Rain

.

source: Rain

Joan Crawford Hated this one, most Likely because it Bombed at the Box Office and got some Bad Reviews. But it Speaks for Itself. Predictably Talky, but not without some Effective and sometimes Impressive Visuals. From a Painted Up and Garishly Decorated Tainted "Lady of the Night" (Sexy Sadie) to some Fluid Camera-Work for the Time, and an Atmosphere Drenched in God's Nectar, the Movie is a Pre-Code Sermon on Religious Hypocrisy with a Plea for a "Live and Let Live" Society. Walter Huston gives an Acerbic Stiff Performance. But at Their Worst, these Types of Bible-Thumpers are Acerbic, although some can be Charming and Suave. There's an Added Treat of the Inn Keeper Reciting Friedrich Nietzsche (the "God is Dead" Philosopher). Overall, it is Definitely Worth a Watch for Joan Crawford's Iconic Entrance and overall Look and Her sometimes Effective and sometimes Not so Effective Performance, the Direction of Lewis Milestone, and the Pre-Code Freedom to Take On the Subject of Religion that would become a Blasphemous NO NO in the Post Code Years. Reformers were Successful in Bringing about Prohibition and were also Highly Influential in Establishing the Motion Picture Production Code. Right Wing Religious Evangelicals were as Powerful in the Twenties and Thirties as They are Today and Have and Had a Heavy Hand in Directing Political Figures. The Breen Office and Hays Code would Silence the Artistic Opposition on Screen for Decades.

Fascinatingly mannered early talkie adaptation of a semi-classic Somerset Maugham story, Rain starts wonderfully, with a rainstorm, then declines into a lurid drama of the sort that was considered shocking at the time (1932), and scarcely raises an eyebrow today. Lewis Milestone does a reasonable job under the circumstances, directing the movie in a manner as to suggest that he was for a while a student of the avant garde, as there are aspects of this film that seem almost experimental. The story concerns a displaced woman, Sadie Thompson, living on a south sea island, independent and yet depressed, a prostitute by trade, and her relationships with two men, one a handsome Marine, the other a minister as messed up as she is. As Sadie, the legendary Joan Crawford chews the scenery, with her wide-eyed expression at times seeming to burn two holes in the screen. She is at all times artificial, not credible in the least, and yet mesmerizing. Miss Crawford may not have been a great actress, but by God she was a star. As the erring Rev. Davidson, Walter Huston serves up his usual dish of poker faced ham, and is scarcely more believable than Crawford. In smaller roles, Beulah Bondi, and especially Guy Kibbee, perform nicely. For those interested in what early talkies were like this one is a must. It's very watchable, and Milestone and cinematographer Oliver Marsh work wonders with the camera. Hollywood generally did south seas stories fairly well, excitingly anyway, but failed to pull this one off in the appropriate manner. The constant rain is almost as much a downer for the viewer as for the characters; and there's no sense of why anyone would want to travel to this particular island, much less live there.

For reasons that likely have much to do with her self-perceptions, insecurities, and desires for her screen image, Joan Crawford never liked her performance in this fine film. I do not know why; she was never better. The first talkie of the classic Jeanne Eagels' play "Rain", it was effective in every way even though it uses many old-time editing cuts and inserts. They actually worked, and I liked the direction very much, too. Huston was fine as the sanctimonious but sincere preacher trying to convert the "loose woman" Sadie Thompson - but in the end loses the battle, something I wish was shown, but then it wasn't in the play or book so I shouldn't expect it. A fine film, and the antique-type music adds to the effect. See the IMDb review of the serviceble Rita Hayworth version, "Sadie Thompson", and the horrid movie on the life of the actress, "Jeanne Eagels" which contains scenes with Kim Novak trying to recreate the stage play.

