the Story of Temple Drake (1933)

[folkdude01]

The TCM premiere of this film will be shown tomorrow night as a part of Bob's Picks, 5pm PST / 8pm EST. Saw it at the TCM Festival last year and I was very moved by it. Really good film all around (directing, cinematography, etc.) and a great performance by Miriam Hopkins as Temple Drake.

[Gene Zonarich]

I'm certainly looking forward to watching and recording it. Miriam Hopkins isn't a name that registers with modern audiences, but during the early 30's she appeared in some very good-to-terrific films in which she was outstanding. Fortunately some have been made more readily available in recent years, both broadcast (TCM) and home video: "The Smiling Lieutenant," ('31), "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" ('31), "Trouble in Paradise," ('32), "Design for Living," ('33), and "Temple Drake." Until now she has been (probably) better remembered for the Technicolor "Becky Sharp" ('35), and for being sucker-throttled by Bette Davis in "Old Acquaintance"('43).

[BixB]

I've been eagerly awaiting the showing of this since it was announced a few months back. I've never seen it but it sounds like a doozie of a pre-coder. In the past Universal has provided TCM with inferior 16mm TV prints of various Paramount and Universal rarities. Here's hoping they'll be showing the new 35mm that ran at the TCM Film Fest.

Speaking of Hopkins, the thoroughly delightful THE MATING SEASON (1951) is on immediately following TEMPLE DRAKE. While Thelma Ritter walks away with the picture, Hopkins gives more than a good account of herself. A pity this has ever been released on home video.

[Jack Theakston]

I'm sure fans of pre-code naughtiness will find the film's salaciousness and shock scenes to their taste, but as a whole, I find the film a dreadful bore and a waste of a good cast. The title character's only development in the film is completely unbelievable—the rape of Temple Drake is supposed to make us believe that she should break and become submissive to Trigger? The rape of this woman tamed her into following this man's every whim, when she had every opportunity to escape? I realize people do stupid things and are submissive to bad people in the real world, but in the film, Hopkins' character earlier in the picture doesn't give any inkling that she would all of a sudden flip on a dime. And why would someone such as Irvin Pichel's character, with all the burdens he holds, go out of his way not to tell the truth?

[dr.giraud]

There's a wonderful exchange between Hopkins and Florence Eldredge at the gang's decrepit hideout:

"Why do you keep the baby in the wood box?"

"So the rats don't get it."

[rudyfan]

I'm with Jack on this one. I really missed the humor of films like Female and Babyface (or Midnight Mary, etc.)

That said, the STAR of the film for me was Karl Struss. Fabulous cinematography and some splendid closeups.

[FrankFay]

There's a wonderful exchange between Hopkins and Florence Eldredge at the gang's decrepit hideout:

"Why do you keep the baby in the wood box?"

"So the rats don't get it."

It has fine visuals and a couple of shock sequences, but on the whole I agree with Jack- it's a bore, or at least it doesn't live up to expectations. The stuff where Hopkins is being menaced at the farm still packs something of a punch but the rest left me cold. I have nothing against Hopkins as an actress but the part could have used someone more conventionally pretty and less shrill. As to William Gargan I can't buy him in a straight dramatic role for a moment.

One thing to remember- the writers took a Faulkner novel and bowdlerized the plot beyond recognition. That may account for it not making much sense.

(Sorry for mistaking William Gargan for Lee Tracy- I've edited)

[Dan Oliver]

I'm with Jack, et al. Big disappointment. Big bore.

[Harold Aherne]

If you go into this film expecting pure bawdiness, you'll likely be disappointed as there isn't much of it after the sequence in the barn, other than Miss Reba's brothel. Actually, as revised for the movies the centrepiece of the plot is no longer Temple's rape but her testimony in court.

