Story of Temple Drake
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Story of Temple Drake
Temple Drake is a southern women who love clothe, she is beautiful woman and intelligent in certain way. Southern woman Temple came from rich and wealthy family. She like to make up instead of going to serious relationship. She was more likely to enjoy her life doing fun things like kissing, hugging and sleeping with strangers. She is being raped by city boy who is neglected in the society. Eventually she ends up living at whorehouse, I guess because of she was liking the place.
Temple Drake was looked upon as the Southern Bell that did no wrong. I believe she was tired of living a life of being catered to. The whore house and Popeye was the alternative to the norm. Temple Drake mentality diminished from being the hostage to making this place her home.
A women who is a Southern Belle was Temple Drake. Southern Belle’s are usually seen as a trophy who mostly have everything, but one day she met a guy name Popeye who was in a gang and changed her. Therefore, she lost her image of being a Southern Belle.
". . . follows the shallows of the novel but not its depths"—Bruce Kawin
In other words, to watch the film adaptation and not read the novel would be to scratch the surface of Faulkner’s genius, when most of his intended meaning might either be lost in translation between book and film, because it either becomes impossible to do so or it is necessarily omitted for budgetary reasons, or for not fitting the director’s vision for the project.
It means that the film is only an adaptation and the director’s interpretation of the novel. The scenes follow the plot in the novel, but there are some instances and moments that is very difficult to portray in a film. Moreover, the director’s interpretation is different than how someone else would interpret it when they read it. By reading the novel, your interpretation is firsthand, but by watching the film, you are viewing the director’s interpretation.
"intended only to keep the facts of life and letters from the sensitive reach of Mr. Hays, whose fine sensibilities must be protected in such matters."—Richard Watts, Jr.
What I understand based on the comment is that every movies have some meanings and facts of life or movies give us information of various lives. So movies cannot show us every single things, such as some obscene facts. For example, in the novel the character Southern belle women Temple is raped, so in the movie it is not allowed to show actual raped scene, otherwise it will be fined against movie by censorship. In such case the director of the movie has to do something alternative to carry out the facts.
Because of censorship movies were’t able to convey the actual reality of such events. If it were to portray such acts, they wouldn’t be able to gain viewership because it would be banned.
sign, verbal attitude can be used as alternative to carry out the message. But not showing the actual obscene like rape or using slangs which are not accepted or allowed by movie industries censorship laws.
This comment tells me how people regarded films to be highly influential. People on some level believed what they saw. They didn’t necessarily believe everything to the highest degree yet viewers looked at films in a more realistic tone. So maybe censoring films became prominent since films held such a standard in society.
Even in some cultures, production code or censorship of film industry is strict, because lets say in a family oriented movie or film you are not allowed to put obscene although it is required, you got to come up an alternative idea to deliver the story to audience. It makes an embarrassing situations among people especially family members when an unexpected indecent scene show up. But it has been changing among people nowadays and many people are comfortable of such situation.
What I mean is not showing the full rape scene on screen, but give a short scene which gives message to audience. Like in the movie Trigger raped Temple which has shown the screaming of Temple. Likewise, kicking up during rape which means ejaculations. Using sign or sound which indicate and give message to audiences about actual scene.
I agree that people nowadays are more comfortable with the indecent scenes now because with easier access to the internet, they are more exposed to these kinds of scenes. Especially with the younger generation now, they seem to know as much as adults, if not even more.
I agree in a sense that these films had great influence because there was far fewer content available like this at the time. I also think society was a lot more conservative at the time and this played a stronger role in terms of censorship.
I agree with Braden. I believe that since the original Story of Temple Drake probably created a lot of controversy because there was nothing like this in the conservative society at the time therefore making its own popularity. Faulkner’s story is based in the south (Mississippi) which is historically more conservative also so having this film released across the states people might of started to think of the south differently.
Differently in the sense of stereotypes. For example there is often a stereotype about New Yorkers being really rude and many people believe that so if in a movie people from New York are not rude then maybe the stereotype might change. Obviously the stereotype of being conservative is on a grander scale than being rude.
I agree with Braden and Agata that the story created a lot of controversy. I believe it had to do with how conservative the south was but also had to do with how people remembered southern belles and gentleman in 1905. I’m bet most people’s memory didn’t think these types of things were going on in 1905. So I’m sure this story really sparked the interest of a lot of film goers.
I feel that Watts is taking a stab at the naivety of the then MPPDA President, Will H. Hays. Paraphrasing more or less, Watts is saying that film censorship is there so that the esteemed Mr.Hays isn’t devastated when he sees reality unfold on screen. It is crucial that Mr.Hays’s fine-tuned morals and ethics be protected because he is a sensitive man.
My inference is that many people didn’t see a need for, or were not happy by the introduction of film censorship. .
