Jack La Rue — Sexual Outlaw


Apart from being a pre-code smut-holocaust, THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE is a quite weird adaptation of William Faulkner’s Sanctuary (later adapted by Tony Richardson, disastrously according to received wisdom). Some American TV writer once said of that book, “Faulkner thought he was going to the limit by having his heroine screwed with a coke bottle. He didn’t know television.”

But the anonymous wag is wrong, imputing the coke bottle of Fatty Arbuckle legend to Faulkner’s antagonist, impotent hoodlum Popeye, who in actuality uses a corncob to rape Temple. Although I doubt that distinction would cut much ice with a jury.

In bowdlerizing the story for the screen (even pre-code Hollywood had its limits), screenwriter Oliver HP Garrett (awesome pre-code credits including A FAREWELL TO ARMS,  NIGHT NURSE and CITY STREETS) has dispensed with the impotence and the corncob because you can’t have one without the other and you certainly can’t have the other. As a result, Popeye is transmuted to Trigger, a highly sexed bandit who has no problems whatsoever in the downstairs department, other than keeping it in his pants. The whole first half of the film becomes a quasi-pornographic fantasy along the lines of THE SHEIK, with Temple Drake, embodied by a smouldering Miriam Hopkins, characterised as a brimming flagon of lust who becomes a slave to her own desire awakened by Trigger.

All this is, if anything, more offensive than Faulkner’s classified pulp nasty, because of what’s implied rather than stated, if we take it as in any way representing anybody’s views about male-female relations. Taken as fantasy, this kind of thing was obviously very popular with audiences of both sexes back then, and the idea of a sexual passion that overcomes all moral scruples is still one that exerts some fascination.

The film’s second half, with Temple killing Trigger, and then being faced with the dilemma of whether to clear an innocent man for one of Trigger’s killings, even though this will incriminate her in his death, is quite a compelling moral maze melodrama, although it’s even further from Faulkner’s book, which takes a considerably darker turn.

Anyhow, apart from the seething Miriam, and Stephen Roberts’ strikingly fluid and sinuous direction (the great Karl Struss is on camera), and the odd sight of William Gargan as a lawyer in very obvious lipstick, the movie’s main attraction is Jack La Rue as Trigger. With his ugly/handsome face and implacable macho arrogance, he comes across like a cross between Treat Williams and an erupting sperm volcano. He’s a pinstriped obscenity and he’s looking right at us.


Fast-forward fifteen years or so and La Rue is BACK! The film is NO ORCHIDS FOR MISS BLANDISH, a 1948 British flick that attracted unprecedented critical opprobrium (unmatched until PEEPING TOM, 11 years later) for daring to tell a low-class American pulp story in the UK. Ken Hughes’s JOE MACBETH somehow got away with this a few years further down the line, perhaps because it adds Shakespeare into the mix for that necessary touch of class.

Amusingly, the novel NO ORCHIDS is based on is by James Hadley Chase, a British bookseller whose real name was Rene Brabazon Raymond (!). Mimicking the snappy American dialogue he saw in movies, and cribbing from a dictionary of slang, Raymond/Chase turned out a string of sexy shockers which have proven popular with filmmakers — Patrice Chereau’s THE FLESH OF THE ORCHID with Charlotte Rampling, based on a quasi-sequel to No Orchids, is probably the finest adaptation.


New York, England.

While the Raymond/Chase transatlantic literary drag act excited little critical distaste, something about the first movie adaptation shocked our middle-class pundits to the core, as Brian McFarlane observes in Outrage: No Orchids for Miss Blandish, an essay appearing in the collection British Crime Cinema, published by Routledge. Something about the idea of a British production erasing its own national signifiers and doing its best to merge with the lower end of the Hollywood mainstream was deeply offensive to British sensibilities — and we didn’t have the model of the spaghetti westerns to point to as a defense, not that that would have helped, since that genrewas despised for decades too. 1948 was a rather good year for British cinema — perhaps our best ever, so the film’s blatant embrace of American noir style and content seemed particularly offensive.

