Sanctuary (1961) User Reviews (11)

a sanctimonious ending

[efflammk · 6/10 · 6 January 2008]

Not a bad movie actually. Well acted by Montand and Remick. But you won't find the complexity of Faulkner's novel in it.

As many others, the character of Popeye nearly disappeared (only one shot on a shed full of ears of corn, where he tries to hide Temple) and the plot focused on Temple and Candy's pervert romance.

*here begin spoilers!*

Temple Drake (governor's teaser but virgin daughter) and her boyfriend, Goodwin, came to a bootleggers house. The guys made Goodwin drink and drove him away. Candy (a Cagin) raped and seduced Temple. He kept her a long time in a room upstairs in a brothel. Miss Reba, a black junkie handmaid always tried to warn her about the degradation she was taking the way to. But one day, Candy's car, full of alcohol, was pursued by the police and crashed. He was assumed dead and the police delivered Temple. Scandal was covered up and Templed married Goodwin without loving him.

The ending of the movie is rather emollient and religious. After Temple married Goodwin, she took Miss Reba to her service (she found her in an institution for junkies). But Candy came back. In order to impeach her to escape with him and her baby (that would suffer and could die as Reba's baby did), Miss Reba sacrificed herself by killing the baby. So the police came and Candy went away. Miss Reba was condemned to be hung by neck, but this brought the redemption to Temple, who understood how good it was to live for her husband and her child. The last words of the movie are from Miss Reba in jail (the morning before her execution) to Temple: "Believe, you just have to believe"...

If André Malraux once wrote: "Sanctuary is the intrusion of the Greek tragedy in the crime novel", you cannot say the same about the movie.

The child that she killed was my grandson!

[kapelusznik18 · 5/10 · 6 November 2015]

***SPOILERTS***Based of the combination of William Fulkers novels "Sanctuary" and it's shocking sequel "Requiem for as Nun" the film "Sanctuary" has nothing to do with the sanctuary cities now so prominent in the news today but the deep south in the 1920's and how it effected young Temple Drake, Lee Remick, who got caught up with it. Well bread and proper Temple got caught up with the wrong crowd looking for a good time and ended up becoming the local Cajun bootlegger and whore Meister known as the "Candy Man", Yves Montand, woman or main squeeze.

That all became about when Temple's boyfriend and later husband Gowan Stevens, Bradford Dillman,who took her to a backwoods moonshine mill to get her as well as himself drunk passed out and left her to the tender mercies of the Candy Man who forcibly raped her. This is all told in a hour long flashback by Temple to her dad the governor of the state of Mississippi, Howard Saint, in her coming clean with her shoddy past. This all had to do with the upcoming execution of her maid and her infant son's black nanny Odetta, Nancy Mannigoe, who was just convicted of murdering him!

****SPOILERS**** Despite all the sympathy that Temple has for Odetta nothing can make you feel that she doesn't deserve what's coming to her and even Temple in knowing that she in a way was responsible for her son's death can';t really come up with a good excuse to have her father commute her sentence. In fact as we soon find out it was Temple going back to a life of sin with her former lover the Candy Man, who cam back from the dead, that eventually lead to her son's death. As for the saint like OOdetta she was resolved with the fate that awaited her in knowing that the horror of her action, which can be called a mercy killing, in that she did keep Temple from going back to the Candy Man and leaving her family behind that would have ended up killing her and left destroyed both her husband and son'a lives if not killed them altogether.

P.S A bit, to say the least, hard to take back then in 1961 when the film was released and even harder now in 2015 some 50 years later still the movie was ahead of its time in showing the brutality of life in the real world and not opting to have a happy ending as you would have expected it to have.

Remick and Odetta deserved better than this script

[MissSimonetta · 6/10 · 5 November 2021]

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.

Complete distortion of Faulkner's novel

[timoconnor · 2/10 · 10 May 2018]

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.

Not very memorable

[newospar · 26 February 2003]

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.

Governor's daughter misbehavin' and getting stuck with bootleggers

[clanciai · 9/10 · 17 June 2019]

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.

Kinda Faulker...

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 26 January 2020]

"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.

What???

[aurion7 · 1/10 · 14 July 2019]

Am I missing something here? Why the heck would she kill the one innocent person in this whole sordid mess instead of that Cajun snake? What are we supposed to take away from this story? Gag!

Southern Baloney With Chitlins - 161

[arthur_tafero · 3/10 · 9 September 2018]

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

There's no way this story could be done seriously without seeming preachy.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 7 September 2022]

The second version of the William Faulkner story (made with Miriam Hopkins in 1933 and one of the films that pushed the code through very quickly) is exploitation through and through. Even coming from 20th Century Fox, it just oozes of the delight in its filth. The studio had several "southerns" in the period of the late 50's to mid 1960's, sordid sagas of much troubled southern women from scandal ridden families. "The Long Hot Summer" turned out fine with a better than average script and a top notch cast (which included Lee Remick, playing scandal ridden Temple Drake in this), but films like "Blue Denim" and "Desire in the Dust" simply thrive on the desire for exposing southern decadence, and lots of novelists gave them plenty of sources.

Stranded in the middle of nowhere, Remick and her fiancee Bradford Dillman are forced to wait until morning to try and get back. She's lied to about him leaving, and taken to a rat infested shack appears to be gang raped. The scene exploits southern trash stereotypes and the viewer is unaware of who was involved. Remick gets protection from the tough talking but caring Odetta whose sentencing to death this film surrounds. What makes this all the more scandalous is the insinuation that Remick enjoyed being molested. Her pregnancy results in a huge scandal with Odetta accused of killing Remick's baby, and Remick's claim that Odetta deserves mercy, not one hangman's noose.

It's obvious that filmmakers took even the oldest of these stories to compete with the large number of films based on Tennessee Williams plays coming out. Even Williams with his eye for sin knew where to draw the line. This version of the Faulkner story leaves out a lot of details, and at 90 minutes, it's obvious that the film could have gone on for another 30 minutes to be more clear. Lots of time passes between chapters of the film, and it feels incomplete. Odetta, more known for her singing and political activities, does create a memorable character, certainly no "Mammy", but a survivor of prostitution and drug addiction. Yves Montand has a major part but gets really little to do outside of being one of the suspects in Remick's rape, coming back to taunt her which makes him seem all the more guilty. Reta Shaw has a few amusing moments as an obvious madam. Sadly not enjoyable on a camp level, but definitely a film the viewer won't soon forget.

Deep South tale

[searchanddestroy-1 · 26 June 2023]

It is typically from William Faulkner's mind znd spirit this southern tale, supported by powerful acting, directing from a UK kitchen sink film maker: Tony Richardson. It is a rare film, even in France, despite the presence of Yves Montand. I don't understand why it is never shown, even in theaters or Tv channels. It is obviously a vitriolic painting of the Southern states way of life, an accurate description of how people are and behave, espacially in families between superficiality, lies, racism.... I just discover this film and am very satisfied. I think Martin Ritt could have done it. Lee Remick awesome and Brad Dillman excellent in a role that suits him like a glove.