I liked this movie!

[deleted]

I love it too. It's one of my favorite Joan films, second only to Mildred Pierce. I agree, the film can be interpreted in many different ways and I love how the rain is used as a metaphor and almost a supporting character.

Professional Jayne Mansfield fanatic/lover™ since 1980.

The short story where this film comes from there is only one way to interpret it. So when I saw the movie I loved it but took it for what it was. Davidson A pent up holier then thou missionary cannot control his lust for a prostitute.
In the short story he was jerk who you wished for something bad to happen to. And you knew something bad was coming. He intimidated everyone. He and his wife treated the natives like savages. He was so sure of himself and was so self rightoues. The MacPhail's who had the misfortune to be on their boat was stuck with them. Dr MacPhail in particular was sick of him.

When sadie becomes converted it is a shocking tranformation, and it is sincere. But after they find Davidson dead on the beach by suicide no one knows why. Until at the very last page when it seems like Sadie has gone back to her old self. Painted up with black eye shadow and scarlet lipstick oh and BTW in the book she is fat, as Maugham wrote, " in her high shiny boots over which her fat legs buldged in their cotton stocking". Dr Macphail who had been kind to her comes into her room to see why she is playing her music so loud. She shouts out You men! You filthy, dirty pigs! You're all the same, all of you. Pigs! Pigs!
And he understands. Well that tells you she thought Davidson was different then the men she dealt with as a Prostitute, but of course he wasn't.

I couldn't agree more with Ekentb. I think this was perhaps Crawford's best performance. Really awesome, especially considering she had made more than two dozen silent films not too long before this. Contrary to the over-blown style of silent film acting, Joan's acting here was very natural. Just a riveting performance. I wonder why audiences did not like it in 1932, especially since this was a pre-code film at the height of pre-code, when audiences were flocking to see Jean Harlow, Mae Clarke, Miriam Hopkins, Barbara Stanwyck and other actresses in these wonderfully racy early '30's films. I also wonder why neither her performance, nor Houston's, was recognized by the Academy that year. Does anyone know if perhaps the industry just didn't like to present awards and call too much attention to these films?

Well, Robert Osborne states that Joan Crawford did not get along with the director of the film and she was going through a tough period with her husband of the time (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), and also he says that the director liked the actors to rehearse and Joan was someone who initiated on the spot, something like that, that's all according to Osborne, not sure of the real story behind it.

I do agree, Crawford was great in this!

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

I saw the version with Rita Hayworth, the third of the three versions made, a few months ago. I enjoyed it. It was visually appealing and interesting. When I started watching this movie, I had no idea there was a connection until a few minutes into the movie.

This is an earlier version but still not the original. I noticed the original is available online so I will be watching that next. By the time I'm done I will have seen them in reverse order of how they were made.

So far, I like this version best. The story is told in a way that I found more interesting and, even though this was made in the pre-code era, it's a more subtle and nuanced than the later version. Rita Hayworth did a good job but Joan Crawford really nailed the role.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]