Crimen y castigo

I read the book so long ago that I'd forgotten many details, which was fine - I watched it as a rainy afternoon film presented by Ted Turner, and it is indeed a Turner Classic Movie.

Slammed by many, it is in fact very well written, extremely well acted, and a revelation of Peter Lorre's range. He carries the film brilliantly. It's essentially a long dialog between Raskolnikov, a brilliant, impoverished writer on crime, and Inspector Porphyry, nicely interrupted by Raskolnikov's thoughts on crime, interludes with his family, and his love-life. Made on a low budget, it proves yet again that money isn't everything. Intense, excellent acting, direction, editing and camera work do the job, as with so many low budget European films. It's about people and ideas, not special effects and stardom.

What you get is a minor classic with no empty spaces and nothing extra. The narrative drive is cumulative and very human. Deprived of Dietrich, von Sternberg has no problem, and gets the best out of Edward Arnold and Marian Marsh (and everyone else) as well as Lorre. No weak spots, all class. It's also the perfect demonstration of how to find an excellent film in a great novel: by not trying to include everything, but going to the heart of the matter.

Josef von Sternberg directed this version of "Crime and Punishment," starring Peter Lorre, Edward Arnold, and Marian Marsh in 1935. It's an updating of the great novel, with Lorre as a man tortured by his own conscience.

It's a fairly dreary-looking affair, quite dark, with impressive use of shadows. The most interesting aspect of the way it was filmed to me is how Lorre's small stature is emphasized, as if the staircase, for instance, was over-sized.

The incomparably beautiful Marian Marsh is the prostitute who tries to help him, and she gives a very gentle and heartfelt performance. Edward Arnold is the bombastic head of the murder investigation of the pawnbroker (Mrs. Patrick Campbell) - he's plenty scary. I don't blame Lorre for being a complete wreck.

Lorre is excellent playing a character who vacillates between arrogance one minute and fear the next. Definitely in the top ten of unusual faces and voices in film history, his hooded eyes show the torture the character is suffering.

Definitely worth seeing for von Sternberg's direction, Lorre and Marsh.

I have spent my entire adult life reading and teaching the works of Dostoevsky, and as such I often approach film adaptations with a great deal of trepidation. Cinematic adaptations of ambitious Russian novels inherently involve a tremendous amount of compromise and reduction. At worst, they become embarrassing comic-book imitations of the original, and, at best, they become representative distillations, provocative fragments.

If one wants to see the best attempt at the latter, one should see the 1970 Kulidzhanov film version, which hews as close as possible to the original spirit and themes of the novel.

This 1935 von Sternberg version does not fall neatly into either category. It certainly makes some wrenching changes to the original-- not just in terms of plot details (such changes are inevitable for the cinematic form), but even to the thematic spirit of the original (Roderick receiving such high honors at the outset; Roderick entering a such a strident Napoleonic phase _after_ the crime; the momentary 180-degree reversal in Sonia's final speech), but what does come through successfully is a kind of gestalt rumination on the original novel. If Dostoevsky's novel was an exquisitely perfect, ambitious symphony, this film is a jazz rhapsody on the theme of the book; it borrows and rearranges motifs and creates its own new song, a song nothing like the original in particulars, but a worthwhile song on its own merits.

The film certainly seems to make full use of the serendipitous similarity in appearance between Lorre and Napoleon in his most famous portraits (Lorre even hams it up by sliding his hand under his vest at one point, which is the stereotypical Napoleonic gesture). And the decision to set the story in no particular city, it seems to me, was a judicious one, as it eliminates much of the painful artificiality that inevitably comes when Anglophone films attempt to portray Russian society.

In short, I do think this is a worthwhile film if it is judged as a creation unto its own-- not the novel per se, but a kind of Hollywood, proto-noir inspired by the great book.

Crime and Punishment (1935)

*** (out of 4)

Dostoyevsky's classic novel turned into a classic film by the legendary von Sternberg. In the film Peter Lorre plays a brilliant but poverty stricken criminalologist who resorts to murder when his mom and sister are threatened with being homeless. The crime seems to go off without a hitch until his conscience begins to haunt him and his fear of a detective (Edward Arnold) starts to cause more panic. This is an extremely impressive version of the novel and also features a terrific performance by Lorre but the real beauty here is the vision by von Sternberg. His stamp is all over this film and it's easy to see early on with the beautiful lighting, which creates some wonderful atmosphere and real tension. The way the cinematography picks up each and every shadow just makes the tension in the story build and build and this is especially true right after the murder when Lorre panics and tries to get away without being seen. This entire segments contains some great suspense and the director gets most of the credit. I found Lorre's performance to be one of the greatest of his career because he's actually got quite a bit too do here. Not only must he play a genius but he also must show fear, panic and even a comic tone. When Lorre's character loses his fear it turns into some comic touches and he delivers on all the notes. Arnold turns in another strong performance and his laid back approach is perfect opposite Lorre's breakdown. The one weak spot in the film for me is the final act, which seems to be drawn out too long due to Lorre's relationship with a poor woman (Marian Marsh). Mrs. Patrick Campbell is downright wicked in her role of the murdered pawnbroker. With a little bit of editing this movie could have been a real masterpiece of the genre but as it stands, this is a perfectly entertaining "B" movie that has plenty going for it.

Josef von Sternberg, Peter Lorre, and Fyodor Dostoevsky - that's quite a combination. It's a daunting task to put such a long and rich novel into film, and this one in particular, which had Dostoevsky plumbing the depths of human psychology. If you can forgive it for using the novel as a rough framework and appreciate it for what it delivers, I think you'll probably like it, despite what von Sternberg said afterwards.

Peter Lorre plays Raskolnikov, and as always, has wonderful screen presence. He's truly captivating, and works so well with von Sternberg's Expressionist/proto-noir shadows and tight shots. It seems to me he over-acts his part in showing too much agitation early on in the police investigation, when he's not even suspected, and should have been icy cool to let some of that energy build. With that said, the cat-and-mouse game that he and Inspector Porfiry (Edward Arnold) play is fantastic, with verbal sparring, subtle hints and gestures, and each trying to outwit the other. The comic/dramatic scene he has with his sister's suitor is also fantastic, blending outrage with barbs that had me smiling.

The rest of the cast is all strong, and includes Marian Marsh as Sonya, the pious poor woman he falls for and who helps spur his conscience. In the film it's not made clear that her character is a prostitute, as she is in the book. It's also interesting that the second murder, of Lizaveta, the serving girl who walks in on the first, is omitted. Those alterations were quite possibly made because of the production code, but seem to me part of a larger mistake, tipping empathy to Raskolnikov as the murderer of just an evil old pawnbroker because of his poverty, when we should be feeling the horror of a sociopath bordering on nihilist, who murders in large part because he thinks he can get away with it.

As other critics point out, the fact that his conscience is part of his downfall is a bit naïve, but this is an aspect of Dostoevsky's masterpiece. It just doesn't conceive of the fact that there are people out there who can commit these kinds of crimes, and suffer no pangs of guilt at all about it, even if someone else gets wrongly convicted.

As you can see from the direction my review took despite my introductory paragraph, comparisons to the novel are inevitable. How interesting it is to read that von Sternberg himself disliked the film, and did it only out of contractual obligation. Even so, I think he delivered. There is enough here to make the film entertaining - solid direction, clean story-telling, and great performances.