The problem is surely as much to do with class as culture. When American films shoot in the UK, we’re grateful for the $, and generally try to claim some of the glory (cf the Film Council boasting of record box office for British films, and including the Harry Potter movies, produced by Warners). Richard Lester’s THE THREE MUSKETEERS was nominated for an award as Best British Film, despite being a French story, shot in Spain, by an ex-pat American director, with a mainly American cast, and the production being listed officially as Panamanian. Nobody protested, although Lester was a bit nonplussed. If Michael Powell had decided to shoot a film of THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, recreating New York in the studios at Pinewood, as he had Tibet for BLACK NARCISSUS, it’s likely that the debate would have concentrated on whether the choice was artistically wise. But to film a trashy potboiler on these shores, with Dermot Walsh (a Scot) and Sid James (a South African) essaying Amurrican accents, was somehow beyond the pale.

Of course, the reviewers had to justify their outrage by claiming that the film was both shoddy (inferior to the American originals) and vile. The movie is actually decently made, although it lacks the sweaty intensity of TEMPLE DRAKE — Linden Travers is no Miriam Hopkins, and Jack La Rue at 46 is no Jack La Rue at 31. He looks OK, but his face has drooped, and his intensity has slumped from 11 to about 4. He’s more hangdog than horndog.


As for vile, the film is pretty intense for 1948, with far more gratuitous violence than TEMPLE DRAKE, some of it quite protracted or explicit. The sex is mostly pan-to-the-fireplace stuff, although La Rue seems to place his big paw into the front of Travers’ dressing gown bathrobe at one point. But it’s probably the film’s attitudeto the transgressive stuff that caused the offense — and of course, since this was a faux-American film of a faux-American novel, a defense on the grounds of realism was unlikely to convince anyone.

Interestingly, writer-director St John Legh Clowes, in adapting the novel, has altered La Rue’s character, Slim Grisson, in much the same way Garrett changed Popeye to Trigger. Slim goes from being an impotent, mother-dominated loony nutjob to being a self-directed, sexually powerful alpha male. This time round the sex is consensual, since Slim is “too proud” to take a woman who doesn’t want him, but Blandish yields to his blandishments anyway. His behaviour towards her is rather gentlemanly, although he continues to murder everyone else in cold blood. What remains controversial is Blandish, a kidnapee, falling in love with her kidnapper, in what is presented as true love rather than Stockholm syndrome. 

At the film’s conclusion, the nice, normal people have managed to get Slim shot by the police and Blandish returned to her millionaire father, and they’re just congratulating each other on their virtue and effectiveness and normality normalcy and preparing to skip off into the sunset, when there’s a scream, and they rush into the Blandish boudoir. She’s gone out the window, unable to live without her bit of rough hunk.


The defenestrated heiress lies dead on the pavementsidewalk twenty storeys down, with unfeeling pedestrians trampling the orchid lying by her outstretched hand. I can see the symbolism Clowes is aiming for here, but it’s actually pretty funny how every damn shoe manages to descend on the crushed plant. Apart from the inappropriate hilarity, what’s most striking is the slap in the face delivered to the healthy, happy-ending sexuality of the heroes — the film really is a celebration of the abnormal and anti-social. And that was an unheard-of thing for British movies in 1948… apart from in the morbid romanticism of Powell and Pressburger, of course.

Another film of NO ORCHIDS is Robert Aldrich’s ’70s remake THE GRISSOM GANG. I’ve been unable to ascertain whether Grisson or Grissom is the name used in the original book. Kim Darby is a bland Blandish and Scott Wilson plays Grissom as the damaged creep of Chase’s novel, in a faithfully grubby and unpleasant version. Projectionists had to sterilise the light after it passed through the celluloid.

14 Responses to “Jack La Rue — Sexual Outlaw”

  1. Actually Flesh of the Orchid si a sequel to No Orchids For Miss Blandish in which Miss Blandish’s mentally unstable daughter is bedevilled by a coven of trecherous women out to get her money. For this group of women Chereau cast Simone Signoret, Alida Valli, Edwige Feuillere and Eve Francis — a star of Marcel L’herbier’s silent extravaganzas. It’s quite something, what with Rampling given to stabbing any man that comes near her in the eys with scissors. He tels me his big mistake was shooting it in the rain. But He’s worng. It’s quite lovely slice of grand guignol.

  2. I (willfully?) mis-read the title of this post as ‘Danny La Rue – Sexual Outlaw’.
    Time for another remake, methinks.

  3. Drag artist Danny La Rue has had a strange late flourishing as a superhero in Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol comic, as Danny the Street, a sentient street who can teleport from city to city (“the other streets just sorta MAKE ROOM for him”). Not only is he a thinking, moving street, he’s a shameless transvestite.

