The Brothers Karamazov

Novels and movies are separate disciplines and each has its own requirements. People who want to read Dostoevsky and people who want to know what one of his books is about also have separate needs. I am a Dostoevsky lover, and have read THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV in several translations (no, I don't know Russian). This film hits all the necessary high notes to cover the book's plot, and so the screenplay serves the film well. The brothers themselves (Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, Albert Salmi and William Shatner) turn in variable performances. Basehart comes in first place, with Brynner smoldering not far behind. A young William Shatner shows promise, while Salmi's inexplicable whine is almost unbearable, which is a shame because Salmi was a good, though underused, actor. Stealing the show from the brothers in every scene he's in is the wonderful Lee J. Cobb. Fans of the book will be disappointed at the excisions, but they were necessary to pare the story down to a workable movie. And, though I love the book and think it may be the world's great novel, I prefer the ending of the movie! Dostoevsky's book is open-ended as he intended it to be an introduction to characters he intended to use in further book -- but he died before it was written. So the movie wraps everything up nicely. Ivan's end scene is much preferable (no spoilers, though! See the movie and read the book!). Although Alexei is the main character in the book, he's basically an observer. Dmitri (perfectly captured by Brynner) is the powerhouse of the book and should be the focus in a dramatic adaptation, as he is here. A worthy effort in making an unfilmable novel filmable. If you want to know what the book is about but a thick novel is daunting, this film tells you everything you need to know.

The Brothers Karamazov has quickly become one of my favourite books, with its riveting story, interesting and thought-provoking themes and some of the most brilliant characterisation of any book (how many pieces of literature have characters this multi-dimensional?) I've ever read. This 1958 film version does pale in comparison, lacking the book's depth of characterisation, but does a brave job adapting a monumental and complex book with some scenes being impossible to film, and is a solid film overall.

It's not perfect. Sometimes the film is stodgily paced (some might say overlong, not to me, considering the length of the book and the amount of story there is if anything the film's too short). The ending was always going to be a reasonably problematic one, with it in the book being as open-ended as it is, but this viewer couldn't help shake off the feeling that the ending felt too rushed and incomplete here. Most of the casting came off surprisingly well, but there were reservations about Maria Schell, despite her alluring appearance and her impressively played early scenes she was generally too genteel for Grushenka, a role that was in need of more earthiness and peasant-like.

However, The Brothers Karamazov looks great, with lavish colour photography and an evocative re-creation of the opulent but also gritty 19th-century Russia period. It's scored with a stirring yet also understated richness by Bronislau Kaper, and does benefit from controlled direction by Richard Brooks and a literate script that really provokes though and, even when condensed with the essence and the religious and philosophical themes missing, makes an effort to keep to Dostoevsky's tone of writing and giving the film substance. It is not an easy job adapting a nearly 800 page book into a two-and-a-half hour film, and while not completely successful due, to feeling sometimes like highlights being present but not always to their full potential and major characters being significantly reduced (Alexei, Zosima) at the expense at focusing primarily on Dmitri, it does so laudably. It is still mostly riveting and there wasn't much trouble following the story, with the major events depicted and structured relatively faithfully, and there is enough atmosphere, suspense, emotion and mystery to give the story some flavour.

From the acting front, the film comes off surprisingly successfully considering that initially there were a couple of actors that seemed unlikely casting (i.e. William Shatner). The two that came off the most strongly were Yul Brynner and Lee J. Cobb. Brynner is very charismatic and gives the right emotional intensity and vulnerability, while Cobb gives his patriarchal role so much juice and life, his demeanour sometimes even quite intimidating (the role is a problematic one due to being one that could easily fall into overacted caricature, Cobb admittedly does overact but enjoyably and the character still felt real. Richard Basehart brings many layers and nuances to Ivan, Claire Bloom is spot-on as Katya and Albert Salmi is effectively insidious as Smerdyakov. William Shatner does suffer from a greatly reduced (in terms of how he's written) character, but surprisingly this is Shatner at his most subdued and moving, most of the time in his acting for personal tastes he's the opposite.

All in all, pales in comparison to the masterpiece that is the book but it is a brave attempt. Taking it on its own merits, which is a fairer way to judge, The Brothers Karamazov has short-comings but is a solid film overall. 7/10 Bethany Cox

