MovieChat Forums > Rain (1932) Discussion > Interesting Curio; Crawford is Much Bett...

Interesting Curio; Crawford is Much Better Than Was Thought at the Time


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, 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.

Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><

reply

Pretty good analysis that I find it pretty hard to add to argue with.

It's really a shame the public didn't take to this film at the time, because Crawford often based her opinions of her work on public acceptance which, I admit, isn't really the brightest thing to do. At the end of the day an actor should know when they've done good work and in Rain I think Crawford did some of her best.

It's a bold and sure of itself, where Crawford, of screen, wasn't. It's also got a certain masculine quality which is really a stroke of genius because often a woman such as Sadie would have a slightly boyish quality to her - it's either the cause or the result of her obvious comfort and success in the company of men. She's 'one of the boys'. This isn't really evident in Gloria Swanson's performance (which, in its own way, was brilliant too). Swanson, though, is more girlish from memory. A beautiful, quite seductive looking thing. Where Crawford is slightly gaudy, boyish and 'good timey'. On top of that, from an emotional standpoint, her highs and lows in the film are very well pitched... that scene, in particular, where she stands at the foot of the stairs screaming at Davidson...

"I bet when you were a kid you caught flies and tore their wings off, I bet you stuck pins in frogs just to see 'em wiggle and flap while you read 'em a lecture! I know you! Why, you'd tear the heart out of your grandmother if she didn't think your way and tell her you were saving her soul, you Psalm singin' son-of-a..."


Quite simply, I think that's one of her finest moments on screen. It's a fascinating scene, that highlights why Crawford is so under-rated as an actress. She listens. She listens to Huston's Davidson, eyes fixed on his. Each sentence he preaches seems to penetrate her soul and inflict itself upon here, yet her eyes remain fixed. She knows the trouble she's in, she knows he has caused it and could cause more. She tries to be reserved, but eventually can't. The boiling over of her rage and hurt over what Davidson is doing is powerful and her shouts seem to echo what - I would expect - almost any audience member is thinking while watching it - this Davidson guy is a prick. Isn't he though? A monstrous, meddling, controlling, bigoted religious fanatic. She may be a prostitute, but she seems like a damn fine gal.

It's a brilliant performance anyway. Joan has always struck me as being very under-rated. She delved into a similar territory many years later at Warner Bros. in Flamingo Road. Aside from her being slightly too old for the role, her performance is crisp, nuanced and moving there again.

reply

The thing that has always bugged me is that Crawford made GRAND HOTEL the same year, delivering a spot-on performance as Flaemmchen, a secretary-on-the-make who knows what the world expects from a "girl on her own in the big city" but is only willing to go so far. In fact GRAND HOTEL despite the Best Picture Oscar (it received no other nominations) is as moldy as RAIN and has aged even more badly; Garbo as a ballet dancer is laughable and John Barrymore may have been a great actor but it really didn't show. Only Crawford and Lionel Barrymore give that film any life at all.

And Crawford's Sadie Thompson is not all that different from her Flaemmchen except that this woman knows what the world expects from a "girl on her own in the big city" and goes right ahead and does it. She's a survivor in a world that has precious little patience for them, especially if they are women who can be preyed upon.

I don't know if sticking Crawford with Walter Huston was a good idea or not. Huston was a great actor; history bears this out, and only a great actor could have done what he did in THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE, winning a well-deserved Oscar. But I don't know WHAT the director was thinking here (interestingly, IMDb lists Lewis Milestone as the director but then notes that the film has no directorial credit, so who knows?); the acting styles of Huston and Crawford, his so mannered and fake stagey (and he should have known better), and hers so contemporary and realistic, definitely clash, but to my mind it's not Crawford who looks ridiculous, it's Huston. Oh well go figure I guess.

You make mention of Crawford's eyes. If Lewis Milestone did indeed direct this film I can't find any evidence that he ever worked with Davis, but when I think about it, whoever directed RAIN paid the same attention to Crawford's eyes as most of Davis's directors paid to hers, and with much the same result; if eyes are the mirrors of the soul, Crawford bares hers in this picture. She did not deserve the critical thrashing she received.



Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol ><

reply

Incidentally, while Crawford has never been my favorite actress, she certainly had her share of talent. My personal favorite of all her movies is THE WOMEN. She may have won the Oscar in 1945 for her noble self-sacrificing mother in MILDRED PIERCE, and I have always thought that role fit the way she chose to see herself, but for myself I've always enjoyed her the most when she played the broad on the make, from the prostitute trying to escape her past in RAIN to the stenographer trying to survive in a world of men in GRAND HOTEL to the out-and-out nasty husband-stealing bitch Crystal Allen (with all her claws showing) in THE WOMEN. Her Crystal is simply delicious and I cannot think of any other actress who could have played her quite that way.


Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol ><

reply

I also thought Crawford was excellent in this film. It may not have been a success, and there were issues with it here and there, but not with her. She is great in this.

reply

I happened to see it again just the other night on TCM. With all its faults it is a fascinating film and never fails to keep my attention. I must give a nod to Beulah Bondi as the tight-assed, prim-lipped wife of the missionary; Bondi plays her role dead-on-serious and as a result the character often serves as comic relief.

I still find it a totally engrossing film and it saddens me to think that for the rest of her life Crawford considered Sadie Thompson her worst performance. Far from it; I think it was one of her best.


Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol ><

reply

Hi, Scott!

I know that Joan Crawford is not one of your favorite actresses but did you ever see her in "A Woman's Face"? I saw the film recently and I was blown away by how contemporary her performance and that of Conrad Veidt were. A neglected gem of a performance from an underrated actress!

Enjoy your weekend and week!

reply

I've been meaning to catch A WOMAN'S FACE for years but somehow I keep forgetting about it. I've always heard good things about it. Many have said it was among her best, and I think Crawford herself was fond of it.

Pity she bought into the critical reaction to RAIN because she also made GRAND HOTEL that year and was sensational, I think, in both films. But Crawford hated RAIN and disliked talking about it although history has shown it to be one of the best performances she ever gave.


Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol ><

reply

I couldn't agree with you more, Scott! I hope you catch "A Woman's Face".

Cheers!

reply

"I bet when you were a kid you caught flies and tore their wings off, I bet you stuck pins in frogs just to see 'em wiggle and flap while you read 'em a lecture! I know you! Why, you'd tear the heart out of your grandmother if she didn't think your way and tell her you were saving her soul, you Psalm singin' son-of-a..."


Oh yes - this was beautifully delivered by Joan.

You know, I've always sort of dismissed Joan Crawford - (it may have something to do with that wretched parody, Mommie Dearest), but just in the last week or so, I've seen her in Possessed, Harriet Craig and now this film. I'm astonished that I never really gave her her due before. She was an extremely talented actress.



So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

reply

I may be in the minority here, but I think Joan Crawford overacted in this part.
She was a good actress, excellent in some parts (particularly in "Grand Hotel" and "The Women"), but in my opinion she was way too "whorish' in this film. She played a similar part in "Flamingo Road" and was much better, to my mind. I'll even go one further and say Rita Hayworth did a better job as "Sadie"
(Somerset Maugham thought so, too).

reply