Alt Film Guide
Classic movies. Gay movies. International cinema. Socially conscious & political cinema.
Home Movie Reviews A Hatful of Rain: Script + Acting Spoil Drug Addiction Movie

A Hatful of Rain: Script + Acting Spoil Drug Addiction Movie

A Hatful of Rain movie Eva Marie Saint Don MurrayA Hatful of Rain movie with Don Murray and Eva Marie Saint. Like a number of other stage-to-film transfers of the 1950s, Fred Zinnemann’s big-screen version of Michael V. Gazzo’s play about an all-American drug addict fails to disguise its theatrical roots.
  • A Hatful of Rain movie (1957) review: Stagy screenplay and mostly hammy acting ruin Fred Zinnemann’s well-intentioned dysfunctional family/drug addiction drama. In the cast, Eva Marie Saint is the one naturalistic exception.
  • A Hatful of Rain earned Anthony Franciosa a Best Actor Academy Award nomination.

A Hatful of Rain movie review: Fred Zinnemann’s adaptation of drug addiction drama fails to find its cinematic voice

Two years after the release of Otto Preminger’s blockbuster The Man with the Golden Arm, in which Frank Sinatra becomes addicted to (what is clearly) heroin, Fred Zinnemann’s 1957 dysfunctional family drama A Hatful of Rain is a curious attempt at injecting an “adult” subject matter – once again, drug addiction – into Production Code-crippled Hollywood movies.

“Curious,” however, does not mean either successful or compelling.

Despite authentic, unromantic New York City locations and Joseph MacDonald’s beautifully realistic black-and-white camera work (let’s ignore the pointless use of CinemaScope), A Hatful of Rain’s artificial dialogue and the theatricality of most of its performances give away the stage origins of Zinnemann’s big-screen transfer of Michael V. Gazzo’s 1955 Broadway play.

In point of fact – and notwithstanding Anthony Franciosa’s Best Actor Academy Award nomination – Eva Marie Saint (Best Supporting Actress Oscar winner for On the Waterfront, 1954) delivers the film’s sole naturalistic characterization.

Stagy drama

Perhaps best known for his Oscar-nominated performance in Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather: Part II, Michael V. Gazzo was credited for the screenplay adaptation of his play, alongside two-time Oscar nominee Alfred Hayes (Paisà, 1949; Teresa, 1951) and Hollywood Blacklist victim Carl Foreman (High Noon, The Bridge on the River Kwai), whose A Hatful of Rain script co-authorship would be officially acknowledged by the Writers Guild of America only in 1998.

The trio – or any one of them (it’s unclear who was responsible for what) – did a solid job opening up the play even while unnecessarily turning a working-class Italian-American family into a lower-middle-class, fuzzily Anglo-American one.

On the downside, they forgot to make the characters’ lines sound more true to life while director Zinnemann forgot to make the actors’ line delivery less stilted, a not uncommon occurrence in stage-to-film adaptations of the 1950s (e.g., Mervyn LeRoy’s The Bad Seed and Vincente Minnelli’s Tea and Sympathy, both 1956 releases).

U.S. war veterans’ plight

At times reminiscent of Arthur Miller’s socially conscious family plays All My Sons and Death of a Salesman, A Hatful of Rain features a young Korean War veteran, Johnny Pope (real-life conscientious objector Don Murray; played by Tony nominee Ben Gazzara on stage), who has become addicted to morphine after (it is implied) his stay as a patient at a military hospital.

Oblivious to her husband’s addiction, Johnny’s pregnant wife, Celia (Eva Marie Saint; Shelley Winters on stage), is concerned that her increasingly distant husband is having an affair.

Right then, the self-immersed John Pope, Sr., (Lloyd Nolan; Frank Silvera on stage), arrives in town to make things more complicated for the young Pope couple and for Johnny’s younger brother, the aimless Polo (Anthony Franciosa, reprising his Tony-nominated stage role, which, for the movie version, had been initially offered to Don Murray).

Throughout the course of the film, family dynamics are reshaped as John Sr. discovers that Polo possesses unsuspected generosity and inner strength, while boy-most-likely-to Johnny turns out to be the one in dire need of assistance.

In one revealing scene, the Pope patriarch laughingly recalls that years earlier, on a rainy day, the young Johnny had taken his hat out while working in a field. Having been told that hard work led to financial rewards, Johnny would do a little work and then look for money in his pocket. Following several failed attempts at finding money, the disheartened boy put his rainwater-filled hat back on and got drenched.

Despite the much-touted American prosperity of the postwar years, things obviously didn’t get much better for Johnny – and others like him – after he became an adult.

