Rain

Interesting well-directed adaptation of Somerset Maugham story about a prostitute and a missionary out to reform her. I was surprised to discover this was a box office flop when it was released as I enjoyed it very much. Joan Crawford and Walter Huston are great as the two leads. Beulah Bondi and Guy Kibbee offer solid support. But the real star is Lewis Milestone's wonderful direction. He takes what would otherwise have been a very stagey film, especially for 1932, and keeps the camera moving and lively. Milestone not only directed but produced Rain as well. He was one of the best directors of the 1930s and I don't feel like he gets anywhere near enough credit. Try to catch this if you can but beware of bad prints.

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).

Most TV versions of "Rain" look like an antique, since they are in desperate need of restoration. The video versions are restored with 20 minutes of footage that is cut on some of the TV prints. Crawford was loaned out by MGM to United Artists for this second adaptation of the famed Maugham novel. This was one of Joan's biggest commercial disasters when she was still big at the box-office before her decline in the late 1930s. By viewing it today, one may not be impressed by the story or performances, but this is actually one of Joan's finest from her early films. "Rain" has become overlooked through the years since it was a notorious bomb and Crawford herself hated this movie. It is not as excellent as Gloria Swanson's "Sadie Thompson," but not that bad.

One of several versions of the often-retold story of Sadie Thompson, "Rain" is a tense drama that focuses effectively on the tension between two very different persons, portrayed by Joan Crawford and Walter Huston. While not always convincing, it holds the viewer's attention to the end, and often gives us plenty to think about.

Crawford plays Sadie, a young woman with an immoral past, and Huston is Reverend Davidson, a fire-and-brimstone preacher who is stuck with Sadie and several other travelers for a time on a tropical island. A series of confrontations between the two follows, initiated by the reverend, who is outraged by Sadie's character and behavior. The other characters observe, comment, and occasionally try to intervene. Meanwhile, the island is engulfed in an endless, torrential rain, providing an eerily effective backdrop to the story.

As the story proceeds, the two characters begin to affect each other in significant ways. Sometimes these changes seem too sudden and not entirely believable, and at other times they are very believable but discomforting in what they reveal about the characters and about human nature. The cast helps get past some awkward moments with some good acting, and this keeps the viewer interested in how it all will turn out.

"Rain" will not be to everyone's liking, but it is a thought-provoking story that should be of interest to anyone who enjoys psychological drama.

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.