As happens so often with film adaptations of great novels,we have a screenplay that will focus on the events of a novel,rather than on the underlying philosophical tenets and theories that seem to be involved.Perhaps it is inevitable that this be the case.The Karamazovs are,in actuality,the fragmented aspects of the author's

personality;a.)brutishness;b.)impulsiveness;c.)intellect;d.)spirituality;e.) depravity.(To wit;Feodor;Dimitri;Ivan;Alexis;Smerdyakov).And the real hero of the novel is Alexis.We are witnessing his growth and development as a hero against the sordid story of his family and the murder of their lustful,wicked father.It is development,particularly regarding the testing of his faith in the hard and often callous world,that marks the real journey of the story.This is minimalized in the film.I guess that this probably wouldn't have sold in 50s America.The adaptation ,given my observations,is really quite impressive.We can't fault any of the production values,efforts,and activities.And,with one exception,the cast is excellent.My one fault in this respect is with Lee J.Cobb.This outstanding character actor is much too young,virile,and attractive to portray accurately the character the author intended.Feodor Karamazov is supposed to be about 65,a physical wreck,sinister,and depraved.His physically debauched condition is intended to mirror his moral corruption.And,yet,given these attributes,he in nevertheless fascinating to women.(At least,certain kinds of women.I shudder to think what their agendas are if they find an old villain like this attractive.They must be as needy as all get-out,and viewing him through a fantasy veil that keeps out all accurate perceptions.)In my opinion,the late Donald Pleasence would have been a much more realistic choice for the part.Otherwise,given my criticism,this is a highly enjoyable film.

Hollywood rendition of the classic novel by Feodor Dostoyesky deals about the Karamazov family. It starts in Ryevsk, 1870, the father named Fyodor is a selfish libertine , he brutalizes and mistreats his sons . His four grown sons are Dimitri(Yul Brynner), an attractive, wealthy officer who is betrothed to rich Katya (Claire Bloom), the monk is named Alexi(William Shatner), a writer named Ivan (Richard Basehart) and the bastard (Albert Salmi). Dimitri falls in love with a beautiful woman named Grishenka(Maria Schell), but she's the father's lover. Then emerge the tensions , drama and tragedy when brothers and father struggle with their desires for the same women.

One of the most interesting films based on the novels by the fascinating Russian writer Feodor Dostoevsky - Crime and punishment-. The writers Julius and Philip Epstein -Casablanca- kicked out most of the psychological undertones of the original. This overlong picture is confined by the demands of melodrama and packs some flaws and gaps. Nevertheless it is full of masterly touches and unexpected flashes of intelligence. Nice performances by all star cast , especially by Richard Bashehart, William Shatner and Lee J. Cobb does an overacting. And Maria Schell who does a sensible and smiling performance as Grushenka, whose role Marilyn Monroe attempted desperately to get. Colorful cinematography by John Alton, a noted cameraman expert on noir cinema.

Good and intense direction by Richard Brooks. He was a fine writer/director so consistently mixed the good and average which it became impossible to know that to expect from him next. Firstly he worked regularly as a Hollywwod screenwriter. After that, his initial experience of directing was one of his own screenplays called ¨Crisis¨. The Richard Brooks films that have the greatest impact are realized during the 50s and 60s as ¨Cat on a hot tin roof, Something of value, Elmer Gantry, Sweet bird of youth, In cold blood, Lord Jim and the Professionals¨ and of course ¨The brothers Karamazov¨ .

After watching this film for the first time I can see where Jerome Weideman got the inspiration for the novel that became the basis for the films House Of Strangers and Broken Lance. The Menottis of the first film and the Devereauxs of the second were definitely inspired by The Brothers Karamazov.

The feelings for the father are the only thing that unite these four distinctly different brothers. Lee J. Cobb is a hard drinking, hard wenching, two fisted patriarch who is determined to beat everyone else in the game of debauchery. He's getting good competition from son Yul Brynner and it arouses some jealousy even though Brynner is engaged to a nice girl in Claire Bloom who also has a father giving both of them a run at that game. Things do come to a head when Brynner takes an interest in another woman who Cobb is currently keeping company with. In fact Inger Stevens and Cobb have a complicated scheme to get Brynner under their thumb through his gambling debts so he's forced to marry Bloom and start living respectively.

The other brothers are unique individuals themselves. Richard Basehart is a reporter for a radical newspaper with budding revolutionary thoughts. William Shatner is a pious novice monk, he and Basehart are a study in contrasts. Finally there is Albert Salmi who claims Cobb as his father and who Cobb treats like a doormat. Not that this brutish sadistic thug is worthy of anything. All of the sons suffer from a lack of a strong father figure.

The climax is when Cobb is murdered and Brynner is arrested for the crime. Fyodor Doestoyevsky is not Agatha Christie, people who like murder mysteries will have that solution figured out. But Doestoyevsky was writing this novel as a character study. Each of these brothers represent an extreme in terms of a way of living be it radical politics, religion, debauchery, or even brutish strength. An amalgam character of all of them would be a well adjusted man.

The Brothers Karamazov got one Oscar nomination, Lee J. Cobb for Best Supporting Actor. Papa Karamazov is certainly the kind of role that one cannot possibly overact in and Cobb feasts on enough scenery for three films. He lost the Oscar sweepstakes to another patriarchal portrayal that which Burl Ives did in The Big Country.

After over 50 years The Brothers Karamazov holds up very well, it's a good film and a good introduction to the works of Doestoyevsky. Try and see it back to back to back with House Of Strangers and Broken Lance.