Due to censorship it in a sense limited film makers in what could be shown in terms of actual events. Instead must deliver alternative solutions and methods to be used in order to visualize and tell the story ti it’s targeted audience. In regard to Md. Waliour Rahman Saikat comment, that is a perfect comparison in regard to the rape of Temple and how it was not allowed to be shown within the actual film. Seeing as how movies embody facts of life and events we encounter, the issue of rape would require the use of censorship.Family and friends of different ages would be watching these scenes in the theater so it would make for perhaps uncomfortable situations.
I think this comment on censorship relates to suspension of disbelief and that when watching a film the audience shouldn’t have to remember the actual cruelties of life. In the case of Temple Drake the audience will not miss a beat in the continuation of the story but will be spared what would have been a depiction of a brutal and horrifying act.
Not showing the rape scene might create an even more powerful impact because it will allow the audience to use their imagination to deduce what has happened. Omitting the rape scene can create intrigue and mystery in the audience
Possibly the film makers might cut to black just before an action takes place and let the viewers mind imagine what happened. Or in another way have the narrator or a third party (like a policeman) describe vaguely what took place and show a shocked emotion when doing so. This way the viewer knows exactly what horrifying event took place and through the emotion of a third party would be able to tell just exactly what kind of horror it was.
This comment is telling me that film censorship is reviewing something and choosing to remove or hide parts of it that are considered to be unacceptable, especially to the public eye. There are people who actually believe what they see. While some are aware its just a story being played by famous actors/actresses. Movies can have meanings of life in it but they can’t really show the specifics do to censorship of really controversial topics; like rape scenes.
Kawin believes the true essence of the novel is not captured in the film. He states that it is merely a shadow of the novel. The film omits powerful scenes such as the corncob scene and downplays key themes such as Stockholm syndrome of temple drake.
It tells me that the film met the standards set by the film ethics. Because in that time films were not supposed to break the motion picture production code. which means that sex, nudity, and other things were not allow and Story of Temple Drake followed those conditions perfectly.
Censorship was very important for the actor/actress and the production company. This tells a lot about the era of the film and the what the audience was ready to allow. The movie of Temple Drake was drastically censored due the sexual nature of the novel.
This comment tells you that Hollywood had to use censorship. Some scenes can be very vulgar and it my rise a certain emotion of feeling from its audience. Movies are highly influential so instead of outright showing or saying something films elude to the matter.
Reading Sanctuary is like watching indistinct objects swim up toward the surface of the water, only to sink before they become quite clear, to sink and swim up again and again to sink. . . . And the sinister is less sinister when spread before one's eyes than when half-told and guessed at with difficulty."
This is an accurate description of the experience of reading this novel, in my opinion. Initially, it seemed to me that I was simply not understanding what was going on. However, the harder I tried to understand, the more disturbed I became. The imagination can be powerfully sinister when information is withheld.
This description fits the narration of the story. For the character Temple Drake to look like a damsel in distress throughout the story, nonetheless to commit perjury in the end, mirrors a wide range of the unexpected from beginning to end. During the time of the film there were objections of the volatile manner of the rape but the “sink and swim” manner in which it is written allows the reader/viewer to see more of the symbolism that Faulkner used.
I think this is a very thought provoking description of censorship in films. During the time of Temple Drake I think this would be a very accurate description as many intense emotions and actions were in a sense blurred and left to the viewers imagination but I cant help but connect it to films today and ask if it is still the case. With many films selling on the basis of nudity, bloody violence, and drug crime I cant help but wonder if perhaps the censorship was different in a time when society was not as open with what today would be the norm.
General Document Comments 0
So what i think the quote means is that the film outlines the main aspects of the novel but doesn’t divulge into great detail as the story does. We can refer back to the rape scene for this as well. The movie presents the event but the novel presents it and defines the action into much further detail. The film fails to do so.
I believe that due to censorship the film can only go so far in showing the action of a rape seen because it was not allowed. Therefore, the movie allows the viewer to fill in the blank of what happen. Novels doesn’t have much rule so they can write anything they want.
In the case of Temple Drake, this wasn’t only this reason that might have made Bruce Kawin criticize the film’s sophistication. It was also the explicit content of the novel, which simply had to be left out, and filled in with sexual symbolism, which hardly has any depth but to state the matter of fact.
Looking back I see how deeper is a poor word choice to describe what I’m thinking. I did not mean to bring in the artistic merit of novels in comparison to films. I meant something more along the lines of descriptive, and in-depth. The extent to which either medium can convey a theme is something dependant on the creators that work with those mediums.
i believe novels need to be more detailed than films because novels rely on the the readers imagination to tell a story. Key details like characters emotions, and how they look can only be described in words. Whereas in a film you can visually see how a character looks and feel through their acting. Also there are time constraints in a film whereas there are no page constraints in a book.
The depths are the descriptions used by Faulkner to “paint the picture” for the reader, per say. The film merely follows the shadows, or the basic outline, of the novel because it uses visuals and sound to tell a story rather than needing the intense vocabulary description to depict a scene. In most cases the film will chose to include or forget certain ‘depths’ of a novel on purpose in order to benefit or aid the aesthetics of the film.
