Lee Eisenberg Nowadays the most recognizable movie called "The Rainmaker" is Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of John Grisham's novel about a rookie lawyer taking on an insurance company. Another movie with that title was Joseph Anthony's adaptation of a play about a con artist who claims that he can cause liquid precipitation in a drought-stricken Kansas town during the Depression. I had never heard of the play before seeing the movie, but the movie is worth seeing. Not the greatest movie ever made, but I liked the complexity that it gave the characters. Burt Lancaster made one suave huckster, with Katharine Hepburn giving her usual smooth performance as a local woman looking for a relationship. As for Lloyd Bridges's character, I kept imagining him saying "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit (insert moral vice)".All in all, a worthwhile movie. I've recently been making an effort to see a lot of older movies that received Academy Award nominations (this one received nods for actress and score).

classicsoncall Wow, what a revelation this movie is! By it's title I was expecting it to be all about con-man and rapscallion Bill Starbuck (Burt Lancaster), but it takes a wonderful little detour into the home life of the Curry Family, and the attempts of Pop H.C. (Cameron Prud'Homme) and sons Noah (Lloyd Bridges) and Jim (Earl Holliman) to marry off sister Lizzie (Katharine Hepburn). Sensitive viewers may tackle a misty eye here for Lizzie's old maid outlook on life, as she tries to process the worldly advice of the would be Rainmaker. Lancaster's character bursts on the screen with all the manic energy of a fast talker and out-sized showman, but his insight into the human condition is decidedly accurate for Lizzie, who comes to see herself in a new light and believe in herself once again. 'All women are pretty in a different way, but they're all pretty' is the way he awakens Lizzie's self-confidence, and her transformation is a wonder to behold. The picture's valuable lesson for most everyone is that you can't get stuck inside your dreams or live outside of them, but find them somewhere in between. It's almost too simple a message, but it's one that works for the person who finds themselves here, there and nowhere.

James Hitchcock "The Rainmaker" is, officially, a Western. It is set in a small town rural town in the West, (probably in the 1920s or 1930s, to judge from the cars and costumes we see), but it bears little resemblance to most Westerns from the fifties. This was the decade when the cinema first faced serious competition from television, and spectacular Westerns featuring exciting action sequences shot against the dramatic scenery of the American West were one of Hollywood's major weapons in its fight against the newcomer. ("Shane", "The Naked Spur", "The Searchers" and "The Big Country" are all good examples). This film, by contrast, is adapted from a stage play, and it shows.The plot is a simple one. It is a hot summer and the area is suffering from a severe drought. A man calling himself Bill Starbuck arrives in town, promising that he can make it rain. A spinster named Lizzie Curry falls in love with him. The film tells the story of the effect which Starbuck has on Lizzie and the other townspeople. The film's message is, effectively, "learn to love yourself and to believe in yourself". Starbuck, of course, is not a genuine rainmaker but a con-man; even his real surname is not Starbuck but Smith. The important thing is that he projects such assurance and self-belief that others accept him as genuine, and under his influence Lizzie, hitherto put upon and patronised by her father and two brothers for whom she acts as housekeeper on the family cattle ranch, learns to believe in herself too.I have never seen the play on which "The Rainmaker" is based, so I do not know how well this story might work on the stage. (I understand that it is a staple of the American theatre, but on this side of the Atlantic both the play and its author, one N. Richard Nash, are virtually unknown). Unfortunately, the film does not work for me, and when I recently saw it on television I was disappointed; I had been hoping for something far better, given that it stars two actors as talented as Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn.Part of the problem is miscasting. Hepburn is quite wrong for the part of Lizzie for three reasons, namely age, looks and personality. We never learn exactly how old Lizzie is, but I think we are supposed to assume that she is considerably younger than Hepburn's 49 years at the time the film was made, possibly in her thirties. Secondly, Lizzie is supposed to be plain, whereas Hepburn in her youth was considered one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses, and even in her late forties was still strikingly handsome. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hepburn spent most of her career playing strong, independent and capable woman, and is not really credible as a downtrodden, put-upon spinster lacking in self-confidence. Her "Best Actress" Oscar nomination today seems incredible. (Mind you, there seems to have been something odd going on at the Academy Awards for 1956; that was the year which saw Don Murray's bizarre "Best Supporting Actor" nomination for his awful performance in "Bus Stop" and Kirk Douglas unaccountably losing "Best Actor" to Yul Brynner). Lancaster as Starbuck is better suited to his role, but this is not one of his great performances and he was to be far better as another charismatic con-man, Elmer Gantry, four years later.My other problem with the film is to do with the direction. I was not surprised to learn that Joseph Anthony was a theatrical director who directed Nash's play on stage but had never previously directed a movie, as he seems to have made this film on the basis that there was no essential difference between the two media. There is little attempt to open the story out and little in the way of action; most scenes take place indoors and consist mainly dialogue rather than physical action. The result is a static, talky film, dominated by interminable conversations. Another reviewer claims that the film could have been far better had it been made by a major cinema director such as Fred Zinnemann or George Stevens who would no doubt have escaped from the "filmed theatre" style of film-making and made maximum use of the greater freedom which the cinematic medium offers. That is doubtless true, but I suspect that Zinnemann or Stevens, or any of the other great directors of the period, would have demanded from the producers more artistic freedom and a much greater budget than Anthony appears to have had at his disposal. 4/10

Stephen Alfieri "The Rainmaker" is all wet.Thanks to a badly miscast Katherine Hepburn (who is almost 50 here, and looks like she's trying to play 25-30, and a truly obnoxious performance by Earl Holliman, plus an awful directing job by Joseph Anthony turn what could have been an interesting story of how a woman discovers how to believe in herself, into a farce that is barely watchable.It seems as though Mr. Anthony did not trust the script (by N. Richard Nash, based on his play), and just told his actors that the bigger you play your roles, the better the film will be. I believe a director like Fred Zinnemann or George Stevens could have made this into a really glorious film.The story is a simple one. Bill Starbuck (played magnificently by Burt Lancaster, who looks as though he's warming up for "Elmer Gantry") is a huckster who convinces a family that for $100, he can make it rain, and thereby end a drought. What he actually does is end the drought in heart of Lizzie Curry, the daughter of the rancher who gave Starbuck the $100. He gets her to believe in herself, and in doing so he falls in love with her.The message of the film about believing in and loving yourself is very powerful. Hepburn does do a terrific job in these latter scenes. But her performance is so mannered and "over the top" in the first half of the picture, that you just don't buy the transformation.And Holliman seems as though he's about to go on auditions for "The Beverly Hillbillies" or "Hee-Haw".In the end, the film is worth seeing for Lancaster's performance only. But it is a magnificent performance.6 out of 10