Joanie Watch: Sadie McKee (1934)

Watched:  03/25/2024

Viewing:  First

Format:  Amazon

Director:  Clarence Brown

Selection:  oh, definitely me

In honor of Joan Crawford's birthday, I decided to take in one of her movies.  

This turned out to be slightly more of a chore than I thought.  I checked all of the services to see if anything was streaming as part of the cost of my service.  Honestly - I was kind of shocked that nothing was really out there.  And then, I remembered - Amazon bought the MGM catalog.  And Crawford was signed to MGM for the first phase of her career.  So, you can count on most of Crawford's pre-Mildred Pierce films to be at MGM where she was from 1925 to late 1943 (she was loaned out once or twice).  

Based on absolutely nothing - except that I hadn't seen it and that it comes up from time-to-time - I picked Sadie McKee (1934).  Listed as a "comedy" on Amazon, it's far more of a melodrama with some comedic elements, and has the spunk and fire in the Sadie McKee persona that female characters were given in movies starring a studio's best and brightest in the early sound era. 

If you're only familiar with the late-late-career Joan Crawford with the pancake makeup, or you only know her from Faye Dunaway playing to the back of the room, you're missing out on a fascinating person with a career spanning Hollywood eras, from silent pictures to 1970.  Crawford made her career playing smart, tough women with an edge and could bring some fragility to those parts.  While certainly a natural talent, she worked incredibly hard to hone her craft (and ditch her Oklahoma accent).  It is also probably necessary to suggest one check out photos of Crawford from this period in her career and see why she was considered uniquely attractive even in an industry where every starlet is genetically gifted.

Cheekbones and huge eyes will carry you far

Like many movies of the 1930's, this one is deeply concerned with financial stability, the terror of being poor and specter of what it means to be without work, and massive discrepancies between the have's and have-nots.  

Crawford plays the titular Sadie McKee, the young-adult daughter of the cook for a wealthy family.  She's grown up in the house and knows the family well - and maybe was intended for the scion of the family (Franchot Tone), but he's been out of the picture for a while and she's fallen for Tommy (Gene Raymond) back in high school and still standing by him.  But Tommy was just fired from his job.  While helping her mother during the family's dinner party, she overhears Michael (Tone) lecturing the table that Tommy always was no good, and he shouldn't get his job back.  

Sadie dresses down Michael and then flees to New York with Tommy.  Tommy bails on Sadie, who is heartbroken, and becomes a dancer at a club.  Soon enough, she's found by Michael's drunk of a client - a millionaire, Brennan (Edward Arnold), whom she marries.

Melodrama ensues.  Sadie proves her pluck and devotion.

This sort of movie - of a woman with multiple suitors navigating life - was not uncommon.  I've certainly stumbled across many iterations, and it's still a form of storytelling - but probably is now more common on television.  I also don't think the notion of working-class-girl finds her way into the upper-crust is far from anyone's favorite thing (see: Crazy Rich Asians)*.  What may be different is that our girl/ woman is usually at worst, lower middle-class.  

Sadie of this film starts off lower-middle-class - maybe Molly Ringwald in Pretty in Pink - and basically chooses near homelessness and risks it all to go with Tommy.  We're deep in the Depression here, so seeing Sadie only able to afford coffee at the Automat to Sadie in a legit mansion is a roller coaster.  And, this is before producers would insist she do more to earn it than be pleasant to someone and be very pretty.  It's not exactly the "and with pluck, charisma and determination, she succeeded" we may be more used to in current movies, but we do get to see all of those qualities displayed because of her circumstances.

The narrative language of film in the 1930's is still a little odd to me.  Some scenes just go on past the point of necessity, and other scenes feel truncated that could have breathed more.  But I do think our players, in particular Franchot Tone and Crawford, are showing a lot of what would become a more naturalistic acting style that would carry the mid-20th Century.  It does not hurt that Crawford probably says more with a turn of her lip and the elevation of an eyelid than most folks can muster through a whole movie.  

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention "gowns by Adrian", one of the most prolific costumers of this era of film making.  (a) I love that this guy is like "no.  No last name." and (b) he is not shy about bold design, and always has a few stunners - and this film is no exception.

You could easily see this in a film or red-carpet now

I don't know who came up with Sadie's hat over one eye in the film, but it's a great look and if I rewatched the film, I'd want to see if director Clarence Brown was using the one-eyed thing as a narrative commentary.

*no, really, see it.  It's good.