Geständnis einer Sünderin

"Sanctuary" was a racy novel written by William Faulkner. It is filled with all sorts of sleazy content...most of which I cannot put in my review since various words I'd need to use violate IMDB's standards. It was made into a film twice...once back in 1933 and it was infamous for being among the most inappropriate Pre-Code films ever made as well as this 1961 version. The 1933 film, despite its reputation, is actually an exceptional film and far less sleazy than the source material. The 1961 film is just fair...at best.

Lee Remick stars as Temple Drake and the movie starts with a black lady friend of hers being convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a baby. Later, you learn about Temple's life five years ago and how this relates, kinda, with the murder. The story includes a lot of sleazy content as well as Temple becoming a brutal man's extremely willing sex slave. Subtle it is not.

The book and movie vary in so many ways....which is odd. In some cases, the book is much more offensive (again, I cannot say how as IMDB would not publish my review if I did) and in others the film is very different and adds a lot of sleaze. The bottom line is that the movie, to me, wasn't very good and promoted a weird rape myth. I also didn't particularly enjoy it. To each his or her own.

Basic Southern Soaper. Bradford Dillman was not believable as romantic lead. Yves Montand came off like Herbert Lom in the movie with the talking ape that Jimmie "J.J." Walker and Dom De Luise made in the late 1980's. The only reason to see this one is if you are a Lee Remick fan and want to see her in period lingerie.

Other than the overt racism and sexual repression of the era when this movie was made, I cannot think of a single reason for the total rewrite of Faulkner's powerful novel about the seamy underside of life in the Depression era south. And to pin the murder on the nanny, WOW! The novel ends with the execution of a completely innocent man who refuses to defend himself for a set of very complex reasons. Perhaps the producers felt they had to "dumb it down" for a simple minded movie audience.

Even today, reading a basic summary of William Faulkner's SANCTUARY is likely to give pause. It is a nasty bit of southern gothic literature about a socialite who gets raped by a bootlegger and then entangled in a murder case. The book was adapted unfaithfully in 1933 as THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE, but what that movie lacks in authenticity it more than makes up for in delicious gothic style and powerful acting. Oddly enough, the changes made to the story have also allowed it to be more palatable to a modern audience.

The big difference between STORY and this later 1961 version of SANCTUARY is that Temple very clearly does not enjoy being raped in the 1933 film. When she stays with her rapist in a bordello, it is implied that shame, not passion, is what keeps her from going back home. The 60s movie has Temple fall madly in love with her rapist because of how macho he is compared to the straight-laced college boys she knows back home. To say it's uncomfortable is redundant, but it's also quite poorly developed too. The story has no real flow and just lurches from one tawdry episode to the next. The second half in particular, with Temple struggling to adapt to housewife life, feels like a bad soap opera.

It's a shame because Lee Remick and Odetta are fantastic in their roles, giving this sleazy movie more class and power than it warrants. Odetta in particular is so soulful and tragic that she steals the movie from Remick with ease.

William Faulkner is viewed by critics in either one of two lights. Some consider him the finest writer ever produced in the South, which would be saying a lot, since it is generally accepted that the best American writers came from the South during this time period. Others would consider him just a master of soap. And make no mistake, the original novel is a classic of SSS (Steamy Southern Soap). Mr. Faulkner believed that what women really wanted was to be "mastered" i.e. raped by a "real" man i.e. one is completely calculating and cold-blooded. Louis Jourdan does a good job in that respect. Lee Remick also does a very good job as the rapee. We are then asked to believe that a new version of Jesus has come to the Deep South in the form of a portly middle-aged black woman, who is more than willing to go up on the cross and die for the sins of others, in order to facilitate their redemption. How noble. But, I am so sorry; I am not buying into this baloney with chitlins as relevant to the 21st century. First of all, the film does not follow Mr. Faulkner's novel, or the logic of the novel. Hollywood not only made this turkey once; they made it twice. Once before in 1933 (when it was more relevant), and again in 1961 (by which time it was completely irrelevant). As soap, the film is entertaining. But daytime TV soap is more logical than this stuff. Not recommended