Nacht über Indien

One of the unique things about this film is that for once a British Raj story is told not from a British point of view. It should never be forgotten that John Bromfield was an American. You would never see a character like Nigel Bruce in any British screenplay about the Raj. Of all the supporting players, he comes off best in what has to be the most unusual part in his career. For those used to seeing him as the ineffectual Dr. Watson in those Sherlock Holmes movies, playing the bigoted Lord Esketh is quite a switch.

Not until A Passage to India was filmed in the 80s was the Raj ever shown in a less than perfect light.

Ty Power is his usual noble self, the rest of the cast plays well. Twentieth Century Fox borrowed two big names from other studios, Myrna Loy from MGM and George Brent from Warner Brothers to support Power. Loy is Lady Esketh, a woman of the world, left pretty much to her own devices by her husband, decides Power would be a perfect boy toy for her. The part is a throwback to Loy's earlier days of playing mostly bad girls before The Thin Man.

Brent has a very nice role her as a man who's living a dissolute life himself in India, but really steps to the plate during the time of crisis when the flooding starts.

H.B. Warner and Maria Ouspenskaya play the rulers of Ranchipur, you will not forget Ouspenskaya easily. Nor will you forget first the cultured, than the wailing Joseph Schildkraut as Bannerjee. Today no producer could ever get away with casting all these occidental types as Indians, but they all do a fine job.

In the year of Gone With The Wind and all the Oscars it won, the one for Special Effects went to The Rains Came, beating out Gone With The Wind's burning of Atlanta. Judge for yourself if the Academy voters were right.

You know there are a few Old Hollywood classics that you haven't gotten around to seeing, so remedy that by checking out this big-budget entry from its greatest year, 1939. Many fine summaries are offered here on IMDb, and you can be sure this film is made well enough that you can overlook the occasional soapy elements--good performances by the (notably non-ethnic) cast carry you through the suds.

If for no other reason, see it for the special effects, about halfway through, that managed to snatch that year's Oscar from my (and millions of others') top 2 faves, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz.

One weekend (it was raining), I watched 1939's "The Rains Came" and then the remake, 1955's "The Rains of Ranchipur".

"The Rains Came" is a story of redemption. Tom Ransome (George Brent) is slowly dissipating in the pre-independence Indian kingdom of Ranchipur when his decline is interrupted by the arrival of a former lover, Edwina (Myrna Loy). Now married to the elderly Lord Esketh (Nigel Bruce) Edwina is restless and bored.

She sets out to seduce Tom's friend, Indian doctor, Rama Safti (Tyrone Power), however she ends up falling in love with him. This disturbs the Maharani of Ranchipur who sees Safti as a future ruler of the kingdom, Then the rains come destroying much of Ranchipur and bringing out hidden depths of character in Tom and Edwina.

The 1939 version is a moody, artistic looking film. Myrna Loy is photographed with luminous close-ups and lighting accentuating cheekbones and lips. There is none of that for Lana Turner as Edwina in the newer version. Instead the Cinemascope process delivered static, overlit scenes that distanced us from the actors.

George Brent was always low-key, but it's what the role needed. Fred MacMurray played the same part in the later movie and his delivery suffered in comparison.

Richard Burton wears Safti's turban in "The Rains of Ranchipur". However it's not a good fit; he projects somewhat of a neurotic edge; it's hard to believe the passion he arouses in Edwina. On the other hand, Tyrone Power's calm demeanour and serenity in "The Rains Came" only enhanced his charisma.

Burton was not entirely to blame; he is required to spout volumes of sanctimonious drivel in his scenes with Turner. Things had changed in India and the script needed updating, however where a look said a lot in the "The Rains Came", the characters in "Ranchipur" say it.

The only character enhanced in "Rains" Mk II is Michael Rennie's Lord Esketh. It's a more intelligent characterisation than Nigel Bruce's blustering stereotype. The remake features location footage but it's not enough to elevate it above bland interiors and unbelievable characters.

Finally I was surprised at how good the first version is, but also surprised at how much the second one missed the mark.

This movie has, for its time, amazing special effects for the flood scene. To let you know HOW amazing the effects were, in this category, THE RAINS CAME beat out GONE WITH THE WIND and its amazing burning of Atlanta! It was THAT good and worth seeing just for this segment. As for the rest of the story, it's okay--not great. It reminds me a lot of the movie JEZEBEL--completed just a year earlier. Both feature a female lead who is spoiled but who eventually prove themselves and both end up with similar fates. George Brent is excellent though it's odd to see Tyrone Power in the role of an Indian--with no trace of an Indian accent! Mr. Power does NOT do a whole lot to impress the audience with his acting range, but he looks nice in a suit. All in all, the story seems a tad familiar and pretty ordinary, but certainly not bad.

I was eight years old when I saw this movie. It was the first movie I remember seeing. My mother says that initially I refused to go into the movie theater because it was a dark, and to me, forbidding place. Once inside, however, I didn't want to leave. I have never seen the movie since, but the images of flooding and sick people under mosquito nets are as vivid to me as if I had seen it yesterday. I also have memories of being put through an emotional wringer by the film, thinking it was "real" and crying at the death and destruction it portrayed. The total effect was to hook me on movies for good and I could hardly wait to get back into that dark, engrossing place.