El arco iris

Apparently, the late Ken Russell's dictum was "When in a crisis, turn to D.H. Lawrence": in 1969 he made WOMEN IN LOVE after the critical panning of the Harry Palmer espionage saga BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN (1967), which almost killed his career (to quote the eminent British film critic Leslie Halliwell); that film, which landed him a Best Director nod at the Oscars and awarded the Best Actress prize to the up-and-coming Glenda Jackson led to the full-flowering of his movie career. However, the 1980s would see a slackening in the quality of his work, while taking his trademark vulgarity to new depths in such efforts as CRIMES OF PASSION (1984), Gothic (1986), SALOME'S LAST DANCE and THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (both 1988); so it came to pass that 20 years after his first Lawrence adaptation, Russell returned to the safe prospect of a second (though he had already tried, and failed, to raise the money for it around the time of CRIMES OF PASSION) – ironically, "The Rainbow" was actually the prequel to "Women In Love"(!), and even odder is the fact that the previous year a TV mini-series had been produced based on that very source (directed by seasoned adapter Stuart Burge)! For the record, the director would return once more to Lawrence territory in 1993 with a perhaps inevitable adaptation – in the format of a TV min-series – of the author's most notorious property, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", retitled simply LADY CHATTERLEY...but, although I do own a copy of it in my collection, I decided to bypass it for the present since I also have the earlier 1955 and 1981 film versions of the same sources likewise lying in my unwatched pile!

At least, Russell came to his old battleground, as it were, prepared with several cast and crew members of the earlier film: actors Glenda Jackson (as the mother of her own previous character!) and Christopher Gable (here as the heroine's cheerful father rather than her sister's fiancé!), cinematographer Billy Williams and production designer Luciana Arrighi; besides, he recruited other actors who had stood him in good stead in the past, such as Dudley Sutton, Judith Paris and Kenneth Colley. For the leads, then, he depended upon a couple of new alumni within his oeuvre, Sammi Davis and Amanda Donohoe (both from THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM), and a hot property of the time i.e. Paul McGann (co-star of the cult movie WITHNAIL AND I {1987}); another notable but surprising presence is that of David Hemmings (who was the first choice for the part yet, when the producers balked, Russell audaciously offered it to none other than Elton John but he proved predictably 'difficult' and, then, after Alan Bates – as it happens, one of the leads in WOMEN IN LOVE itself – chose to pass, the role found itself yet again in Hemmings' lap)!

Preceded by some horrid computer-generated titles, the opening scenes feel awkward, as if the director was uncertain of his ability to pull it off, and the narrative loses steam during its last third but, to quote popular American reviewer Leonard Maltin, there are "many beautiful and striking moments" along the way. Even if Davis tries hard, her all-too-modern looks and acting style work against her and she only captures the essence of the central role (played in the sequel adaptation by Jennie Linden rather than Jackson, whose character from the 1969 film is here reduced to a wimpy, jealous sort) in fits and starts! The film's chief bright spot, in fact, is Donohoe (though she too grows stale eventually) as the sports instructress at Davis' school, a free spirit who influences and inspires the younger woman (towards achieving her own freedom from the shackles of convention); perhaps as a means of matching WOMEN IN LOVE's notorious nude wrestling scene, their relationship often gratuitously resorts to nudity but is nonetheless sensitively portrayed (indeed, Russell demonstrates surprising restraint here)! While Davis is later involved with McGann in various couplings, including one by a waterfall that would grace the movie's poster, and Donohoe herself 'falls in with the crowd' by marrying wealthy collier Hemmings (the heroine's uncle), it is the two women's scenes together that stick in the mind...even if, in true Russell style, Davis's confused feelings are expressed in a dream in which she is pursued by both her lovers on the plains (with all three of them stark naked)! The latter romance leaves Davis pregnant but she miscarries the child following a horse scare she receives during a rain-drenched walk in the countryside. Indeed, one of the film's more interesting aspects is the way it introduces social commentary into the mix with Davis' sexual/artistic/vocational/philanthropic awakening is, for all its eventual disappointments, seen as being diametrically opposed to the accepted fashion of the times she lived in: her nude posing for painter Sutton here ends in disaster, she is disrespected by her pupils and lusted after by her superior after applying for a job as a schoolteacher; she stamps all over Hemmings' orchard when she witnesses the cruelty with which the roaming farm animals are treated by his poachers, etc.

All in all, the end result (set to a notable Carl Davis score) did not disgrace the memory of the 'original' but neither did it provide the lease of life to his career that the director had hoped for; indeed, of the 23 subsequent projects that carried his name, only 2 were made for the big-screen and the second (2002's by-all-accounts dreadful Poe pastiche THE FALL OF THE LOUSE OF USHER) barely got released at that!

Why do some reviewers think this is a bad movie? There is nothing bad about it at all; unless you are some exceptional prude. Both Sammi Davis and Amanda Donahoe give outstanding performances. The chemistry between the two that was just glimpsed in "The Lair of the White Worm" comes to a beautiful frutation in this movie. That said, it should be noted that females have the primary roles in this movie unlike in "Lair" where Hugh Grant upstaged Amanda and drove Sammi into a virtually insignificant role. Perhaps that is the reason; movies that have women as leads are boycotted by the male audience.

Regardless of why, this movie got a lot less credit than it deserved. I hope it comes out on DVD in the near future.