A Hatful of Rain 1957 Don Murray Eva Marie SaintA Hatful of Rain 1957 with Don Murray and Eva Marie Saint: Post-World War II prosperity for some, but definitely not for all.

Naturalistic Eva Marie Saint

Maybe because nearly every line in A Hatful of Rain screams theater!, Don Murray, Anthony Franciosa, and Lloyd Nolan act as if they were performing onstage for those sitting in the last row of the gallery.

As mentioned further up, only Eva Marie Saint, one of the best (and, absurdly, least used) film stars of the 1950s and 1960s – see not only On the Waterfront, but also North by Northwest, 36 Hours, and Grand Prix – manages to deliver a sincere, unaffected performance.

Had Saint been a lazy actress, she could have played Celia – sad, confused, afraid, lonely – as a victim begging for our sympathy. But instead of emphasizing Celia’s suffering, Saint’s portrayal focuses on her character’s honesty and dependability. The only problem with her naturalistic work is that it seems completely out of place during the film’s scenery-chewing orgies.

Admittedly, Don Murray (Best Supporting Actor Oscar nominee for Bus Stop, 1956) – excellent in films as disparate as Advise & Consent and Endless Love – displays a vulnerability that makes Johnny unquestionably appealing. Once the shaking starts, however, in no way does Johnny resemble a drug addict desperately in need of a fix.

Compounding matters, Murray looks much too healthy and handsome in A Hatful of Rain to be convincing as a down-and-out junkie.

‘The Age of the Vacuum’

Venice Film Festival Best Actor winner and Oscar nominee Anthony Franciosa – who had made his film debut that same year in Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd – has several adequate moments in A Hatful of Rain, but the Broadway-trained actor is mostly incapable of delivering his stagy lines without sounding, well, stagy.

Lloyd Nolan, by then a film actor for more than two decades, doesn’t even try. His is an old-fashioned performance that seems to have been transported from the early, clunky days of sound films to the late 1950s. Nolan relishes in the artificiality of the dialogue, declaiming each word to calculated effect while adding his own grandiose exclamation points as the mayo on the ham.

Now, in all fairness, Nolan’s character has one good speech. That’s when John Pope, Sr., decries “The Age of the Vacuum”: A time when no one takes responsibility for anything, no one pays attention to anything, no one takes a stand for or against anything.

It may sound just like the early 21st century, but he’s actually referring to the post-World War II era.

Fred Zinnemann knew better

Although the screenwriters are undeniably responsible for A Hatful of Rain’s theatrical feel, most of the blame for the general inadequacy of the cast must go to director Fred Zinnemann, who by that time – he had already won an Oscar for From Here to Eternity – should have learned how to control his actors.

By letting them run loose, Zinnemann allows the tragedy of A Hatful of Rain – a self-absorbed society’s utter disregard for the fate of its “freedom warriors” – to dissipate under the histrionics of his cast.

Eva Marie Saint valiantly tries to bring some heartfelt truth to the proceedings, but she’s one lone fighter battling stilted lines, hammy actors, a misguided director, and even Bernard Herrmann’s obnoxious jazzy score. In A Hatful of Rain, Saint could easily have become one more movie martyr – except that she comes out on top in this one.

A Hatful of Rain (1957)

Director: Fred Zinnemann.

Screenplay: Michael V. Gazzo, Alfred Hayes, and Carl Foreman (originally uncredited).
From Michael V. Gazzo’s 1955 play.

Cast: Eva Marie Saint. Don Murray. Anthony Franciosa. Lloyd Nolan. Henry Silva. Gerald S. O’Loughlin. William Hickey.


A Hatful of Rain Movie (1957) Review” endnotes

Directed by John Llewellyn Moxey and written by Michael V. Gazzo, a 1968 television version of A Hatful of Rain starred Sandy Dennis (Celia), Michael Parks (Johnny), Peter Falk (Polo), and Herschel Bernardi (John Sr.).

Don Murray and Eva Marie Saint A Hatful of Rain movie images: 20th Century Fox.

A Hatful of Rain: Script + Acting Spoil Drug Addiction Movie” last updated in September 2021.

Recommended for You

Leave a Comment

*IMPORTANT*: By using this form you agree with Alt Film Guide's storage and handling of your data (e.g., your IP address). Make sure your comment adds something relevant to the discussion: Feel free to disagree with us and write your own movie commentaries, but *thoughtfulness* and *at least a modicum of sanity* are imperative. Abusive, inflammatory, spammy/self-promotional, baseless (spreading mis- or disinformation), and just plain deranged comments will be zapped. Lastly, links found in submitted comments will generally be deleted.

5 comments

Anonymous 2 -

Bravo, anonymous for recognizing how scarily realisticallly heroin (or morphine, or cocaine or crack) was portrayed.