Try to see this on as big a viewing screen as you can, as the film is often quite dark, and Crawford is so beautiful in it you'll want a good look. I loved it! In this second screen version of W. Somerset Maugham's morality tale, "Rain", Joan Crawford gives a performance that knocks the rest of the cast off the screen. First made as a silent with Gloria Swanson, the stageplay "Miss Sadie Thompson" had been a controversial broadway hit, and young Joan Crawford fought hard to get the coveted role of Sadie. She shed her drawing room manners and designer gowns, researching the part by visiting the red-light district of San Diego to see what the street-walkers of the day looked and sounded like. Her appearance in the film was considered offensive for it's realism, and the film stiffed at the box office. Sadly, it's financial failure relegated Crawford to years of popular but light-weight "respectable" roles, before her Oscar-calibre performances of the 1940's and 50's. But for audiences of today, the film is worth reconsidering. The other performers are wooden and stilted but Crawford's performance, embarrassingly natural in 1932, leaps off the screen. The topic matter that was so controversial, even offensive, in the early 1930's is not a hard sell to modern audiences: that bible-thumpers aren't always the good guys, and "sinners" aren't always so bad. Further, the feminist aspect of the film is clearer today. As Sadie makes her way around the Pacific, a fun-loving free-spirit often one step ahead of the law, it's the fact that she's a female that draws the ire of the puritanical fire-and-brimstone missionaries: a young man would have gotten away with it. And for us post-Woodstock viewers this touching story strikes a familiar chord: of the harmless, light-hearted kid who hurts no-one but whose very existence is offensive to the powers that be. And it must fairly be said that when she was a young (I think she's about 25 when she made this) she is a strikingly beautiful babe, heavy make-up or not. If you've ever written Crawford off as "man-ish" or "bitchy" because of roles she did later in her life, check out this movie and take a look at the sexy, vivacious girl who was once described by F. Scott Fitzgerald as "the personification of the American flapper"! I found the film fascinating (that's why I went on to look up all the above information).

Rain (1932) stars Joan Crawford and Walter Huston. Crawford, under contract with MGM at the time, was out on loan to United Artists to make Rain after the huge success of Grand Hotel (1932). The kind of role Crawford plays in Rain is unlike any of her usual roles she had played up to that point. She usually played heroic roles and shop girl roles. Now she was playing the role of a sinner, a loose woman, a hooker named Sadie Thompson. Audiences at the time couldn't accept Crawford playing such a role, so this movie flopped at the box office. Time has given this movie a huge boost, as modern day audiences accept this movie and Crawford's performance much more easily. Crawford herself didn't like this movie, probably because it bombed. She said that she overacted. I do agree that she did overact in some parts, but Crawford gives a great performance. A different role, yes. But her acting works so well for her character. Crawford looks the part as well, and her entrance in the movie is legendary. This movie is a good example of an actress showing her versatility, but unfortunately the subject matter of the movie and perhaps some tunnel vision by people at the time is what made this a flop in 1932. It's amazing how audiences can't accept an actor playing a different kind of role than what they're accustomed to. One of the things I like about this movie is the atmosphere. It's a rather dark movie and it seems to rain a lot throughout (of course). I also like the way a lot of the scenes were shot and some of the camera angles. The movie seems ahead of its time. In my opinion, Rain is one of Crawford's best movies from the 1930s. I think the movie holds up pretty well. I highly recommend it.

Rain (1932) Even though it's the world's oldest profession, most women feel it's the role of a lifetime to play a prostitute. Joan Crawford tackles the part as Sadie Thompson in Rain, one of three version of W. Somerset Maugham's short story. While trapped in a hotel, waiting out the rainstorm, Joan entertains the company of her usual slew of men, endures the insults of prim Beulah Bondi, and is made the target of missionary Walter Huston's quest for conversion and salvation. I haven't seen either of the other versions of this story, but the 1932 version feels like a taped play. It all takes place in one area, and everyone plays their part with an intent to reach the back row of the theater. Even my beloved Walter Huston is one-dimensional for most of the movie. Joan chews gum, talks out of the side of her mouth, and slouches her posture to make it look like she's had everyone. However, since it's Joan Crawford and we know she's had everyone, all those caricatures aren't necessary. She could have just acted like a regular person and we still would have known she was promiscuous. Though Rain is pre-Code, it doesn't feel particularly nasty, and the big scene in the ending isn't communicated very clearly to the audience. I had to read a synopsis of the story to find out what happened. Unless you like stylized, overacted portrayals of prostitutes-or are a Joan Crawford fan-you don't need this one added to your list.

