Santuario

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.

I never liked William Faulkner, and I never liked Lee Remick, since I always saw her in the same kind of roles, as sinful victims. This film made me completely change my mind about both.

Not that the major credit is to either of them, but the real character here is Odetta as Nancy, the one person who takes responsibility and stands up to things and does something about it, actually interfering with destiny, at a full price which she pays willingly with heroic stoicism. Every scene in which she appears comes alive with a secret life of intensity, as if this presence of fate hanging in the air was self-evidently in her control. The most interesting scene is therefore when she (with the other fallen ladies) interprets the cards telling their fortunes.

It's a tawdry story, many scenes are downright disgusting, but Tony Richardson's direction is impressing as usual, and Yves Montand is the second best to Odetta. Another triumph is the very skilfully contrived music by Alex North. There is a wonderful scene in the dirty bar with all the wenches as they wallow in dancing Charleston. This is a story of the 20s with bootlegging as the chief subject of the plot. I can't help it, but I enjoyed it - and will remember Odetta for this forever.

"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.

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.