Raintree County (1957)

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

With the Civil War approaching, a young man falls in love with a rich but disturbed woman. This was an ambitious attempt to do another "Gone with the Wind," but matches that classic only in terms of its subject matter and epic length. The story here is not compelling enough to sustain the running time, causing the film to drag. The film is perhaps best remembered for the car accident that disfigured Clift's good looks and shortened his career and life. There is morbid interest in noting which scenes were filmed before the accident and which after. Clift and Taylor collaborated more successfully previously (A Place in the Sun) and later (Suddenly, Last Summer).

Raintree County (1957) *** (out of 4) Northerner John Shawnessy (Montgomery Clift) is about to marry his sweetheart (Eva Marie Saint) and start his life as a teacher but he then meets Southern belle Susanna Drake (Elizabeth Taylor) who tricks him into marriage. Their views on slavery don't mix too well and the haunted secrets of her past slowly start to catch up with them just as the Civil War is about to break out. MGM set out to try and out-do GONE WITH THE WIND and if you want to compare the film then there's no question that this movie here is a complete failure because there's simply nothing here that comes close to that 1939 film. If you're fair to this movie and get the comparisons out of your mind then you'll find a fairly entertaining but incredibly flawed epic that has two attractive stars doing their best while the screenplay runs on fumes. I think there's no doubt that the biggest problem with the film is its screenplay, which seems to be all over the place. The film will always be remembered for its troubled production including the car wreck that disfigured Clift so I'm not sure how much these issues had an impact on the final film but the story just doesn't carry much weight. The big "secrets" behind Taylor's character really aren't that shocking and you should guess them before they ever happen. Once Clift is tricked into marriage the film really begins to focus in on Taylor and her mental illness, which plays a rather big part in the movie but it's also rather sloppy in a few scenes including one after the war when she's in a mental hospital and is visited by Clift and then the next time we see her it's as if nothing had happened. I know the film originally had a much longer running time before the studio cut it down so I'm curious if the ending had more trimmed from it. The start of the film eats up much of the nearly three-hour running time and with the majority of the story taking place pre-war you wonder if the second half took the cuts. I'd be lying if I said I was bowled over by either Clift or Taylor, although the performances are good you still expect more out of them. I think the performances are about as good as you can expect from the material but there are scenes where both of them just seem to be going at half-speed. Perhaps this is due to the stuff that was going on behind-the-scenes and I guess it's fair to say Clift had much bigger problems than delivering a great performance. The two are still very attractive together and make the film worth viewing. Supporting players Lee Marvin, Saint, Nigel Patrick, Rod Taylor and Agnes Moorehead offer up nice performances with Marvin easily stealing the film. The costumes, sets and war scenes are all tremendously handled and the Technicolor really brings everything to life. I really didn't mind the nearly three-hour running time even if the third act does start to unravel. I think there's no question that this is a highly flawed movie and I think the producers, studio and director just aimed way too high to the point where they were bound not to live up to what they were trying to do. RAINTREE COUNTY is a good movie but far from a classic.

To make "Raintree County,"-the " Great American novel", according to one of my Lit profs some 44 years ago- into a movie was just too much at the time. One must read the book and compare. Having been raised less than 40 miles from the real location, (not the locations where it was filmed), I love and appreciate the novel, and I really do like the movie. The book shows John Shawnessy as literally part of that land, but that does not transfer onto the screen. Such things happen a lot with really good books that get hacked up for the movie- like Hemingway's "Farewell To Arms." Still, it tries hard to capture the symbolism of the raintree, and by the way, the swamp did exist in the 1860's, though now it is just rich Indiana farmland.I give the movie the best review I can: I watch it every time it is on (I first saw the film late at night, in black and white, on TV). It gets an A for the attempt, a B+ for the results. I am fine with the casting and the acting: after all, it was Hollywood, 1957. Last words: Get the book and read it, and you decide if it is indeed "The Great American Novel."

I wasn't quite of age when this film was made and came out. I only saw it on television many, many years later. Its contemporary blockbuster "Ben-Hur", however (filmed in the same insanely spectacular Camera 65 process), did make it across the border to Canada and became compulsory viewing for all good little Catholic boys in my native Quebec. As this latter film was a remake of a past MGM glory, so was "Raintree County" supposed to rival "Gone With the Wind" in splendour and publicity. Although this hooplah never made it across the border into Canada either, I suppose it did have an effect on the American Public in those pre-video days when the chance of seeing GWTW again in all its Technicolor glory seemed slim to none. If you happened to be American and a little older than myself and a teenager in 1957, you would have known that Elizabeth Taylor was the flesh-blood-and-celluloid embodiment of the Veronica character in the Archie comics and the most desirable teen idol who ever graced a magazine cover. A rumoured romance with Montgomery Clift and her recent widowhood didn't hinder her status as queen of the teen tabloids. As a three hour period "Peyton Place"-like melodrama, the film was sure to be a hit with romantic US adolescents of both sexes and I think it is remembered fondly for that reason, despite its commercial flop. Its theme of miscegenation made it contemporary in a kind of daring pre-Civil Right Movement way and its unromantic, if not downright cynical view of the war made it a "serious" film. The thing that struck me the most about the reputation of that film is that when I became an avid collector of soundtracks on vinyl in the 80's I found out - to my utter befuddlement - that in collectors' cicles its legendary double stereo LP OST album of a very atypical score (by Johnny Green) was the most sought-after item in the history of the medium. (It is now finally available on CD, although, amazingly, the film itself is still not on Region 1 DVD.) In those days before video became the force that it is in making movies known and available to the largest audience, soundtrack albums were the best (and sometimes only) way fans could actually connect with the magic of reliving experiences tied to a beloved film that one didn't expect to ever see again except in souvenir-program format. And the fact that a relatively "un-Golden era" but perfectly original and competent composer like Johnny Green could attract that kind of attention is an apt measure of the love and fond remembrances that a lot of early baby-boomers felt for this movie, despite all its other faults and qualities.P.S.: The well-known factoid that the novelist's name was misspelled in the opening credits of the film is indicative of two things: (1) that the literay origins of the film didn't count for much in the attendant hype surrounding its production and (2) that big studios like MGM were starting to creak at the seams and to overextend themselves with such gigantic projects that couldn't possibly be held together in a rational manner. Distant echos of the future "Cleopatra" fiasco...