Ho ucciso!

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.

Columbia Pictures updated Fydor Dostoyevsky's classic novel "Crime and Punishment" from its original era and set it during the bleak years of the Great Depression. The updating works due to an excellent director and a superb cast. Josef von Sternberg guided the production along with his usual flair, making "Crime and Punishment" an entertaining motion picture. In the film, Roderick Raskolnikov (Peter Lorre) murders a haggish, old pawnbroker and soon discovers that he hasn't committed the perfect crime. Inspector Porfiry (Edward Arnold) is on to him and starts a cat and mouse game with Roderick that nearly drives Roderick insane. Also, a sympathetic prostitute, Sonya (Marian Marsh), falls in love with Roderick and begs him to give himself up and face the punishment that is coming to him. Although clearly a B-Film (notice that there are not many extras in the cast), "Crime and Punishment" is a good example of how an entertaining film can be made on a limited budget.

This 1935 film of "Crime and Punishment" was one of Peter Lorre's greatest acting role, he had such great talent and he used every facial expression in the book as the guilt ridden suspect along with his famous soft boiled eyes! Edward Arnold took a back seat in this film, however, Marian Marsh gave a good performance and she looked radiant throughout the picture. These actors in 1935 made this film tops on my list of films. Peter Lorre like many actors were type cast and never were able to reach the high level of their talents.

Classic Russian literature is a wealth of psychological intentions, brimming with historical depravity and conversely elegance. Poverty and degradation was rife during the 18th and 19th centuries. This depth of psychological characterisation can most certainly be found in one of Russia's greatest writers, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and particularly in (in my opinion) his greatest work, Crime and Punishment which was published in instalments in 1866. (This publication is also one of my favourite books of all time).

The book (and of course this 1935 film) follows Raskolnikov (Peter Lorre), a lauded graduate of criminology, is witness to the depravity and selfishness of the culture around him. After seeing a young woman, Sonya (Marion Marsh), being ripped off by an old female pawnbroker (Mrs Patrick Campbell), he sees it as his duty to remedy the problem by murdering her. With his credentials as a master criminologist, Raskolikov believes he can commit the perfect crime. Unfortunately his actions do not go as he had planned, and the time spent after the murder he is overcome with paranoia.

It seems appropriate that this film was produced in the 1930's, during the Great Depression. The poverty and hypocrisy redolent in that decade were found in the Russia of the novel. Peter Lorre plays a fantastically paranoiac, and sweaty character, his facial contortions perfect instruments of doubt, scared awkwardness, and justified anguish. Raskolikov's path leads him to the chief of police, Porfiry (Edward Arnold), and his guilt begins to unravel.

This film was an incredibly low-budget affair, which hampers the director, Josef von Sternberg's, usual visual flares (in films such as The Blue Angel (1930) and Shanghai Express (1932)). This film was produced under Columbia Pictures, as Sternberg's previous employers, Paramount, had ended his contract with them. However, whilst it is technically flawed, and is largely unimaginative in the art department, it is still a beautiful film to watch. Certainly not the greatest adaptation of Dostoevsky, it does carry a great performance from Lorre, and packs in some of the psychological tension produced from the narrative.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

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.