Often, my movie selections are driven by cathartic needs. At present, in my country the political dialog is controlled by religious zealots who profess a higher ground, but always, always, are discovered to be weak precisely where they shout strengths. This is a well conceived story, and was cinematically ambitious, but poorly executed. Most folks will know it: a "jungle" setting, complete with pounding, sexual drums. Two European groups stranded together unwillingly by contrived plot devices. One represented by Joan Crawford's character lives by sense. The other, headed by dramatic bluster by the Huston character is a religious nut, there to convert the natives. He decides to focus on Crawford. Following Maugham's cosmology, he will break because he is wound so tight, his brittleness is too much. He — you probably know — completely breaks Crawford's prostitute, and apparently wins. But in his gloating, he admires his new creature too much and attacks her newly innocent and vulnerable self sexually. Ashamed, he kills himself as the drums get louder. There were several of these films before the whole movie business was repressed by Huston-like characters (the same as we still have). They all have this same notion that is the real disturbing thing, that somehow the nature of woman is closer to nature, and that the essence of nature is passion. Also that the "lower" races embody this as well. So even though in the story, "the man" gets his due, it always because of a powerful machine that I think is a repellent idea. Urges and tension are more complex and real than sex, and whatever fabulations we concoct about sex and race. Crawford always thought she failed in this character, and I can see why. Even with a truly talented actress, and she wasn't, it would be hard to get inside what is really going on here. Because there's no there, there. Just another layer of sanctimonious management of the mystery of life. Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I'd seen The Razor's Edge with Tyrone Power, and I'd read a couple of Maugham's short stories (I forget which ones, it's been so long), but I'd never taken the time to see read the story or see this film until now. What interested me most was the presence of Joan Crawford, an actress for whom I've never had much regard. Now, that might sound strange, but I wanted to see her in a film that predated the 1950s and 1960s movies that I knew; in those, she looked old and worn, as you might expect after so long in movies. I wanted to see her when she was young and didn't look like a man in drag, as I perceived her in later movies (maybe it all those padded shoulders of her dresses and coats, emphasizing her mannish looks?). Anyway, I'm glad I did see her in this because she proved that she was indeed an excellent actress. And, although the video I got was a poor copy, Crawford literally shone, an illuminating contrast to the dark nights, the unending sight and sound of the rain and the dour and dominating aspect of Walter Houston as the self-righteous and chauvinistic preacher Davidson who tries to reform the prostitute Sadie Thompson (Crawford). It's worth seeing this movie just to see Crawford in a stunning performance, and close to her best, I think. Such a story, of course, has its roots in numerous biblical accounts of fallen women and men who try to redeem them, although I'm not suggesting that Maugham simply plagiarized the bible. It just happens to be a story that's timeless, and is no doubt part of the human condition everyday, somewhere in the world. However, the intriguing aspect for me is this: just when did Sadie figure out how to get Davidson off her back and out of her life? Was it when he was monotonously reciting The Lord's Prayer over and over again, or did she have a brilliant brainwave when he finally succumbed to all that she stood for, in his eyes, as a prostitute? You'll have to see the movie yourself to decide. However, I have a feeling it's the former scenario which makes Sadie Thompson more than just a smart, wisecracking hooker and perhaps was indeed the personification of evil that Davidson railed against. Therein lies the tragedy for Davidson: he pays the ultimate price for misjudging Sadie's power over him because he thinks he's more powerful than she. So...is it any co-incidence that this femme fatale went by the name of Sadie, a name that comes very close to Sade, and all that that implies? The small supporting cast performs brilliantly, as befits a stage play. And the period settings evoked strong memories of New Guinea, where I spent much of my youth fifty years ago. Fans of Joan Crawford would like this film. I did, even though I was no fan of hers.