Mystery in the air - Crime and Punishment

[Violet]

[Mrs Vindecco]

Obviously much more condensed than the film, but still a joy to listen to. It's interesting to hear how Peter's accent had altered dramatically within a decade and he plays certain bits of dialogue slightly diiferently to the film. If anyone was to give Crime and Punishment a proper release, they should include this radio adaption in the extras.

[woofy]

My background is in Russian Literature. Regarding the Von Sternberg / Lorre film, I'm tempted to say that the "crime" was in the adaptation and the "punishment" is having to sit through this desecration of Dostoevsky. I'm tempted to do so, but I won't because the film is a lot of fun to watch in spite of its shortcomings.
The only adaptation of C&P which, imho, does justice to the author's intentions is the 1979 BBC series starring John "Caligula" Hurt. I highly recommend that one if you can Netflix it.
[BTW, the 1958 Richard Brooks version of The Brothers Karamazov with Yul Brynner and Maria Schell is a real hoot. As with C&P it kind of gives you "the flavor" of Dostoevsky without the deep psychological and spiritual issues he delves into. Another crummy adaptation that's a lot of fun to watch.]

[Mrs Vindecco]

John Hurt is a great actor, so I shall definately check out this version.

When it comes to interpretating classical works of literature it seems difficult to get it right. Adapting is an art in itself. However, it seems as if in the 1930's, film makers were really poor at adapting the classics, sometimes omitting characters, important parts of the plot or adding something that's not in the book and doesn't really add anything to the story. I'm mainly thinking of some Dicken's adaptions.

I read Crime and Punishment for the first time quite recently, so I am no where near qualified to judge the film in comparison with the novel, but I thought it was an enjoyable enough. Enjoyable, not amazing or a film that illustrates bitterness or the hardships of poverty, which is what I guess it should have done.

I like it because when I read about the film, there was nothing that positive to say. However I was surprised it was good at it was, though I agree it could have been better. I don't know how Lorre could have improved with the script and direction he was given. The other characters are just a bit too cardboard cut-out for me and I miss some of the background to these characters.

[woofy]

Yes, you can't really film a novel because of its innate complexity; you can only adapt it. That being said, however, I believe an attempt must be made to convey the main ideas the author was aiming at. With a lot of modern novels, especially adventure novels, there is little psychological depth to the characters and it becomes easy to transfer those novels to the screen. (I suspect they were written with that possibility in mind.) With the great masterpieces of literature, however, complex characters with complex motivations are the norm. If you choose to film Crime and Punishment, you need to try and be faithful to the ideas Dostoevsky was trying to get across. The movie versions I've seen of that novel--even the Russian versions I've seen--have concentrated on the more superficial elements of plot.
I've tortured the members of the Lorre List with my interpretation of C&P far too much, so I won't attempt to do so here. Suffice it to say that the true meaning of Raskolnikov's "journey" is uncovered during his penal servitude in Siberia. Most adaptations have missed the author's point entirely and concentrated on the "crime" part of the title, treating the work as if it were an Agatha Christie type of crime novel. It isn't. It is really an Orthodox religious allegory.

[meerschwein]

The more I see of Sternberg's work the more I think "Blue Angel" was a fluke. He was a great cinematographer, no doubt, but his sense of dramatic storytelling was crude and erratic. Maybe he was one of those filmmakers like Fellini and Capra (and, in my opinion, Woody Allen) who really needed a screenwriter collaborator to make fully rounded films.

I suppose you could also say that two not very well-educated Viennese Jews working in studio-era Hollywood were about the last people in a position to express the essence of "Crime and Punishment" that Woofy's talking about.

[woofy]

Jul 29, 2012 23:49:31 GMT meerschwein said:

The more I see of Sternberg's work the more I think "Blue Angel" was a fluke. He was a great cinematographer, no doubt, but his sense of dramatic storytelling was crude and erratic. Maybe he was one of those filmmakers like Fellini and Capra (and, in my opinion, Woody Allen) who really needed a screenwriter collaborator to make fully rounded films.

I suppose you could also say that two not very well-educated Viennese Jews working in studio-era Hollywood were about the last people in a position to express the essence of "Crime and Punishment" that Woofy's talking about.

I find Sternberg's best film to be The Scarlet Empress. Just my taste, however, and probably related to the fact that it concerns Russian history.
The "essence of C&P" is a good way to put it. The Penance (Sentence) is meaningless unless it is accompanied by true Contrition and it is only the combination of the two that will lead to Raskolnikov's Salvation. And it is only when he is in Siberia that Rakolnikov comes to feel true Contrition. If you leave that part of the novel out of the adaptation, you've missed "the essence" of C&P.