O Pecado da Carne

I'm fully aware that there has been a total of three film versions of

the play, "Miss. Sadie Thompson" by the late John Colton. I've

haven't seen the original silent film version from 1928 with the first sex symbol of the 20th Century, the late Gloria Swanson; nor the third film version with the late Rita Hayworth. However, if I never get to see neither the first nor second film versions of John Colton's play, the second and first talking film version of Mr. Colton's play is sufficient enough. This film should had received Oscar consideration from the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I'd just seen this film during the late night/early morning hours of

Sunday, January 26th on public television station, WLIW - TV, Channel 21, the second oldest public television station in the United States. "Rain" had Oscar written all over it from start to finish! The film score; the cinematography; fine supporting actor performances both

from WILLIAM GARDAN as US Marine Sgt. O'Hara, and GUY KIBBEE, whom

I've seen in many character roles in classic American films from Hollywood's past, as the innkeeper, Joe Horn; a well written screen adaptation by Maxwell Anderson of John Colton's play; visually directed well by Best Director of 1930 Oscar Winner, the late Lewis Milestone ("All Quiet On The Western Front"), who truely deserved another Best Director Oscar consideration; this film was highly acted well with characters whom you could both believe and relate to, and therefore, a Best Picture Oscar certainly should had been possibly considered; but the best part of this film must be given credit to two acting Oscar winners. Angelica Houston's paternal grandfather, and the late John Houston's father: Oscar winner, the late, great Walter Houston. He was the third of Hollywood's dynasty of actors in the family business. As religious reformer, Alfred Davidson, he was both a hypocrite and a bastard who overstepped his bounds in his persistence by both harassing Sadie Thompson and not minding his own business. If there existed someone like Alfred Davidson, he would be dead by now! He had not only the nerve to dictate to Sadie against her will by judging her when he never met her previously in the first place, but had the audacity to take it upon himself to dictate to the Governor of Pago Pago Island just exactly what his legal authority concerning Sadie Thompson should and should not be, although no such scenes displaying Davidson and the Pago Pago Island Governor were never shown in the film in the first place. I know that Walter Houston is both a Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner, and a Best Actor Oscar nominee; but

he should had received a 1932 Best Actor Oscar nomination for this role. He was incredibly believable. He was so real, and so brilliant. However, the most standout of the entire cast was, without question, the late, great, Joan Crawford, who died the same year when we lost Charlie Chaplin, Bing Crosby, Groucho Marx, Freddie Prinze(WHAT A WASTE!), and of course, Elvis. She may had won a Best Actress of 1945 Oscar for "Mildred Pierce"(Warner Bros.), but this was her BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE, period! I don't remember which

actress was awarded the Best Actress of 1932 Oscar at the 1933 Academy Awards for the film releases of January through late

December, 1932, but she should had both been nominated by the Academy and she should had won! She was so believable as Sadie Thompson.

You could really relate to her when she felt trapped without knowing neither what to do nor where to go. There was one thing about Joan Crawford that was apparent about her acting in most of her films during her prime: regarding her behavior, she never bit her tongue when she had something to say! If she either liked you or not, if she liked or disliked what you did concerning herself, she would let you know! With Joan Crawford, WHAT YOU SAW ABOUT HER WAS WHAT YOU GOT! In closing, I think that it's not only crucial for the American and British films of the past to be preserved for future generations of film audiences, actors, actress, film makers, and

film critics; but it's also important for audiences, especially young people in their teens and twentys to WATCH THE FILMS OF THE PAST. These actors, actress, and film makers who made their mark must never be forgotten. If young people simply choose to watch the films of the present, then they will be missing out on a whole lot. The American film industry, via each of the major studios, no longer

releases a film each and every week. Between the 1920's and 1970's, major films, which have become classics, were released weekly. Today, some of the films that are currently released today are great, and the others are not worth paying eight to ten dollars for!

Joan Crawford went on loan out to United Artists from her home studio of MGM to make "Rain" in 1932. The story had been a Brodway success. Some may feel Joan was miscast as the famed Sadie Thompson. I disagree. The film is not perfect, but Joan and the other actors make it worth watching. Joan is matched in the acting by the great Walter Huston, playing the preacher who is determined to "redeem" Sadie. Joan is made up heavily - almost outrageously - in the first part of the film, then softer make up and lighting after her "transformation" by the preacher. The softer make up shows what a real beauty Crawford was. Rumor has it Crawford felt out of her league with some of the other theatrically trained actors, and had some problems with the director Lewis Milestone. But she holds her own in the film. The print of the film I recorded from TCM is not the best, with some static in the sound and the picture quality rather poor. This is a film begging to be restored. Yes, it was made in 1932, but other films from this time do not look this bad.

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.

This story, by Somerset Maugham, has been filmed many times in the last seventy-odd years, but this is the first. I cannot say that it is the best of all possible adaptations; a tacked-on sub-plot (involving a romance with an amorous quartermaster) helps the exposition but dilutes the icy cynicism of the basic story, the missionary and his wife are clumsy caricatures of hellfire and brimstone puritanism, while Joan Crawford's "low-class" accent is more irritating than it is believable -- one is relieved when she forgets to use it. Yet it shines.

The story is told only partially through the script, which seems less wordy than most early talkies: many important points are made purely visually, from the overflowing rainbarrel in the opening sequence to the high-heeled shoe that signals Sadie's return to her prior way of life. The camera *moves*: around tables, in and around groups of people, in and out of doors with incredible smoothness. Crawford's face is also a focus: from her initial "good-time gal" flirting with the sailors to the incredible sequence where she (apparently) converts, she leers, pouts, weeps, and more importantly, knows when to stop, in the three scenes she appears (seemingly) without makeup.

When Rev. Davidson soothes her in her extremis by telling her in a hypnotic voice (backed by native drums) that she is now "radiant, beautiful, one of the daughters of the King" (a moment of sheer unearthly poetry that verges on psychosis), we believe him -- and her. We also believe Huston's face a moment later, as he prays alone, grimaces unreadably, and suddenly resolves into a look of predatory lust just before slipping into her room, the drums implacably beating in the background.

Small excellences abound: the natives are portrayed sympathetically, and for the time, fairly accurately-- I especially liked the use of Polynesian music, which, along with the Sadie's hot jazz records, emphasises the sensual nature of life in the tropics. The subject of her profession is handled tastefully, but frankly and with humor: in referring to a friend's marriage to a sister fille de joie, the quartermaster remarks that they initally met "illegally" and goes on to say that since they met seeing each other at their worst, they can appreciate seeing each other at their best. A running counterpoint is provided by Dr. McPhail, a more-or-less neutral bystander, and Mr. Horne, the genial (and generally supinely drunk) innkeeper, who fusses, chortles, philosophizes, and gets most of the movie's best lines.

Perhaps the best of these occurs sometime after Sadie's conversion: lolling indolently, he reads from a small book something that sounds incredibly like Ecclesiates-- for a moment, we nearly believe that Davidson has converted him, too. Then, finishing the passage, he intones, "Thus spoke Zarathustra.... Good old Nietzche!"

Sixty-five years later, watching the film on a postage-stamp-sized screen of Real Video, I nearly fell out of my chair.

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).