Delitto + castigo a Suburbia

> This (very) loose rendition of Dostoyevsky's novel is at least smart enough not to forget the basic moral dimensions of the book - but they are present only basically. Dostoevsky's complex, nightmarish theological wrestlings are more or less summed up as `So, like, you believe in Jesus, like.' I start with my main beef because the film is strong, weak, confused, and intriguing. It continues the genre initiated by Freeway and continued by Cruel Intentions (contemporary teen drama based in/contrasted with classical literature and myth), but moves beyond them. The narrator is an authentically whacko seer, Vincent (Vincent Kartheiser), part angel, part demon, a living example of Dostoyevsky's most painful but genuine thesis that genuine morality comes from those who have sinned, people who understand the breadth of human capacities for good and evil. The `Raskolnikov' figure is not an arrogant genius but teenage girl Roseanne, whose life at the start is fairly normal, mixing equal parts anxiety at home (parents hate each-other) and working for popularity at school (she's a cheerleader who dates football player Jimmy), embarking on an unconcerned hedonism condoned by modern suburban existence. Her stepfather (Michael Ironside) is either a stroke or a psychotic fit waiting happen, stewing in deep frustration as his wife (Ellen Barkin) withdraws from him into an affair with cool, romantic barkeeper Eric (Jeffrey Wright, in an oddly small role), resulting in Ironside assaulting the couple in the local yogurt barn. As home life disintegrates, Roseanne's social position is rocked. Earlier seen trying to anchor the seething emotions of her parents, Rosanne is left in the middle of an escalating marital war with her social embarrassment acute. Things spiral into the lower depths when a drunken Ironside rapes Roseanne, precipitating her breakdown at school and then her planning with Jimmy to murder her stepfather.

Obviously Roseanne isn't really an equivalent of Raskolnikov; if you can say she exists in a Godless fashion it's just in the generally unacknowledged manner of modern life and not because of a conscious intellectual challenge, and her murder is fuelled by personal, even justifiable animus; this situation is taken from the sort of occasional psychotic excesses of suburban life we hear about on the news now and then, or see for ourselves. Fair enough; Dostoyevksy and other 19th century writers liked basing their stories upon real crimes and incidents that would be both authentic starting points and also accorded to themes that the writers were interested in.

So although the movie more or less skips around updating Raskolnikov as a character, it does lead into the novel's development. Vincent takes the place of Raskolnikov's prostitute lover as the informing presence of redemption. Although introduced tattooing the apparently nihilistic emblem `Por Nada' on his arm, Vincent actually has a weird form of Christianity that balances his overt perversity (he likes following and photographing Roseanne at all hours), and becomes, as he predicted, a figure to lean on for Roseanne; she is despite herself steadily drawn towards his lurking, warped philosophical self. As Barkin has been arrested and put on trial for Ironside's murder, Roseanne is faced with either confessing or letting her mother go to prison or possibly be executed. Anyone who knows how the book goes knows where it is going (for those who don't, don't read on), as Vincent, who has photographed Roseanne committing the murder, refuses to hand her in, instead subtly encouraging her to confess. She eventually does so, suffering a period of imprisonment where she takes over the narration, glad she isn't noticed anymore. Vincent is the only person who comes to visit her and eventually when she is released, and they ride off together on his motorcycle, evoking for me Allen Ginsberg's `Angleheaded Hipsters'.

The problem the film encounters is in updating Dostoyevksy's moral dilemmas. The story makes the incidents too personal; it's very much easier for Roseanne's gnawing guilt to be inspired by her mother's imprisonment as opposed to the poor unfortunate Raskolnikov's killing is blamed on, just as her murder is less problematic. Also, Vincent's Christianity isn't as strongly affiliated with a love of humanity as Dostoyevsky's, although it is implied that Vincent's way can accept people no matter how damaged because they are all born of the same imperfection. These things said, the film is always edgy, tough, and entertaining, particularly stylish in the pep rally filmed to resemble a form of black mass.

I would be more perplexed by the low rating and the many vituperous reviews if I didn't understand as much as I do about family dysfunction, alcoholism, irresponsible behavior and all that. Some people don't like this much truth in their faces. Oddly, it's not just the perps; it's often the victims, as well.