Ken Russell was an interesting and very unique director with a style unlike any other. This said, he was always and still is an acquired taste with a lot of his later work containing excesses that will fascinate some and repulse others. The Rainbow is not Russell at his best and it is not in the same ball park as the brilliant Women in Love, but it is still well worth watching.

The Rainbow does get very rambling sometimes- in all fairness it's true for the book as well- with a couple of overly-talky parts and instances of lagging pacing, while the first third is on occasions awkwardly staged and the ending is rather abrupt. Russell gives some of his most controlled and restrained directing here, which is a plus, and like he did with Women in Love twenty years earlier he does show a respect for the book and D.H. Lawrence's writing while not trivialising the meaning. Compared to the book and for D.H. Lawrence, while Russell is to be admired for his restraint, the film can feel a little tame. What made Women in Love so brilliant was not just its respect for the source material but also the attention to characterisation and mood and the mood and emotional impact for each scene, The Rainbow has the themes and the characterisation but it does at times feel a little tame- Women in Love did a much better job showing what made Lawrence's work controversial and daring for his time- and not as powerful as it could have been.

Coming onto the many good things about The Rainbow, it is a very well-made film with gorgeous countryside scenery and luscious photography that positively soars. Carl Meyer's score is heartfelt, hypnotic and unashamedly sentimental(in a good way), cannot begin to describe how much the theme music resonates with me, and the use of the likes of Bach and Strauss is equally fitting. The dialogue mostly provokes a lot of thought and flows naturally, and while some of the storytelling is a little bland and tame with a bit of rambling, it still maintains interest and contains some nice dark and passionate(the love scenes) moments and makes an effort to give depth and personality to the characters. The cast are excellent, Sammi Davis does hold her own against her more experienced supporting cast and brings a lot of spirit and feistiness to Ursula if a little too eager to please at times. Amanda Donohoe brings sultry sexiness to her role, Christopher Gable brings authoritative dignity to William and Paul McGann brings charm and intensity. Special mention also should go to Glenda Jackson, her role is a relatively small one but Jackson is so poignant in it the role is a very memorable one at the same time.

Overall, better than it's given credit for and a decent film, but missing something and falls short compared to Women in Love(if there is a film that shows Russell at his best it's that one). 7/10 Bethany Cox

The Rainbow (1989) was a film Ken Russell made based upon the writings of the legendary Victorian era author D.H. Lawrence, but with a Ken Russell twist. The story is a bout a young woman (Sammi Davis) who wants to live her life but she has to do it during the repressive Victorian age of England. But she meets a mentor (Amanda Donohoe) who shows her the many ways she can escape her button up lifestyle (if only for a few hours at a time). At many times it feels like a stuffy D.H. Lawrence novel (with the occasional highly charged eroticism). Ken Russell gets the chance to show the beauty of Amanda and Sammi in various stages. Too bad it was never released in the United States on D.V.D. If you love Victorian romance films, D.H. Lawrence or the films of Ken Russell then you appreciate more than the average viewer.

Recommended for Ken Russell fans.

Despite the film's many flaws- it is loosely based on only a section of DH Lawrence's Northern saga, the lead actress is fairly wooden and the style of the film screams eighties cheese- I think it's a great little film. It's one of those few films that not simply inspire you to follow your dreams but actually insists that you do so, whether those dreams come to fruition or not.

It's set in a mining town in the 1910's. Ursula Brangwen (Sammi Davis- no, not THAT one) is a rebellious teenager and persistent dreamer, constantly striving for 'the rainbow' that symbolises fulfilment. She pursues it in two different ways; one through trying to gain work as a schoolteacher, thereby becoming financially independent, and because this is DH Lawrence directed by Ken Russell, sexual fulfilment.

Though she shares a naughty kiss in the local church with family friend and dashing soldier Anton Skrebensky (Paul McGann), it is Ursula's female swimming instructor Winifred Inger (Amanda Donohoe) that gives her her first sexual experience. Ursula is devoted to her but Inger's experience outweighs Ursula's innocence. There is nudity here but no big love scene. It's actually fairly restrained for Russell, and for once it actually feels appropriate for the film.

Ursula moves back to sexy soldier Skrebensky (try saying that out loud) and experiences true Freudian bliss against a tree with a gushing waterfall behind it. Now that's more like Russell, isn't it? It's not pornographic but it's a bit raunchier than Colin Firth's wet shirt. Perhaps not the best viewing for teatime with the family. Still, Paul McGann is a suitable substitute for eye candy; it's very much a film for the women.

The love scenes are shot in an interesting way. Ursula never seems to fully connect as part of the couple- or if she does, the camera doesn't care. The focus is on Ursula's reactions so Russell uses techniques like jump cuts- although this makes one love scene unintentionally hilarious.

Acting-wise, I'm glad that they didn't cast a star. Yes, Davis was not going to be the next Elizabeth Taylor but her inexperience works perfectly for the film. Ursula has not fully worked out her character yet but only that she has a drive to do something different with her life and make more of herself. Because the film is very condensed, the actors have less to work with, which is why Donohoe's character comes off more as a type. Still, I think she conveys an interesting image of a very masculine woman. McGann is a brilliant actor and despite being the obvious eye candy (indeed,a shot of Skrebensky and Ursula by the waterfall graces the film's poster), he manages to show that Skrebensky is also a slave to convention. As Ursula tells him, "I'd rather be swept off my feet by a half-naked robber than a soldier defending my honour". Sassy! Yes, it's not perfect but I think that it's well worth a watch. This is period drama that has genuine relevance to modern life and modern concerns, and is a great coming-of-age story with a brave and life-inspiring message.