As strange as Temple's decision to stay with Trigger may seem, we have to remember that she's been traumatised beyond belief--not just the actual rape, but the whole experience of seeing a grimier, seedier world where she constantly must be on her guard. If nothing else, it's terrified her of the reaction she might get if she returned home before the gossip about her went away. In spite of her wild personal life, she's partly shielded from the worst consequences of gossip by her social position in town--she's still invited to soirée and freely mingles with others of her social set, although it's clear that her immunity is probably beginning to wane. As paradoxical as it sounds, her world is one of genteel promiscuity. Temple's beaux still know that they treat ladies in certain ways and Temple is conditioned to expect it. When she's suddenly thrust into more sinister environs, the effect is like pouring hydrochloric acid on a soufflé.

That's pretty much the whole gist of Ruby's sermonette to her. There is no commiserating between the two harassed women; one even senses that Ruby enjoys seeing Temple scurry around desperately while trying to avoid the pack of yelping dogs that seems to be everywhere.

After Temple leaves with Trigger, the movie diverges more significantly from Faulkner's novel (many lesser characters had already been eliminated). Here's what happens in the book's courtroom scene (highlight to reveal the spoiler): after some manoeuvering, Temple is brought back from Memphis to testify at Goodwin's trial. As in the movie, Goodwin refuses to give many details about the day Tommy was shot, fearing Popeye's wrath (Popeye became "Trigger" for the film). Temple finally does take the stand, but falsely testifies that *Goodwin* raped her and that he killed Tommy. Unsurprisingly, Goodwin is found guilty and an angry mob lynches him later that day. Temple did not kill Popeye and thus has only the destruction of her own reputation to worry about in the courtroom. Popeye is eventually hanged for an unrelated crime that he didn't commit, and Temple and her father find "sanctuary" in Paris (her father, not her uncle, was her guardian in Faulkner's novel).

Usually I don't bring up extensive differences between novel and film, but this example is instructive for the enormous contrast between the two: in the novel, justice is totally defeated and Temple will not sacrifice herself. In the film, she becomes a sort of noble heroine through Benbow's persuasion and his "fiat justitia" attitude. Much of this was probably necessary to allow the film to pass censorship muster at the state and local level, but it also changes the philosophical bent of the movie: is your primary duty to save yourself, especially if there are pretty damning consequences if you don't, or to save another? Benbow tries desperately to believe the latter, but as he looks in Temple's face and knows what dynamiting her reputation will actually mean, he breaks. (I thought William Gargan was *wonderful* in that sequence; his face was beautifully expressive and his anguish deeply palpable.)

Explaining Goodwin's motivation for not telling the truth is easy: he was in a no-win situation where not testifying would mean execution by the state and testifying would probably mean execution by Trigger or one of his goons. It isn't Temple's decision to stay with Trigger that's hard to explain--he doesn't really force her to go along; she does so voluntarily to (one might argue) evade the wagging tongues of her hometown. When Trigger actually forbids her to leave, however, she's compelled into more decisive action. It's her sudden change of heart on the stand that really defies her previous character.

The Story of Temple Drake could have been a bit more than it actually turned out to be if censorship pressures weren't so intense. But Stephen Roberts' direction, the cinematography and the good performances all make the film worthy of *** (out of 4) in my book. In particular, I really liked a couple of instances in which little objects conveyed whole paragraphs of information: Judge Drake's liquor bottle as he admonishes Benbow for disregarding the law as written, the torn negligee on the ironing board. Roberts is an under-rated director and he may be worthy of rediscovery.

-HA

[BixB]

Perhaps I'm just easily entertained, (Gee. It's good 'n loud, huh?) but while I came away rather disappointed, especially in the second half, I wasn't bored in the least. Some genuinely tense moments, the creepy house and it's inhabitants (reminding me of the house and family from TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) as well as many familiar faces and of course Struss' cinematography, I came away more impressed than let down.