For me, this is just an artfully rendered case study of the stuff I deal with four days a week. But I see more Victor Hugo (and "Les Miserables") here than I do Dostoyevsky.

Yeah; I agree the execution is uneven. At times to the point of being almost senseless. But that may be part of the charm. Life in the world described here -is- uneven. At times to the point of being almost senseless. (How many adolescent females with alcoholic parents have I known who think life is senseless? A hundred? -Two- hundred?)

Can't say I "enjoyed" this movie. The "Jimmy Stewart" character (from "Rear Window") is just a little too obsessed to work in the world of a young victim / victimizer who seems, at least, to be trying to make sense of it all. The trial scenes may well be meant to have a dreamlike quality, but they just seem disconnected. And the whole trip is plain ugly.

But the fact that the whole trip -is- so ugly is a major reason why this film demands to be seen. Alcohol; frustrated, narcissistic fathers; cougar moms and hottie daughters are a recipe for disaster that's being cooked daily in suburban America. This is reality in modern America. It'd be nice to put a stop to it before our whole culture becomes dysfunctional.

Nice little wake-up call here.

I knew nothing about this film before I saw it, so I was hoping it would be some undiscovered classic. Quite soon, however, I realised that it was pretentious nonsense. It had the air of being made by some studio in order to appeal to teenagers who write rubbish goth poetry in their bedrooms. It makes awful, contrived attempts to be "arty", while forgetting to add any actual meaning. The characterisation is almost non-existent, people don't seem to have any justifications for their actions, and while they may occasionaly give reasons verbally the acting is so poor that the motivation just isn't there. The dialogue, especially in the voice overs, is terrible and amateurishly written. The pace is painfully slow, since I hadn't read a synopsis of the film (and I'm not familiar with the source material, and the same probably goes for the target audience, which shows how misjudged the film is) I spent a long time wondering when this film would get to its point and indeed where it was going. There is no need for it to be so slow, and there is also no point in dividing it up into sections other than to have "cool" titles like "Damaged little f***ers" flashing up on the screen. Dividing it up into sections only serves to highlight the lack of structure and the inconsistency of the plot. The film is narrated from the point of view of a character who only appears sporadically throughout the film, and the film ends by concluding a plot line that is not very prominent except at the very beggining, so is quite pointless, yet acts like it is some kind of high art.

I realise this review probably reads like a jumbled mess but then so does this film. Life is too short for garbage like this.

"C&P in Suburbia" is a dark and somewhat staged psychodrama with misanthropic overtones which focuses on the teen daughter of a family in crisis and her search for self-actualization. This well cast, well acted, well shot, well directed flick's story is likely to be too black or severe for many. However, those who feel inclined to write this film off as "unrealistic junk" should remember one word. Columbine.

Crime and Punishment In Suburbia is just slightly above the normal teen character study of murder and guilt. It's bogged down by uneveness, some scenes feeling genuine and intriguing, others feeling as if they were lifted from the latest MTV video.

Crime and Punishment stars Monica Keena as a popular high school student dating jock boyfriend James Debello and yearned for by loner/outcast Vincent Kartheiser. Her parents' marriage (Ellen Barkin and Michael Ironside) is falling apart, and Keena is unwittingly caught in the middle of their violent breakup. After a altercation with her father, she decides to put him out of his misery.

The story is nothing new or groundbreaking, but the film is elevated by some genuinely disturbing scenes, as well as a few provocative performances. Ironside's pathetic father is a powerhouse of bitterness and brooding rage, and DeBello as the naive, dumb football player boyfriend eminates a tragic quality, bringing compassion to his character: this isn't the stereotypical dumb jock, it's just a young man trying to desperately grasp onto a situation he simply can't understand. These two performances bring the most strength to the film, overshadowing the sometimes cardboard performances by vengeful, doe-eyed daughter Keena and loner Kartheiser.

Crime and Punishment is no breath-taking thrill ride, nor is it a slow-paced potboiler. With an sometimes raw, indie feel to it but sometimes muddled script, it's certainly worth a look, if just for two terrific performances, one from veteran Ironside and the other from newcomer DeBello.

6 out of 10