Prestuplenie i nakazanie

I recently read the novel for the first time and loved it. But I really wanted to hear the characters speak in Russian and not in the faint British accent I imagined reading my English edition. I don't speak or read Russian, so a film with subtitles was my only option. Having no experience with Soviet-era cinema, and as a child of the Cold War, I'll admit I went into the viewing with far too many suspicions of this "state sponsored" adaptation. I was pleasantly surprised by the obvious respect with which the story was treated.

The film perfectly captured almost every nuance of the novel, such as Rodya's claustrophobic physical and mental existence as well as the bleakness of St. Petersburg's slums. The characters were all faithfully portrayed, except maybe for Svidrigailov. He seemed to be portrayed more sympathetically than I think Dostoevsky would have intended. While he certainly was a tragic figure, I didn't read him as being quite as gallant as he appeared in the film.

My only other gripe is one I've read on here somewhere else. There is no hint of the redemption Raskolnikov experiences which is so essential to the whole story. But don't let this, or any of the other comments on IMDb about the film's pace or length deter you from watching it. Anyone who loves the novel and yearns to hear the story told in its native tongue will find the experience a rewarding one.

Despite a 3 hour 40 minute running time, this film just scrapes the surface of Dostoevsky's great novel. It manages to lose all trace of the (usually bleak) humor that pervades the work and also every hint of the religious message that provides the underpinning of the story. Despite these reservations, this film is nonetheless worth seeing for the performances -- especially those of Georgi Taratorkin as Raskolnikov and Yefim Kopelyan as Svidrigailov. Innokenti Smoktunovsky appears as a quirky Police Inspector on Raskolnikov's trail. The film also does a good job of depicting the shabby milieu in which Raskolnikov lives. This is slated for release on DVD, one of these days, by Ruscico.

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.

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.

I watched this movie when I was a child on TV and I rewatched it now, I think it's wonderful, everything is exactly how I imagined when I was reading the book I'm glad they stuck to the book and like someone said here I don't complain it's too long I wanna see it over and over again. The characters are portrayed very well but most of all I liked Georgi Taratorkin as Raskolnikov. I saw he's even born in Saint Petersburg exactly like the main character he's playing. I didn't see other adaptations even if they are many as I heard because I can imagine how they are... c'mon if you wanna see this you gotta see it made by Russians and in Russian language, it's their territory all the way... (by the way I spent a lot of time translating the subtitles cause the ones I found were very bad but I enjoyed it and it worth every minute) I would like to say more but I want to see it again which I advise you to do it too, bye.