    David Wingrove is a big Flesh of the Orchid fan.

    From my reading, it appears that JH Chase was a dreadful plagiarist, not only nicking from Faulkner, but recycling a brilliant E Nesbitt ghost story as his own work.

  4. david wingrove Says:

    Not sure if I’m a big FLESH OF THE ORCHID fan or not. I would cheerfully pay money to watch Charlotte Rampling read the telephone book dressed in a potato sack, and I do love some – but by no means all – of Patrice Chereau’s work. (LA REINE MARGOT and GABRIELLE, yes please! JUDITH THERPAUVE and INTIMACY, no thanks!)

    However, the only print of FLESH OF THE ORCHID I’ve ever seen is a dubbed, faded, atrociously panned-and-scanned copy that was broadcast on British TV in the graveyard slot between 3 and 5 AM. I suspect it was cut to fit the commercials – firstly, because the plot makes little sense and, secondly, because Alida Valli is listed in the credits but I’ve watched the film repeatedly and cannot spot her anywhere.

    Sorry, but I just don’t feel able to judge a film under those circumstances. A decent (or at least complete) print is presumably available on DVD in France, and I may invest in one at some stage. Until then, I hang onto my old video tape as a curio – strictly for sad Charlotte Rampling completists like myself!

    By the way, does anybody out there have a copy of THE SKI BUM?

  5. I’ll go scouting for copies of those online. Was it you who observed that Flesh of the Orchid has essentially the same plot as La Reine Margot? Which I believe we both like.

  6. david wingrove Says:

    Yes, LA REINE MARGOT is essentially FLESH OF THE ORCHID with a higher costume budget…and I prefer Charlotte Rampling’s ice-cool psychosis to Isabelle Adjani’s over-the-top hysteria.

  7. Well, both have their place!

    No luck finding rare Chereau online, I should put out a call. But I did find Duvivier’s Phantom Carriage (with Fresnay and Jouvet, yippee!)

  8. […] Parker, as an aspiring legal somebody, off on a fling with a married woman, Linden Travers (Yay! Miss Blandish!). He’s the one who lies for the basest of reasons, to avoid a scandal. He also gets one of […]

  9. […] and fog, with the awesome feeling of a gutter as viewed by a microbe. Of course, the prime bug is Jack La Rue, his nose spread across his face as wide as his shit-eating grin. Dwan at first seems almost afraid […]

  10. Foredi…

    […]Jack La Rue — Sexual Outlaw « shadowplay[…]…

  11. I remember Jack Larue as “Lash Larue” in a series of movies my Grandma took me to, I didn’t pay much attention ot him as i was just 5 or 6 but when I saw him in an ochid for Miss Blandish last night on Turner classics I fell in love, he was so sexy and nice looking in a dangerous way, he would have been great in Casablanca. As Lash he was dressed in Black and carried a whip and he was the hero, that was unusual ot me considering he looked more lik ea villain in his black get up and carrying a whip which seemed ot have some effect on my little brain, he scared me, my Grandma loved him . It was good to see him again and I wondered where he had been all my life. He was really under rated I think, he was hot. I’m no woging ot Amazon and get all the non Lash LaRue movies I can find.

  12. I hate to disappoint, but Alfred “Lash” La Rue was a different actor. Easy to see how a child could be confused though, and now you know why he was such a revelation in gangster parts.

  13. ” With his ugly/handsome face and implacable macho arrogance, he comes across like a cross between Treat Williams and an erupting sperm volcano. He’s a pinstriped obscenity and he’s looking right at us.” – damn that’s tight. I’ve been a LaRue fan from this movie on, too. “The closer Temple gets to her violent deflowering, the slower time moves and the more dreamlike it all becomes. Long close-ups of Trigger’s face, his eyes glowering and never blinking; huge cigarette in the corner of his mouth; begin to resemble an Easter Island fertility demon; his oily sweat like rain, or worse.” – I guest taught this film in a class on American Literature and used it try and seduce the hot regular teacher from a Faulkner angle. I failed on all counts, and she took my DVD with her to goddamned Texas part time fellowship. I like to think it’s out there corrupting the state’s backwards dystopian idealism from the inside out!!

  14. I guess the Faulkner seduction angle is a tricky one to pull off. The man referred to a girlfriend as a “physical spitoon,” for instance, which is not recommended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: