This prequel to D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love" may result in more questions than answers for viewers of the film not familiar with that 1969 British film (also directed by Ken Russell, and giving Glenda Jackson her first Oscar) which focused on two sisters (Jackson and Jennie Linden) exploring the world through their own desires and rules. Gudrun and Ursula Brangwen (Glenda McKay and Sammi Davis) are passionate young ladies making their way in a man's world, one (Davis) chosing to be a spinster schoolteacher and the other settling into a more normal life. Jackson, who played Gudrun in "Women in Love", plays the wise, often witty mother, but the character she played there is not really significant here. Ursula has a passionate affair with Amanda Donohoe's gym instructor, and it is obvious from the time they meet that is where Lawrence and Russell are heading in the narrative of the story.

While interesting as a character study of Davis's character, it really is more about a series of events in her life, how she stands up to the men who try to exploit her (a rather perverse artist and her supervisor at the school),and how her affairs shape her life. Jim Carter of "Downton Abbey" fame (butler "Carson") is the very rigid school supervisor who barks that him and his cane rule the school, that is until Davis must use her own on a trouble making student. That scene is quite disturbing as Davis swats the pre-teenage boy over and over until she breaks the cane and gets the attention of the entire school. What is amusing is how she basically laughs at all the men around her with their intent to get her into bed, and the passion that she does show when the more desirable men do manage to seduce her.

Jackson's presence here merely is notable as a tie between the two books films, and while she is commanding as always, she really doesn't have much to do other than offer comfort or come out with a witty line here and there, showing that there's a Lady Violet ("Downton Abbey's" caustic matriarch) in the making. Perhaps the length of time between the very art house "Women in Love" and the film version of "The Rainbow" (written five years before Lawrence published "Women in Love") lessened the interest in this prequel which had some attention in big cities but came and went so fast. The art house focused video store I worked at when this was released had four copies on the shelf which basically sat there collecting dust after initial interest had passed.

As this came out during the rise of Merchant Ivory, audiences were probably perplexed by the excessive sexuality and nudity, only very subtle in "A Room With a View" and the gay themed "Maurice". There is also much more symbolism here, not surprising considering Ken Russell's involvement as the director. It is certainly watchable, with the sets and costumes and outdoor garden like scenery transitioning the viewer to the English countryside, accompanied by a musical score that is perhaps the most memorable element of the film. It will be interesting to watch "Women in Love" after this as opposed to before it considering the timeline in which both novels and films take place.

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!

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