Sadie McKee (1934)

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Joan Crawford is "Sadie McKee" in this 1934 film also starring Gene Raymond, Edward Arnold, Franchot Tone, and Jean Dixon. Crawford is the daughter of the cook for the wealthy Alderson family. The young man of the family, Michael (Tone) has obviously fallen for Sadie, but her heart belongs to loser Tommy Wallace (Raymond), who has just been fired for a malfeasance. Sadie runs off to New York with Tommy, and the two wind up in the rooming house of Mrs. Craney. The next day, they are to be married at City Hall at noon. But showgirl Dolly Merrick (Esther Ralston) who also lives at the rooming house, hears Tommy's dulcet tones and convinces him to forget marriage, leave town, and take a job in her traveling show.Another women rooming at Mrs. Craney's is Opal, who gets Sadie a job at her club. There Sadie meets the filthy rich, drunken Jack Brennan, whom she marries. It turns out that Jack's drinking has all but destroyed his health. Though Sadie can't stop thinking about Tommy, she is determined to help Jack quit drinking and regain his health.Pretty good melodrama, with Crawford wearing some fabulous outfits. Esther Ralston was a gorgeous blonde and is a lively Dolly Merrick, and Jean Dixon gives a good performance as Opal.The debonair Franchot Tone gives a smooth performance as Michael, and Gene Raymond sings and acts pleasantly enough as Tommy, who manages to be likable though he walked out on Sadie.Crawford made a lot of this type of film -- the working girl who moves up in class -- and they were very popular. She gives an appealing performance, and she was one actress who could look and act like a hard-working girl who came from a slum and also pull off being glamorous and wealthy.Worth seeing.

SADIE MCKEE is very typical of Joan Crawford's films of the late 20s and 30s. As was usually the case, she plays a poor working girl who eventually makes it big....though in this case she seems far less set on wealth than her other films--it just "drops on her", so to speak.The film begins with Joan as a maid in the home of a rich family whose son is Franchot Tone (who married Joan in real life). She likes Tone but also likes Gene Raymond. When she hears Tone bad-mouthing Raymond and saying Raymond was a bit of a scoundrel, Joan is quick to Raymond's defense. As a result of her blow up at Tone, she impulsively leaves her job and runs off to New York City--where she ultimately discovers Raymond really is a jerk! Oddly, instead of Joan and Tone patching up their differences, they continue to have a thorny relationship--even though you know down deep they care for each other. Much of the rest of the movie involves their on again/off again contact with each other. While most everyone in the audience knew that EVENTUALLY they'd make up and be together, I appreciated how the film placed so much plot in their way--things that made the most ordinary plot actually seem different. This complexity was generally very welcome, though the intervening marriage to Edward Arnold and her unflagging feelings for Raymond were a bit inexplicable.For a long time, I have not particularly liked Joan Crawford's films--especially when she made so many formulaic films in the 20s and 30s involving a poor girl wanting to get rich. After a while, they all just seemed repetitive. However, despite this film also having such a theme, it is still a fine movie and has me re-thinking my attitude towards her. This film, while a bit of a soap opera, was exceptionally engaging and sure kept my interest. Plus, I've seen many of her films recently and have to admit that while not every film has been that great, her acting was usually very professional and very competent. In essence, I have gone from a "Crawford hater" to at least someone who respects her talent and has really enjoyed several of her films.See this film and you'll see one of the better films of the era. Good writing, excellent acting and a humanity that surprised me about Crawford's character.

I had never heard of "Sadie McKee" before I saw it on Turner Classic's schedule and decided to Tivo it even though I'm not much of a Joan Crawford fan. I'm so glad I did. I think of 1934 as the start of the "code" period, but this is clearly pre-Code material. Not realistic in the modern sense, but more complex and human than I expected.The real revelation to me was Franchot Tone as Michael, in whose aristocratic home Sadie grew up as the daughter of the cook. I have seen Tone in a number of other films -- "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" come to mind -- but I think I need to seek out some more of his films. In "Sadie McKee," he displayed more emotional range and acting technique than I had ever before seen from him. I understand that he and Crawford were married for awhile after this film was completed. It's easy to imagine the attraction.

Another poster has mentioned that this film was released a couple of months before the Hayes Code was being strictly enforced. Nevertheless it has to go through some amazing "story gymnastics" to get several points across.I don't want to spoil the story for anyone, but observe the incredibly indirect way Sadie's friend has to ask if she is sleeping with her wealthy husband, and the almost as indirect answer Sadie gives. Perhaps even this much wouldn't have been allowed under full enforcement of the Hayes Code.Alcoholism was another touchy subject. It's very clear that Sadie's husband is an alcoholic, but the words "alcoholism" is never used; the disease is simply called "it," and you have to infer what "it" is from the surrounding material.I'm trying to not give too much of the story away, but another rule movie makers had to follow was that divorced people aren't supposed to be happy. So what to do after Sadie and her wealthy husband are amicably divorced? For the answer, I guess people will have to watch the movie!