Sadly Over-hyped

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I would like to echo the sentiments of others who are praising the virtues of this 1932 version. It was a rare loan out for Joan Crawford during her MGM years. The production has a few creaky moments, betraying stage origins. But Crawford is really great, and so is the rest of the cast. I love the way director Lewis Milestone includes those poetic shots of the landscape. This is easily in my top five favorite pre-code films. It's one of those pictures that I go back to often that seems to bring even deeper pleasure. The main thing the later Rita Hayworth version has over this one is Technicolor, but color is not necessary to tell this story.

Set in Pago Pago, American Samoa, a group of travellers find themselves stuck for a couple of weeks when the boat to Apia is delayed. Holed up in the general store tensions soon start to rise as a group of bible-bashing reformers take an instant dislike to good time girl Sadie Thompson. Offended by the way she plays music and has men in her room they try to get her kicked out of the establishment; when that fails the try to get her deported on the next ship out. When she is told she must take the next boat out she pleads with the puritanical Alfred Davidson to be allowed to stay a couple more days to catch the boat to Sydney rather than going to San Francisco; where she would have to spent three years in the penitentiary for a crime she insists she did not commit. He states that if her soul is to be saved she must do her time whether innocent or guilty. He starts reciting the Lord's Prayer until it appears that she agrees with him.This 1932 film clearly has religious hypocrisy it its sights as Davidson and his fellow travellers clearly have absolute views of right and wrong… anything that they don't like is wrong and anybody who does such things is a sinner doomed to eternal damnation… no 'love the sinner; hate the sin' for them. Walter Huston does a fine job portraying Alfred Davidson; a truly vile character; a bully and a hypocrite. Joan Crawford is just as good as Sadie; she may have done some wrong in her past but she is a far more sympathetic character than any of the do-gooders who want rid of her. The rest of the cast is solid enough. The constant rain that keeps people indoors for most of the film helps create a claustrophobic atmosphere. As the ending approaches it looks as though it will be rather depressing but thankfully we get an ending that is best described as 'most satisfying'.

Joan Crawford herself reportedly did not like her performance in this 1932 United Artists film, but today, her portrayal of the prostitute Sadie Thompson stands out as a highlight of her early carrer. She is quite believable and even touching as she is transformed from low hussy to a redeemed woman. Walter Huston gives a good performance as Mr. Davidson, the "reformer" who cannot stand the evil imbued into Miss Thompson. Beulah Bondi is mostly a hateful prude as Davidson's wife, a change of pace from her usual nice Motherly portrayals. Guy Kibbee is quite good as Mr. Horn, the owner of the "general store" where the group is staying. The camera work is quite remarkable for an early talkie, and the print as shown on the Alpha disc is in a beautiful condition compared to some I've seen. The first time I saw this was on a tiny UHF station in Chicago, from the cut-down 77 minute print. Be sure and see this in the uncut 94 minute version to get the full impact of what audiences saw in 1932. This film was considered a flop in that year and Miss Crawford took some heat as there were a few critics who did not think much of her performance, but, as I said, she seems completely natural in the part as seen today. People who think of Miss Crawford as mannish and bitchy in some of her later portrayals should catch her here. When she was young she was something else. And that something is pretty damned good.

RAIN is the second film version of a play that made a superstar of Jeanne Eagels on the Broadway stage; the first was a silent titled SADIE THOMPSON and starring Gloria Swanson, which was a success both critically and commercially. This second version, the first sound film based on the play, used the original title and starred Joan Crawford, who was already a major star but desired to stretch herself as an actress. Unfortunately for Crawford, neither the critics nor the public liked her as the unglamorous prostitute Sadie Thompson; that plus the fact that the play had begun to date rather badly made this film a resounding flop and Crawford took most of the heat for its failure.A second look, keeping the play's historical context in mind, leads me to the opposite conclusion. Crawford, who came to Hollywood knowing nothing about acting and who learned "on the job," as it were, never reached the heights of Davis, Hepburn, and Stanwyck, perhaps, but she was an apt pupil and she learned her craft well. A look at this extremely dated film today reveals that Crawford's performance is really the best thing about it.The plot is a moldy bit of melodrama involving a fanatical missionary (played here by Walter Huston) who, stranded in Samoa during a cholera outbreak, encounters prostitute Sadie Thompson and sets out to convert her, which for her involves returning to the States to serve a prison sentence even though she was framed. Mesmerized by the missionary's personality, Sadie is at first converted, then later disillusioned.The film is not terribly well made (interestingly there is no director credit, though IMDb lists Lewis Milestone); even for 1932 it is grainy and the camera-work jerky in spots. The decision to make the constant soaking rain a character in the drama is a plus: it adds to the atmosphere and makes for a perfect background for Sadie's emotional and spiritual journey.The acting is a mixed bag. Crawford is much, much better than one would expect since this film nearly wrecked her career at the time it was released. In fact it she might not have recovered had she not made GRAND HOTEL, one of her major triumphs, that same year. But whatever the film's weaknesses may be, Crawford is not among them. In fact her Sadie is a completely believable character; Crawford is utterly convincing as the unrepentant whore, then the "born again" woman redeemed, as she thinks, by the missionary, and in her "fall from grace;" in fact she's quite good, particularly considering that this is perhaps the most complex role she had attempted up to that time.The rest of the cast is mostly solid, familiar (at the time anyway) character actors, and they pretty much all acquit themselves well. Oddly, the weak link in the cast happens to be the one great actor in the whole thing: Walter Huston as the missionary Davidson. A legendary actor both on stage and screen, Huston plays the missionary like a hero out of an old stage melodrama, declaiming his lines in a way that was out of style even back in the 1920s when the play opened on Broadway. I don't know whether Milestone directed him to read his part this way or whether he simply did his own thing and ignored the director (so far as I know that was not his reputation), but either way it is a terrible choice; his performance is so hammy that it renders every scene in which he appears laughable, and when he and Crawford are on screen together, it is her realistic approach to her character that one finds believable; he is incredible to the point of being ridiculous.All in all, however, I found myself rather surprised that this film was such a failure in 1932. Huston's acting would have seemed less garish at the time, and I think the critics were terribly unfair to Crawford; even if they found her attempt to stretch her abilities less than successful (a view with which I do not agree), surely she deserved the credit for trying. Simply taking on the role was an act of courage on Crawford's part; Jeanne Eagels was inextricably linked to the role in the minds of many, and when you add to that the successful silent version starring Swanson, who was one of the biggest stars of her day, it took a LOT of nerve on Crawford's part to attempt what was at the time the biggest challenge she had ever faced. And I think she did a creditable job.