Wow! Such a good movie.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The Story of Temple Drake was one of, if not THE film that helped to finalize the Motion Picture Production Code Censorship that became heavily enforced from 1934 to the 1950s. But I have to say that although I see how the story could've been obscene and offensive, to me it comes off as corny and downplayed.The characters all seem to be caricatures of their novel selves and it looks as if the film makers were afraid to dive into the depth of the plot line and the characters they were given. The book it was based on, "Sanctuary", was dark and menacing but there is almost no tension here. A sad fact because there is ample opportunity to make the viewer uneasy and angry, but instead you are sad and confused. Sympathy for Temple Drake is automatically given, being a victim of rape, but not a lot in the film gives you a sense of personal sympathy. In fact, the movie seems to go out of its way to make you not like her, as if they want you to blame her for the horrible things that happen to her.Maybe it's a sign of the times, or maybe I'm too much of a 21st century gal, but this movie came across as ridiculous to me. I do believe there can be an epic movie here, the story is timeless and Miriam Hopkins is wildly talented and capable of such a meaty role, but this one fell far short of the mark of brilliant and I cannot believe this was the film sited to enact and enforce the "Hays Code" that gave us the golden age of Hollywood. 5.4/10

Miriam Hopkins is terrific in this film as Temple. Jack La Rue is solid as Trigger, the bad guy who rapes her. This movie holds up in many places. Even though the Hayes Code was not in place on this, the rape scenes on the cut TCM showed were mostly realistic screams by Hopkins.I think the reason Hopkins is so effective is she is playing a wealthy judge Drakes daughter is because in real life she was born into wealth. Temple appears to be playing all the men in her life with no idea who was the one she wanted. While this is not as dark as Faulkner's book it is based on, it has plenty of darkness with the car accident and the moon shiners wrecked house. The version on TCM was short at 69 minutes, but it has a lot of action and is a credit to director Stephen Roberts who does not let the action bog down much. The court room scenes are good too. Roberts would die at age 40 which is a shame since he had a lot of experience directing films.As the code folks, and the Catholics banned this film for film content even when it was toned down for release, it would be very interesting if an uncut version did exist. After all, a rape scene besides the screams in this era would certainly be an interesting scene of early Hollywood.

I've read and heard about this movie since way back when I was in high school...1959!!!.....Was so pleased to finally get to see it, and in such a beautiful print!!! on TCM..I was never much of a Hopkins fan, but you have to admit, this was truly an 'Oscar'-caliber performance!!!! Too bad this country is full of hypocrites; back then as well as now!! But then, that's how it was back then, which was too bad........I was amazed that TCM gave it a '14' rating.......what for? there is no visible rape; it's only implied.My only gripe was Florence Eldridge; she was made up to NOT look like the character she was supposed to be; she looked more like some glamorous dame who just changed into a frumpy house dress; actually, the more I think about it, the more jarring her appearance was, and in a very small way, detracted from my enjoyment of this movie!!!.......I am going to watch it again after reading others' comments on this site!! On a side note, I detested the National Legion of Decency; how arrogant to think that they & only they could determine what the 'little people' should see on the screen!!!! preposterous!!!!.........thank goodness times have changed...........

"Good god, I can't publish this. We'd both be in jail." Wrote William Faulkner's publisher in 1929 after reading an early version of his fifth novel, Sanctuary. The Hays Office forbade any reference to the novel in advertising for the film. (In the opening credits of The Story of Temple Drake it only says, "From a novel by William Faulkner.")The challenge then was how to present it in an engaging if not entertaining movie without gutting the inherit drama of the story. By blending what they could show with what the audience was left to imagine it becomes a near horror film. Joseph Breen, would say it was "the vilest books, but that the film was tame in comparison to the novel."This steamy melodrama triggered church boycotts and stricter enforcement of the Hays production code. After only a few screenings, the film was quickly shelved by the Production Code Administration, never to be seen again…until now.A few collectors' 16mm prints have surfaced over the years, but a 35mm print hasn't been seen since the 1930s. So why did it take until now? The Museum Of Modern Art (MoMA) was approached by Turner Classic Movies (TCM) to work on a collaboration. This long sought-after title came up, and fortunately the MoMA holds the original elements and in excellent condition! This print of Temple Drake that we are screening is only a single generation away from the original camera negative, making this a true rediscovery that is not to be missed!The pivotal role of Temple Drake was entrusted to Miriam Hopkins, best known for Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise & Design for Living. But Hopkins seizes the opportunity to extend herself as a performer, arguably her finest performance. The role itself is much more complex than many of the parts offered to women in studio films today. George Raft was suspended by Paramount for his refusal to appear as "Trigger" in this film. Paramount head Adolph Zukor's reasoning that Raft turned down the part not because he objected to the material, but because he wanted more money.I first read about it in books on films of the 1930s, later I heard about it in documentaries on Pre-Code Hollywood. When I finally saw this forbidden film it was no gem. Like many of you I first saw Temple on VHS made from a worn 16mm collectors print years ago. It ranked as one of the worst transfers I had ever seen, almost unwatchable. But there was something there, to the story and the characters that drew me into the fuzzy darkness on the screen. The raising of ideas, situations and life mysteries that I found fascinating. Kind of like Dr. Jekyll wanting to know more about Hyde (another great Pre-Code Miriam Hopkins film.) But this screening is of the MoMA "To Save and Project" film preservation program and is a recently printed 35mm print made from the original negative that played to rave reviews at last years TCM Film Festival.One of the most daring Pre-Code films ever produced, this audacious film has been credited with being a catalyst for the creation of the Roman Catholic Church's National Legion of Decency. It was banned in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and Joe Breen ordered the film to never be re-released again once the Production Code came into effect in June of 1934. For many classic film fans, 1933's "The Story of Temple Drake" has long been something of a holy grail. Based on William Faulkner's novel, "Sanctuary", the story of a young Southern débutante with a wild side created a huge scandal upon its original release. The film was quickly pulled from release and went largely unseen for decades. Until now. Showing in a new 35mm print struck from the original camera negative!Georgia native Miriam Hopkins portrayed Temple Drake, (she made this film between Lubitsch's TROUBLE IN PARADISE (1932) and DESIGN FOR LIVING (1933)) The gangster is played by pop-eyed Jack LaRue in another of his great Pre-Code sleaze-bag performances.(This is only part 1 of 2, Continued…)