[greta de groat]

Thanks, Harold, you took the words out of my mouth (and said them much better). And thanks for the comparisons to the book, perhaps in the long absence of the film from the viewing scene, there may have been more commentary based on the book rather than on the film itself. They are indeed quite diferent

I had definitely gotten the impression from reading about the film that one of the "perversities" was that she supposedly enjoyed her experience. The movie seemed like it was setting up for that, with her saying that she was "bad" and showing her obviously enjoying men but being such a tease, but later i didn't get any sense that she was anything but terrified and traumatized. Once she got to the old dark house, i didn't see her engaging in any intentionally provocative behavior--of course changing wet clothes or indeed being dressed in an evening gown were apparently provocative to those men--and these men couldn't have known her character or reputation that the earlier part of the film so carefully set up. Logically i'm not sure any attractive or well-dressed woman stumbling on the scene wouldn't have been subjected to the same treatment. I began to puzzle over why the film had such a character set-up. Were they trying to convey that she "asked for it" in some fashion? That we shouldn't feel so bad for her because she was a bad girl? That it was unthinkable that such a thing could have happened to a "nice" girl? Of course, people familiar with the book would have known that Temple was a "fast" girl so they probably wouldn't have changed her character entirely, but watching the film without the context of the book made me wonder what it was trying to say.

Gargan does look too much like Lee Tracy for comfort, but it thought he gave an excellent performance. And Hopkins was splendid.

greta

[Jack Theakston]

Harold,

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comparison to the novel. Unfortunately, I do believe this is a case where story elements aren't made perhaps quite as clearly in the film as they are in the novel, possibly for censorship reasons as much as Faulkner's own prose being too much to fit into a scene. As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a proponent of a film based on source material standing on its own.

Once it's made clear, however, that Trigger (or Popeye, in the novel) has been killed, I don't understand why Goodwin would still keep quiet... in the film, he makes it clear that he's no snitch, but if his motivation is fear, wouldn't this be allayed upon the news of the death of Trigger? I suppose this makes more sense in the novel, where Popeye isn't killed by Temple, but it leaves a hole in the screenplay.

[Mitch Farish]

Perhaps I'm just easily entertained, (Gee. It's good 'n loud, huh?) but while I came away rather disappointed, especially in the second half, I wasn't bored in the least. Some genuinely tense moments, the creepy house and it's inhabitants (reminding me of the house and family from TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) as well as many familiar faces and of course Struss' cinematography, I came away more impressed than let down.

I agree. When atmosphere is paramount (no pun intended), why ask if everything makes sense? Faulkner's novel does make a little more sense than the movie, but anyone who has read Faulkner knows how complicated his characters' motivations can be. The plot of The Story of Temple Drake doesn't bother me any more than the plot of The Big Sleep, another confusing film also complicated in part by screenwriter Faulkner. Temple Drake is one creepy movie; and the creepiness is it's own reward. Thanks, Karl Struss! This one will be appreciated by those who live for the Gothic style of '30s horror films.

[FrankFay]

As far as looks and atmosphere go, it is a great success

[BixB]

This one will be appreciated by those who live for the Gothic style of '30s horror films.

You're right, Mitch. After watching TEMPLE DRAKE last night, I couldn't help but be reminded of the confusion and motivational discrepancies that I come away with from Ulmer's THE BLACK CAT, a highly revered film that I watch often in spite of the same flaws. I think I'll be re-watching TEMPLE DRAKE for the same reasons.

[Robert W]

Nobody has commented on how strikingly beautiful last night's print was; you can imagine how great this restoration looked when I saw it at last year's TCM Festival in 35mm. I really enjoyed it, having had little-to-no experience with most of these pre-code titles.

[rudyfan]

Nobody has commented on how strikingly beautiful last night's print was; you can imagine how great this restoration looked when I saw it at last year's TCM Festival in 35mm. I really enjoyed it, having had little-to-no experience with most of these pre-code titles.

I commented to my roomie what a gorgeous print. Not in my comments above, except to note the cinematography, which was absolutely fabulous.

[mndean]

I thought the print looked excellent, better than some of the other Paramount films shown before on TCM. I was a bit surprised to see a Fox logo at the end until I remembered the studio remade the film under the original title Sanctuary back in the early '60s.

[BixB]

I thought the print looked excellent, better than some of the other Paramount films shown before on TCM. I was a bit surprised to see a Fox logo at the end until I remembered the studio remade the film under the original title Sanctuary back in the early '60s.

