It's not a spoiler to say Dostoevsky's CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is about a guy who tries to become a Nietzschean Superman by killing a pawnbroker (conveniently, one to whom he owes money) and the rest of the book feels guilt and remorse and is hounded by a policeman. Like the murder mystery THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, Agatha Christie could've wrapped these lengthy stories up in 180 pages.
But there is so much wealth in Dostoevsky about men wrestling with their demons (in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, inner demons; in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, demons inside, demons on a human level, and demons on a spiritual level). Though slick, I thought it was not as good as the stagey version starring John Hurt, who does "troubled" so well.
The actors were good enough and Ben Kingsley is nearly always good, but what was going to make or break this adaptation for me was Sonia's reading the raising of Lazarus. I've read CRIME AND PUNISHMENT thrice and each time (in different translations) I find that segment of the novel one of the most moving stretches in literature (I had to read C&P in translation, being handicapped by not knowing Russian--a terrible gap in my education). The scene is especially moving in that Sonia is a prostitute and Raskolnikov is a murderer, and both want out of their present situations. It points to a hope for and within them if they can shake off the cops.
Well, stories on tv have to move! But the way that scene rolled in this movie, it came off as a speed-read by a woman who looks half-crazed with what Hollywood thinks of as religious mania (that is, actually believing what you say you believe; with two-faced Hollywood types that's a no-no).
In other little ways I sensed either the writers or the producers or the director or *someone* in power was not in sync with Dostoevsky. In the 1970s, long before this movie was a twinkle in someone's eye, classics were dusted off and filmed (often with Richard Chamberlain or Anthony Andrews, and certainly with Jane Seymour) and treated as events. And after the show someone would come on and say, "If you want to read more . . . The Library of Congress recommends these books . . ." Perhaps whoever decided it was time to dust off CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, one of the most famous of the Russian classics but probably not widely read, presumed it was a nice intellectual cop-and-robber game with minimal violence and the story would be new to most Americans.
It's always saddening when one watches a movie based on an earlier work and feels the makers don't have much respect for the source material (it's devastating when on reads them actually say so, which I have done). This may be a problem across the board with modern (script) writers who seem to think they're superior to anyone who came before. All one has to do is read about the battles Jeremy Brett had with his script writers on his mostly-wonderful "Sherlock Holmes" series. He continually had to drag them kicking and screaming back to Arthur Conan Doyle.
Admittedly, some notoriously authors are difficult to adapt. P. G. Wodehouse wrote tightly-wound plots but airing his tales without his marvelous prose is only half the story. Dostoevsky wrote books about crises on many levels. First, on the story-level, where Raskolnikov struggles with what he's done and tries to shield it from the authorities. But then there is a struggle-beyond-the-struggle, where one senses Dostoevsky's characters are merely fronts for larger, spiritual forces fighting behind the scenes. Being a dedicated Christian (in the Russian Orthodox tradition) he no doubt had a very real sense of spiritual warfare (even more than Harry Potter, who had to fight against a real human being who went to school and everything).
It's perhaps impossible to depict the depth of Dostoevsky without a boring, talky script. It may be impossible to do any great novel for the screen without making it a "Cliff Notes" version. Still, one must go by the text, *and respect it.* Otherwise, leave it on the shelf. There's really not enough story in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT to make a lengthy movie without that respect.
But there is so much wealth in Dostoevsky about men wrestling with their demons (in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, inner demons; in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, demons inside, demons on a human level, and demons on a spiritual level). Though slick, I thought it was not as good as the stagey version starring John Hurt, who does "troubled" so well.
The actors were good enough and Ben Kingsley is nearly always good, but what was going to make or break this adaptation for me was Sonia's reading the raising of Lazarus. I've read CRIME AND PUNISHMENT thrice and each time (in different translations) I find that segment of the novel one of the most moving stretches in literature (I had to read C&P in translation, being handicapped by not knowing Russian--a terrible gap in my education). The scene is especially moving in that Sonia is a prostitute and Raskolnikov is a murderer, and both want out of their present situations. It points to a hope for and within them if they can shake off the cops.
Well, stories on tv have to move! But the way that scene rolled in this movie, it came off as a speed-read by a woman who looks half-crazed with what Hollywood thinks of as religious mania (that is, actually believing what you say you believe; with two-faced Hollywood types that's a no-no).
In other little ways I sensed either the writers or the producers or the director or *someone* in power was not in sync with Dostoevsky. In the 1970s, long before this movie was a twinkle in someone's eye, classics were dusted off and filmed (often with Richard Chamberlain or Anthony Andrews, and certainly with Jane Seymour) and treated as events. And after the show someone would come on and say, "If you want to read more . . . The Library of Congress recommends these books . . ." Perhaps whoever decided it was time to dust off CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, one of the most famous of the Russian classics but probably not widely read, presumed it was a nice intellectual cop-and-robber game with minimal violence and the story would be new to most Americans.
It's always saddening when one watches a movie based on an earlier work and feels the makers don't have much respect for the source material (it's devastating when on reads them actually say so, which I have done). This may be a problem across the board with modern (script) writers who seem to think they're superior to anyone who came before. All one has to do is read about the battles Jeremy Brett had with his script writers on his mostly-wonderful "Sherlock Holmes" series. He continually had to drag them kicking and screaming back to Arthur Conan Doyle.
Admittedly, some notoriously authors are difficult to adapt. P. G. Wodehouse wrote tightly-wound plots but airing his tales without his marvelous prose is only half the story. Dostoevsky wrote books about crises on many levels. First, on the story-level, where Raskolnikov struggles with what he's done and tries to shield it from the authorities. But then there is a struggle-beyond-the-struggle, where one senses Dostoevsky's characters are merely fronts for larger, spiritual forces fighting behind the scenes. Being a dedicated Christian (in the Russian Orthodox tradition) he no doubt had a very real sense of spiritual warfare (even more than Harry Potter, who had to fight against a real human being who went to school and everything).
It's perhaps impossible to depict the depth of Dostoevsky without a boring, talky script. It may be impossible to do any great novel for the screen without making it a "Cliff Notes" version. Still, one must go by the text, *and respect it.* Otherwise, leave it on the shelf. There's really not enough story in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT to make a lengthy movie without that respect.