Yes, it was a 50’s drama, and the thugs were far more entertaining than some dealers are today. However, if you haven’t sat through a detox, it will shock most people to their shoes just how ghastly & awful it is. That alone is generally a serious component in keeping even the most determined-to-quit addict. The real thing is far more awful, and most of the time, if an addict is high-functioning & the people around them aren’t looking for signs, they may not notice until a crucial stage.

My reaction was one of amazement that they got so much of it right. OK, so he didn’t puke constantly for days & days, & method actors were just starting to emerge competently. The over-dramatic music & strange camera use aside, they were pretty spot-on.

Reply
Joseph Kearny -

What spoils it is its deadly, dull earnestness and the cliché characterization with a father favoring one son over the other…

Reply
Peter Radcliff -

Today we are much more sensitive to the “over the top” acting that Andre describes. Acting today is much more natural — even stage work is toned down. Bette Davis said about acting today, “See, you mustn’t have *any* idea that *anybody* knows the camera’s on them at all. You see: it’s just life…And I think it should be a *little* larger than life.”

Don Murray is hit or miss for me. I frankly found him so completely over the top in Bus Stop it was ridiculous. But I loved him in Advise and Consent.

Reply
joebatch -

I just watched this movie on Fox Movie Channel and i have to say i do
not agree with the critics at all. I enjoyed it for for it was and for
the time it was made in (the 1950’s).I also thought all of the actors
were dead on in their roles.T his is why i so seldom look at reviews
before i watch a movie because if i had seen the reviews on this i might
have denied myself to watch what should be a classic.

Reply
Anonymous -

I can see how this film would get some poor reviews. I agree that the film does have more of a theater like quality in its writing and even in the actors performances. But I think you might be missing a huge part of the story. You say, “By letting them run loose, Zinnemann allows the tragic truth of A Hatful of Rain — a self-absorbed society’s utter disregard for the fate of a war veteran — to disappear under the histrionics of his cast.” Although this is an important part of the story, to me it is not the WHOLE story. I think this is an honest portrayal of what really happens in the life of an addict. Most people grow up with a basic understanding that abusing drugs is wrong. So when a person finds themselves with a drug problem it is something they hide. They are ashamed and full of guilt. They try to cover up and make everything appear normal. People in their lives that are close to them tend to cover up and make excuses for them because they know deep down the value of the person outside of their addiction. Because addiction is progressive it becomes increasingly harder to cover up and people start getting suspicious. You talk about the histrionics of his cast but drama is a common attribute of an addict and the friends and family members. It goes with the territory.
You obviously have no firsthand experience with addicts. This is clear by your expectation that a “junkie” would not be handsome and healthy looking. The thing is, most addicts start out that way. There are different stages of addiction and as it progresses the addicts health, looks, finances and relationships start to deteriorate.
As for you description of Murray’s depiction of withdrawal looking like he is a possessed by a demon , well that is actually an accurate depiction of what an addict goes through. My understanding of Heroin withdrawal is that every bone in your body feels like it is on fire. So as long as the heroin is in the persons system the withdrawal goes away but as they build a tolerance they need the drug more often and in higher quantities just to keep from getting sick. They also become delusional in withdrawal.
My husband was addicted to crack 8 years ago and is in recovery today with 6 years clean. When I first found out that he was an addict I didn’t think it could be that bad because he had been working a heavy labor job 7am-5pm for the last 2-1/2 years, he didn’t miss a days work, looked healthy, never said a mean word, helped with the house and kids and brought home a full paycheck. He didn’t spend his weekends or evenings out with his friends, he was home with me and the kids every night. As he continued using in that 2-1/2 year period I began to get suspicious because he would get phone calls and be secretive and than say he had to go somewhere. Like the wife in this story I thought my husband was having an affair, because like you I thought a drug addict acted and looked a certain way. As my husbands disease progressed he started to fit that expectation I had of what a “junkie” acted and looked like. To me that is the only missing piece of this story, the progression and deterioration.
To me this story is about relationships and the dynamics that play out within a family when one of its members is addicted. It can’t possibly tell the whole story because there are so many stories of addiction and they vary in many ways. But bottom line is that addicts don’t choose to be that way event though they may make bad decisions that cause them to end up there. And they are loved by their family and friends who recognize in those desperate moments that they are sick and need help.
I would love to know more about what the common thinking was about addiction in the time the film was made. I found it interesting that someone would make a movie on this topic during a time when as far as I knew addiction wasn’t really discussed openly.

Reply

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue browsing, that means you've accepted our Terms of Use/use of cookies. You may also click on the Accept button on the right to make this notice disappear. Accept Read More