I was puzzled by that too. So who owns the film? Fox or Universal?

[Danny Burk]

Fox.

[BixB]

Fox.

Thanks, Danny. Especially glad I recorded it. Sitting in the Fox camp we won't be seeing this on DVD any time soon.

[3rdManTheme]

It looked like a whole chunk was cut out & the movie ended too soon. 70 min. is not feature length. Maybe the reason the film looked so good is that it was never shown much. Just an idea.

[Salty Dog]

It looked like a whole chunk was cut out & the movie ended too soon. 70 min. is not feature length. Maybe the reason the film looked so good is that it was never shown much. Just an idea.

Actually, 70 minutes was not so short in 1933. Check out Call Her Savage for a 4 hour mini-series plot in a 70 minute running time.

[chorusgirl]

It looked like a whole chunk was cut out & the movie ended too soon. 70 min. is not feature length. Maybe the reason the film looked so good is that it was never shown much. Just an idea.

At the 2010 TCM film festival the person who introduced the film was in fact working on the restoration. The print that was shown was a work in progress. I believe it was MOMA who was doing the restoration. The festival program listed TCM as a contributor to the restoration as well.

Criterion has released some Fox classics (BIGGER THAN LIFE, HEAVEN CAN WAIT). I hold out hope that this is in their pipeline.

(...for the record I think both film and leading lady are compelling.)

[missdupont]

Anything over 60 minutes is considered a feature, look at how many silents/early 1930s pictures are only 60-70 minutes. Festivals consider anything over 60 minutes a feature as well.

[Salty Dog]

It looked like a whole chunk was cut out & the movie ended too soon. 70 min. is not feature length. Maybe the reason the film looked so good is that it was never shown much. Just an idea.

Actually, 70 minutes was not so short in 1933. Check out Call Her Savage for a 4 hour mini-series plot in a 70 minute running time.

Just double-checked and it turns out that "Call Her Savage" was 88 minutes, so I was wrong about that. But there are plenty of precode features that are under 70-75 minutes, just not that one.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Harold,

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comparison to the novel. Unfortunately, I do believe this is a case where story elements aren't made perhaps quite as clearly in the film as they are in the novel, possibly for censorship reasons as much as Faulkner's own prose being too much to fit into a scene. As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a proponent of a film based on source material standing on its own.

Once it's made clear, however, that Trigger (or Popeye, in the novel) has been killed, I don't understand why Goodwin would still keep quiet... in the film, he makes it clear that he's no snitch, but if his motivation is fear, wouldn't this be allayed upon the news of the death of Trigger? I suppose this makes more sense in the novel, where Popeye isn't killed by Temple, but it leaves a hole in the screenplay.

But Goodwin doesn't know that Trigger is dead. At least his lawyer doesn't know that until Temple tells him in the anteroom. (maybe there's not a whole lot of newspaper coverage in whatever part of Mississippi they are in.) And that point cannot be introduced into the testimony without implicating Temple.

I don't know if pleading the 5th in this case would have exonerated Temple AND allowed to get Goodwin off - especially as she could have easily claimed self defense and .... oh hell, it's only a movie.

Loved the cinematography too and was disappointed that Temple didn't ... um ... enjoy her downfall more after the setip we received concerning her character in the first couple of reels.

Loved the southern gothic ruined planation - The Old Dark House meets Hush .... Hush Sweet Charlotte.

[FrankFay]

One of the best Southern Gothic films is Wild Oranges...very creepy

[3rdManTheme]

The judge in Temple Drake is the same guy who played the sheriff in The Ape. In that movie he says to the clown; "I thought you was a judge".

[sethb]

I thought it was a very good movie on a number of different levels. Plot was pretty good, camerawork and atmospherics were also great. Once things got rolling, the acting was also superb. Jack LaRue was tremendous, and so were the others.

My only criticism was Miriam Hopkins' Southern accent, which was not only atrocious, but also seemed to come and go from one reel to another. I guess Paramount couldn't afford a voice coach at the time? SETH