Prestuplenie i nakazanie

First, I should admit that I have never read the novel on which this movie is based. Therefore, I don't know how well I can review the movie. But even so, I will say that "Prestupleniye i nakazaniye" (called "Crime and Punishment" in English) really chills you. We see how Raskolnikov completely loses his mind in the aftermath of his deeds. The black and white photography - plus the bleak, eerie setting - help give that feeling.

I don't know whether or not this is the best adaptation ever of Dostoyevsky's novel, but it's certainly not one that you're likely to forget. It's as chilling as St. Petersburg looks. I definitely recommend it.

PS: the name Rodion Raskolnikov describes his character. "Rodion" comes from the word meaning birth (implying rebirth), and "Raskolnikov" comes from the word meaning schism (implying mental breakdown).

Crime & Punishment being one of my favorite books, I've been trying to find a film adaptation that does the book justice. This is it! Prior to this version, I'd attempted to watch a couple American versions, which were loosely based on the novel but, of the few I found, I couldn't get through the first five minutes. This Russian adaptation, on the other hand, sucked me in immediately. Georgi Taratorkin was near perfection as the paranoid intellectual, Raskolnikov. On all accounts, the roles were well cast, the book's characters coming alive in three dimension on the screen. The screenplay also translated well from Dostoevsky's original, which is rare. And the film editing, though dated and in black-and-white, I would argue reflected the book's dark storyline. Great movie, and even greater book!

It is very interesting to compare this Russian version of "Crime and Punishment" with the Julian Jarrold version of 2002, since both are so outstandingly excellent, but in different ways. Also here all the actors' performances deserve nothing but praise, although some more than others, especially Georgi Taratorkin as Raskolnikov: he couldn't be more perfect, exactly as he is described in the novel, acting convincingly feverish enough all the way without overacting, while Sonia, Katerina and Dunia also are very well found, better than in the BBC production. The settings are also more than perfect, especially the den of Raskolnikov, better than in any other film and communicating precisely the correct atmosphere of the book. Rasumichin, Porfiry, the mother and Luzhin are less apt, Luzhin too much of a cad, Rasumichin too much dressed up, the mother like any mother and Porfiry as formal as a dummy. Here we enter the lacks of this film: it never really comes to life, it lacks the necessary dramatic touch, it is too stiff and formal, the lack of any music except sound effects gives it a certain sterility, and the scenography is entirely without imagination, like a formal theatre setting in the suburbs, although it's the same St. Petersburg so overwhelmingly well rendered in the BBC film. Still, Georgi Taratorkin is the best Raskolnikov you'll ever see, and you can't make a less than excellent movie on such a major masterpiece of world literature. Like the English film, the piety towards the original proves rewarding enough to to make the film a feature of paramount excellence.

Many scholars agree, that Fjodor Dostoevsky is a writer, whose works are notoriously hard to adapt into movies. This is not solely due to the length of many of his later novels, but because of the author's psychological storytelling, and the importance of inner monologue in his works. I've read "Crime and Punishment" twice, I really like it, and it's my favorite of his books next to "The Brothers Karamazov". If the adaptations of "Karamazov" have a nasty way of turning into simplified "whodunnits", the adaptations of "Crime and Punishment" are often tempted to become "perfect crime" narratives, if not straight-up Columbo episodes.

This being said, I usually have a fondness for adaptations of this novel, just like I have toward adaptations of Shakespeare's Hamlet or MacBeth. Even if the films are not masterful, they might still greatly benefit from the source material and stand out above average. The version by Sternberg and Peter Lorre is comically short, but has a certain charm. The same goes for the modernized treatment of Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki. Just because adapting Dostoevsky is hard, doesn't mean you can't try it.

This adaptation, by director Lev Kulidzhanov, is often hailed as one of the best "Crime and Punishment" adaptations. And it is very good. Due to the lengthy duration clocking in at almost four hours, this film has time for proper character development and thorough depiction of Raskolnikov's agony. And the visuals of the whole thing serve it great. This film is black and white, but most often it's really nothing but gray in its color palette, making it feel like a fever dream that refuses to end. It's dead calm and tormenting, which fits the novel perfectly.

The lack of a novel-like storyteller in a movie is fixed by giving the characters long monologues and dialogues, that can last small eternities. This really adds some feel of the book to the film. There are minor differences and things omitted from film, but this is always the case with adaptations, and not against the law. If some versions show Raskolnikov commit his crime mostly because of his Nietzche-like super-mensch theories, this adaptation stresses the financial difficulties that he faces. I love the look of his apartment in this film, with his living quarters being much smaller than in some western adaptations. When the protagonist has visitors, which is nearly always, it feels like they are really pressing towards his skin. This film is very claustrophobic.

My favorite character in this adaptation, and in most adaptations, is Porfiri, who is played in quiet determination by Innokentiy Smoktunovskiy. This was my favorite performance in the film, the character is sparingly used and many of his lines are kept in tact from the novel. The Raskolnikov in this version is one of the most distant, and least-relatable I have seen in any film. This might have to do with the subtle way, that the lead performance has been written and directed. He has many great scenes too.

In conclusion, in all areas of film-making, this Soviet film has merits to it. Though it's not perfect, and no adaption can beat the book, it's dark, ambitious, made with determination and appreciation for the source text.

This Russian version -- didn't expect that much, especially being a 1970 movie - but it was free as an Amazon prime member. And Wow! - so much more advanced than most 1970 movies stateside-- such realism, such minute observations, so well capturing the essence of the lives and small homes (hovels often) and wonderfully local faces. Unbelievably great choice in cast-- and the best of all is Georgi Taratorkin who plays Raskolnikov. First, he has a fascinating, beautifully chiseled face that alone is enough to holds your interest throughout. And what a masterful job he does, as if he is actually living through all the torments and various other emotions that the character went experienced. Not a false step (to the extent I can tell being dependent on subtitles)

I see on IMDb that Crime and Punishment is being made again in US (there many versions -- as with Anna Karenina, they just keep redoing ), but do not believe any could beat this film. Chilling yet beautiful.

By the way, IMDb says it is black and white. What I've watched on Amazon is in warm, rich, authentic-appearing color -- if colorized, not detectable as such.