By depths I mean the extent to which a film includes every little detail from a scene in the novel. In the novel an entire scenery may be described down to the blades of grass, however in the film they may show a wide angle shot and just pan across the horizon, letting the viewer take in as much or as little details as they see fit.
There is many details in books that simply can not be shown in movies because they would make the movie too long and hard to follow. Therefore the comment by Bruce Kawin implies that the movie can not grasp the true meaning behind the book and its various details.
Maybe the meaning can be grasped by the film but as anther comment mentions its “depths” can not be.
The true meaning of a novel or story can be grasped by a film without including miscellaneous details. What matters is the important symbols, conflicts, character motivations and personalities, and the right settings for all of these things to come alive. We deduce a meaning with these characters from their actions and interactions. By adding miscellaneous details you do manage to complement the world of the story — you season it — but the central drama which is the focus of the story will still be unchanged. There are some directors however that make films with minute attention to details. Stanley Kubrick is possibly the most famous example. David Fincher and Buster Keaton also.
In a sense you can see the relationship between the film adaptation and novel. Within the film here we are given a taste of the main qualities and attributes of the novel. But it does not dwell into the various and extensive story details that the novel would provide. For example, the rape scene between Temple Drake and Popeye. In the novel scenes such as that were being presented and told into detail . Where as in the film alternative methods would be met to symbolize the scene rather than go into far detail.
The production of films has a time limit of 90 minutes and a written story is unlimited. Someone can write one story on a book that can have the same number of pages as the bible and still will have 90 minutes to produce it on the screen. The lack of time has always been an issue for film production because that makes it being less detailed than the novel
As the southern belle women particularly the main protagonist Temple loves flirting, serious jokes as well as having sex instead of going for the relationship in the novel. She was being raped by bad guy, actually she was liking it and placed into whorehouse. These kinds of obscene wasn’t shown in the movie because of the censorship’s obligation.
The movie has the responsibility to obtain to certain standards when it comes to the events you listed above. It imposes a strong emphasis on imagination and in way a dark imagination as the events of the movie do not directly show what has happened or portray Temple in a way that is just like the novel. The censorship will not reveal the actual events, but will allude it in a way that those who know the story will understand.
I hope I am not confusing Sanctuary or The Story of Temple Drake. The film has a more redemptive idea where Temple kills Candy. This gives her an empowering role in way but this is far from the novel where she loves Pop-Eye (Candy/Trigger). In the novel she testifies in favor of Pop-Eye saying he did not rape her. This leads to the death of Goodwin, and justice is eventually served to Pop_Eye. Temple in the movie has less guilt than in the novel where she clearly knows her testifying has caused the death of an innocent. man.
The obligation of censorship is to restriction any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order of society.
This is definitely because of film censorship. In the novel the rape scene was explained with much more detail that what we saw in the movie. The movie merely captured the horrified emotion of the characters whereas in the novel the scene was much more graphically explained. If the movie were to follow the path of the novel, meaning to actually expose the vivid and horrific scenes, there would be a huge uproar and it would be banned from viewership.
Since the movie was made back in the decade of thirty’s, the production code of movie industry or studios was strict. Yet, in other movies such kind of horrific or romantic scene was shown promptly which actually make sense to understand the facts or story. But in twentieth century, it is more open and evolved to viewers which seem censorship no longer exists.
Well this actually falls back into play with the usage of film censorship. Within the novel, Temple Drake was kidnapped and raped by Popeye.At least in comparison to the novel itself, scenes such as that were elaborated and explained into great detail. Although these type of moments and scenes are found to be to dark for movie audiences and are merely captured through alternative methods such as emotion and other visuals.
In this case the film ends up being less sinister than the novel because of the Production Picture Code. Using a basic comparison checklist we can obviously see that the novel has a more descriptive depiction of the details of the rape than the film. I think less obviously the use of handsome and popular movie actors, Jack La Rue in this case, separates the belief that the character is evil from the audiences’ belief.
Somehow I find myself comparing the Story of Temple Drake to modern day 50 Shades of Grey. Although I haven’t 50 shades of grey I heard the movie does not compare to the book. Its similar in the fact that the movie can not as sinister as the book because as Braden stated a movie needs to obtain certain standards. Furthermore I think Faulkner was a fan of clipped dialogue but not strictly in the lines of the character but also the actions. Based on some of Temple’s actions in the movie the audience could infer some of the things that are explicit in the book. (Her love for the gangster that raped her, enjoying sex, ect)
Film is less sinister because it caters to the production code and the expectations of audience. Bad guys cannot get away with rape in the production code and the grim reality of the Stockholm syndrome are underplayed because the casting of handsome actors. Trigger is also more humanized as handsome movie stars cannot be depicted as impotent. The ending is also positive unlike the novel.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments