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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.