MovieChat Forums > The Rainmaker (1956) Discussion > My Thoughts about "The Rainmaker&qu...

My Thoughts about "The Rainmaker"


I really enjoyed-- and continue to enjoy-- "The Rainmaker." Only I do have some "wonderings" about it...

For one thing, what *date* or *time era* is it set in?

It's obviously set "out west"-- with the deputy sheriff (Wendell Corey) carrying a gun and holster and the main town being like the main town in the "Bonanza" tv show-- and yet the girl who drives youngest brother Jimmy Curry crazy drives a cherry red car--which is unlikely in the late 1800's! And Katherine Hepburn wears a dress that comes to her mid-calf, like a woman in the 1950's would wear!

In one of Lizzie Curry's (Katharine Hepburn's) speeches, she says: "Well what were you all thinking-- that you were looking at lantern slides?" That would have made the movie set in the early 1900's!

I don't know when I decided that I liked this movie; I certainly didn't start out liking it. Perhaps some of the fault lay in Burt Lancaster's performance. Compare his performance with Robert Preston in "The Music Man" or James Cagney in just about any movie, and youi see a certain dynamism that is lacking. And although Katharine Hepburn never seems to overcoem her eastern U.S. accent, it doesn't seem to bother me like Burt Lancaster's obviously New York accent bothers me in "The Rainmaker."

I am a Christian and I know the Bible but I still don't "get" why the writer named the Lloyd Bridges character "Noah." This character is overly concerned with being "the big brother" and watching out for his siblings rather than as his father (played wonderfully by Cameron Prudd'Homme) advised him, "Just let them live." Perhaps the name of "Noah" meant something "ancient," like "Abraham." And maybe that's all we are supposed to get out of it. Noah also worked hard at making the ark -- while everybody else "played." And with Noah's line about "When you quit thinking that some knight in shining armour is going to come and take you away, and you realize that you'll be an old maid, then you'll quit breaking YOUR heart"-- you finally get down to the root of Noah's apparent cruelty, for it is HIS heart that breaks when his sister can't seem to attract the attention of men and possibly get a husband for herself.

I thought the screenplay was well-written-- especially using outdoors scenes coupled with what was probably the scenes that were originally in the play. I know how old Katharine Hepburn was when she made the movie but her close-ups--with probably dyed hair-- were lovely and her athletic movements when called for, made her appear much, much younger.

Except for my slight problem with Burt Lancaster, all of the other actors were
exceptional-- including Hepburn, Prudd-Homme, Lloyd Bridges, Wendell Cory and Earl Holliman as youngest brother "Jimmy."

Kathleen
[email protected]

reply

[deleted]

Wow, I guess you've watched this film a few times, huh? You make a lot of valid points in your post. I have also been fuzzy as to exactly when the story takes place...some of the settings and and costuming seem very old west and other things seem very contemporary. But as you mentioned, Sukie Magire drives a red sports car which would definitely put the story in the 20th century, but it is difficult to tell exactly what year the story is set in. My main problem with Burt Lancaster's performance is that he speaks so fast that it's sometimes hard to understand what he's saying but I think he captures the spirit of the character quite nicely. Hepburn gives one of her most affecting and heartbreaking performances in this film as the old main brought out of her shell by the dynamic con man. One thing I never understood about this story is what Lizzie ever saw in File...he' dull as dishwater. And I absolutely loved Earl Holliman as Jimmy. Holliman has never been seen to better advantage onscreen.

reply

Perhaps Lloyd Bridges is "Noah" in a drought because he is mistaken about the family's situation. There is more Greek Tragedy than Bible to this. Plague and pestilence, dying cattle, a kingdom out of order, a king whose son is supplanting his control and suppressing the other heirs, a wizard,a young soldier who finds inner strength and wisdom, a restoration of fertility when the emotional crisis is resolved. This is Homer, Shakespeare, Sartre, Camus, and many, many others, Kathleen.
As for apparent anachronisms, I see this taking place within the teens or twenties of the 20th century. The Southwest was a wild place, men carried guns and encountered rattlers and robbers. Telephones and cars were available to these folks, too. Lizzie was probably educated in the East, and Starbuck may have come west from the industrial East or Mid-West, thus explaining their accents and language. There are probably fellows just like Noah, Jimmy, and their Pa ranching today with cell phones holstered on their belts, and lap-tops and gun-racks in their pick-ups.
A favorite movie at my house, you bet!

reply

The 1999 Broadway revival (with Woody Harrelson as Starbuck) gave the date as August 1936. The program of the original 1954 Broadway production did not give a date.

Things changed slowly in that part of the country, so some old-fashioned expressions would still be used (especially in sarcastic remarks) and women didn't always keep up to the fashion of the day.


The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts...prostitutes for the bees.

reply

I was wondering this too while watching it..

- it's set in a western town, that looks like the old west is still left behind.
- but there are 50's and onwards looking automobiles.
- Lizzie wears a dress where it looks early 1900's to the mid 10's.
- the red capped girl wears a dress that looks like it's from the 50's.

Yes, obviously 20th century but what decade???

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

reply

It's probably mid to late 20s, based on the car and the train, Starbuck not seeing to be that out of place with a horse and wagon, and the lamps & telephone in the house. The droughts of the late 20s lead to the dust bowls of the early 30s during the Great Depression. Everything's a little too progressive and the styles are wrong for the depression era. But it could be very early in the depression - the oil boom in Texas kept a lot of the state rolling along as normal to all the new oil wealth flowing in.

reply

mikeoak840 says > It's probably mid to late 20s, based on the car and the train, Starbuck not seeing to be that out of place with a horse and wagon, and the lamps & telephone in the house.
It's interesting to see what everyone has to say about the setting for the movie but does it really matter?

The story happens to work in any setting. That cannot be said of all stories but even when it matters moviemakers often choose not to focus on costumes and other things that were of that particular period. In this case I'm inclined to think the mishmash of periods was intentional. A little bit of old mixed with a little new would fit with the other contrasts in the movie. Audience members of different ages could find something with which they could identify.

Watching the movie for the first time today I thought it was as relevant as it would have been for the people who saw it when it was released. The message of the movie is clear and is relevant even without us knowing the actual year and place in which the story is set.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

I would say it is set sometime between the 1910 and 1940 - outside of major metropolitan areas, the South and Southwest was still for the most part very rural back then with far more dirt roads than paved ones, it really wasn't until post-WWII that much of this area caught up with the rest of America.

reply