The plot to "Rainbow on the River" is a bit hard to believe. But like all Bobby Breen films, the young man is astounding with his amazing voice! And, the film is likable despite everything.
The story is set just after the Civil War. It's not surprising that the Southerners in the film hate 'Yankees', though it seemed rather weird to have Toinette (Louise Beavers) also hating Northerners since she is a recently freed slave....just the sort of person you'd expect to love those 'gang Yankees'. What is also inexplicable is that after the man and woman that owned her died, in the war, is that Toinette would raise their white son, Philip (Breen). After all, the South was very prejudiced at the time (the same could also be said of much of the North)....and I cannot see local authorities allow this. After all, marriage between the races was illegal at the time...and I sure would have thought raising a white child wouldn't have been realistic. And, less realistic is that folks in the community would accept this. I am NOT trying to be Mr. Politically Correct here. It's just that the American History teacher within me (I used to teach the subject) finds all this a bit unrealistic...especially how idealized everything about the South during Reconstruction is presented in the film.
The local priest (Henry O'Neill) learns that Philip DOES have family...but they all live up north. After writing to them, Mr. Layton (Alan Mowbray) comes to fetch Philip and bring him to be raised by the boy's extended family. Surprisingly, the family doesn't seem happy at all to have the boy with them...and it's especially surprising since Philip is such a nice boy. For some time, the only one who seemed nice to him was the butler (Charles Butterworth, who is always a joy to see in films). What's next? See the movie and find out for yourself.
In many ways, "Rainbow on the River" is exactly like an earlier film, "Bright Eyes" with Shirley Temple...and I don't think the similarity is unintentional. The Temple film was a comedy and this one a musical...but in each, a nice orphan is treated like a second-class kid by the family. And, in both, ultimately the orphan's niceness wins everyone over in the end. The better two clearly is "Bright Eyes" (I think it's Temple's best film) but "Rainbow on the River" is pleasant and sweet. Sure, it's historically flawed but beneath it all, it's still quite enjoyable and worth your time.
So, if the story interests you, by all means see it and the rest. They are all very pleasant and undemanding entertainment...rather sweet and Breen is so likable you wonder why he only starred in a few pictures.
The story is set just after the Civil War. It's not surprising that the Southerners in the film hate 'Yankees', though it seemed rather weird to have Toinette (Louise Beavers) also hating Northerners since she is a recently freed slave....just the sort of person you'd expect to love those 'gang Yankees'. What is also inexplicable is that after the man and woman that owned her died, in the war, is that Toinette would raise their white son, Philip (Breen). After all, the South was very prejudiced at the time (the same could also be said of much of the North)....and I cannot see local authorities allow this. After all, marriage between the races was illegal at the time...and I sure would have thought raising a white child wouldn't have been realistic. And, less realistic is that folks in the community would accept this. I am NOT trying to be Mr. Politically Correct here. It's just that the American History teacher within me (I used to teach the subject) finds all this a bit unrealistic...especially how idealized everything about the South during Reconstruction is presented in the film.
The local priest (Henry O'Neill) learns that Philip DOES have family...but they all live up north. After writing to them, Mr. Layton (Alan Mowbray) comes to fetch Philip and bring him to be raised by the boy's extended family. Surprisingly, the family doesn't seem happy at all to have the boy with them...and it's especially surprising since Philip is such a nice boy. For some time, the only one who seemed nice to him was the butler (Charles Butterworth, who is always a joy to see in films). What's next? See the movie and find out for yourself.
In many ways, "Rainbow on the River" is exactly like an earlier film, "Bright Eyes" with Shirley Temple...and I don't think the similarity is unintentional. The Temple film was a comedy and this one a musical...but in each, a nice orphan is treated like a second-class kid by the family. And, in both, ultimately the orphan's niceness wins everyone over in the end. The better two clearly is "Bright Eyes" (I think it's Temple's best film) but "Rainbow on the River" is pleasant and sweet. Sure, it's historically flawed but beneath it all, it's still quite enjoyable and worth your time.
So, if the story interests you, by all means see it and the rest. They are all very pleasant and undemanding entertainment...rather sweet and Breen is so likable you wonder why he only starred in a few pictures.