersonation, while as Mrs Smiley, Madge Kennedy attempts somewhat less successfully Jane Darwell. The climax is not as impressive as "The Rains Came" with some material obviously printed up from that film inter-cut with new but rather obvious effects. Technically, this film does not over- impress. There's a bit of 2nd unit location material, but even this is dull. The sets don't hold a patch on the old film and Turner's fans will be upset by their idol's frowzy look and somewhat unflattering costumes. Michael Rennie is surprisingly wet, the film editing lacks sharpness and pace, and the photography is inhibited by the demands of early CinemaScope. Negulesco has not taken advantage of the wide screen to any great extent. All told, though, the film is not as tedious or time and talent wasting as MY memory led ME to believe.

In rainy Ranchipur, India, promiscuous blonde Lana Turner (as Edwina) seduces inexperienced Hindu doctor Richard Burton (as Rama Safti). Meanwhile, heavy-drinking Fred MacMurray (as Tom Ransome) tries to fend off flirty blonde Joan Caulfield (as Fern Simon). As you might expect, Ms. Turner is decked out in expensive clothing and smokes more than her usual share of cigarettes. Looking likewise with extra brown make-up, Mr. Burton is earnest but apt to provoke unintentional laughter. Too lazy to steal the film by acting even moderately drunk, Mr. MacMurray is merely coasting until Disney rescues his career. With a teen-aged pony-tail and lilting voice, Ms. Caulfield found her feature film career effectively ended. In this crowd, fifth-billed Michael Rennie (as Albert Esketh) shines by just standing around. There is a special effects disaster in the last half-hour, and Turner has some good scenes - but you have to wait over an hour to something to happen.**** The Rains of Ranchipur (12/14/55) Jean Negulesco ~ Lana Turner, Richard Burton, Fred MacMurray, Joan Caulfield

Lord Esketh, a British aristocrat, and his glamorous American wife, Edwina, are touring India and staying in the city of Ranchipur, where they are guests of the local Maharani. (The action is supposed to be set in India, even though we see a prominently displayed Pakistani flag in an early scene). Their marriage is an unhappy one and each despises the other. Edwina despises her husband because she sees him as weak and cowardly and because he only married her for her money. (She is an independently wealthy heiress). He despises her because he sees her as cold and heartless; we learn that she has been unfaithful to him with a number of different men. While in Ranchipur Edwina meets and has an affair with a young suntanned Welshman in a turban. Well, actually Richard Burton's character is supposed to be an Indian, Dr Safti, a physician and the adopted son of the Maharani. Today, the idea of a white actor in "brownface" playing an Indian would strike most people as politically incorrect, but was an accepted practice in the fifties, and at least Burton's performance is a lot less insensitive than that given by Peter Sellers in "The Millionairess" from a few years later. (Sellers was also playing an Indian doctor). Watching the film, I wondered if the use of the Christian name "Edwina" was a veiled reference to Edwina Mountbatten, another independently wealthy heiress, married to a British aristocrat, who visited India and was rumoured to have had an affair with an Indian man, in her case the politician Jawaharlal Nehru. I understand, however, that "The Rains of Ranchipur" is a remake of "The Rains Came" from 1939 (which I have never seen), and that the character had the same name both in this film and in the 1937 novel on which it was based. As the Mountbattens did not come to India until 1947, the coincidence was presumably unintentional. The Edwina-Safti romance is the mainspring of the plot, but for all Edwina's good looks she is so obviously spoilt, selfish and promiscuous that it is difficult to imagine any man, let alone one as intelligent and idealistic as Dr Safti, falling hopelessly in love with her. There is a subplot involving another romance between Tom Ransome, an alcoholic former lover of Edwina and close friend of Safti, and Fern, the daughter of a local missionary, but this arouses little interest. The acting is generally undistinguished. Burton, as though embarrassed by having been cast in a role to which he was ill-suited, is horribly stilted and wooden, giving by far his worst performance in any film of his which I have seen. The Russian-born Eugenie Leontovich as the Maharani is no more convincing as an Indian than is Burton. Lana Turner as Edwina and Fred MacMurray as Tom were both capable of much better things than this. Probably the best is Joan Caulfield as Fern. The intention seems to have been to contrast Fern's youth and innocence with the cynicism and corruption of the experienced older woman Edwina, so it is perhaps surprising that Caulfield, who at 33 was only a year younger than Turner, was cast in the role, but she is fresh and youthful-looking enough to succeed in making the contrast an effective one. The best thing about the film is its special effects. Although "The Rains of Ranchipur" is not a "disaster movie" in the sense that the film-makers of the seventies would have understood the term, an earthquake and the subsequent flood after the earthquake destroys a dam play important roles in the story. These scenes are very well done, are still convincingly impressive even in the era of CGI and the main reason why I have given the film an average mark. Unfortunately, there is little else to make the film worth watching today. Special effects apart, it is the sort of dull, turgid and implausible melodrama which typified Hollywood at its worst during the fifties. 5/10

NOTE---POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR ONE OF THE FILM'S IMPORTANT SCENES---The whole movie was good, but the great earthquake scene was spectacular! Then the dam breaking! No music was used during the entire sequence to attempt to build drama or enhance what was happening on the screen, it wasn't necessary. The minimal use of sound effects in that scene also added to the sense of impending, ominous doom. Great directing! Great special effects, especially considering the era when it was made!---Bolt.