Idiot

I don't know if it is a good film. But, for certain ,it is a masterpiece.

For Dostoievsky's universe the words are unavailing. The comments are only games of vain ambition, trips in narcissistic nooks. The biography, the verdicts are slices of personal vision and not search of truth.

Dostoievsky is expression of his work. And his books are the territory of a well-organized world.

This film is the exceptions of my remarks. "Idiot" is a jeweler's achievement. Every nuance, every detail is careful polished. It is a example of to restore a masterpiece. A subtle acting, a gorgeous Lev Myshkin, a spectacular script. In fact, the result of a terrible fight between novel and film, between word and image, expression of Bortko's deep respect for a magnificent creation.

It is so remarkable for his art that the beginning of East European pride is made. But this film is not TV product. It is foretaste of a impressive spirituality, of a special refuge, about the price of illusion in Russian space, about the relation with a far Occident.

The first value of film is the language. Soft, worm, subtle, old, it is the atmosphere of a fascinating time and space, a literature and belief. Is it too little?

This is so extraordinary that each episode is absorbing and exhausting. It is also cathartic and draining. It has an intensity unknown in almost all TV. This is emotionally intense and almost deranged in the craziness of the characters as they purge each other, destroy the facades of each other, and continue to live as desolate souls.

This is not easy to watch and it follows the book closely. The acting is superb, the direction and overall production style is rather like those films of the 1970s that Bertolucci made in that era, but the intensity is turned up to absolute maximum.

This is really the most powerful piece of TV or film in a long time and shows how the writer shapes the final experiences because this story is utterly wild. It digs deep into the soul and does not relent.

The director's daring quest to film a script as close as possible to the book is also the movie's greatest weakness. The second half of the book, and hence of the movie, is emotionally much less active than the first half, so the contrast is naturally emphasized due the movie time format. The result is that the second half of the movie is plain boring.

Everything else is a success - photography, music, cast ( a brilliant cast, except an overly hysteric and non-charming Nastasya ), costumes, the very atmosphere of the dark and psychotic Petersburg of Dostoyevsky are meticulously combined into a theatrical, even intimate, show. The Prince's protagonist Parfion gives energetic, raw-power perfomance ( too bad he wears same black suit through the whole movie, a bit pathetic ). The Prince's best parts are his thralling monologues, when one can almost physically sense how the others' cynicism is extinguished by his naive sincerity.

The movie should appeal to the fans of 'psychological' genre, as special effects and action are obviously absent here.

Vladimir Bortko's Idiot is a faithful translation of Dostoyevsky's novel. I had read the novel again just recently before watching this 10 part, nearly 10 hour miniseries and I don't think that any of the key characters or events are left out, which is quite a feat in itself. All the characters are true to the novel. I found that parts, especially in the second half, were slow, but I found the novel to be slow in those parts as well.

As an American with no knowledge of Russian, I had to rely on the translation, which varied from very good (at least grammatically correct) to nearly incomprehensible. It was as if the translator went occasionally crazy and then recovered. However, it was good enough in all parts to follow although I found myself hitting the pause button to read some of the longer captions. The DVD, as far as I know, is available in the US only at www.rbcmp3.com.

I found myself comparing this version to Kurosawa's. I think the two Russian male leads (Prince M. and Rogozhin) were as good as their Japanese counterparts, which is saying a lot, since Masayuki Mori and Toshiro Mifune were great in those parts. Mironov and Mashkov both capture the essence of their characters, the Prince's innocence and Rogozhin's violent love--hate relationship with Nastassya. I don't think the two female leads were as good as their Japanese counterparts, but it's difficult to beat the great Setsuko Hara. Kurosawa's film, cut down to 166 minutes, could only present a fraction of the novel's events and characters, but did a great job in choosing the ones to include. Only the character of Lebedev was really missed in the Japanese version. Lebedev, by the way, is terrific in this version. The Russian version really lets you get acquainted with the more minor characters like Hippolite and Keller.

Inna Churikova is a standout as Lizaveta Epanchina, a key character in both the films and novel.

Definitely recommended for fans of the novel and anyone who likes to settle into a good ten hour drama.

This is the first time ever that after reading a book, I see the film adaptation and (almost) everything is just as I imagined while reading the book! Absolutely amazing!!! The casting is just perfect (excepting one character), the atmosphere, just everything is wonderfully caught on film. The way Evgeny Mironov plays Prince Miushkin, and Olga Budina's acting... just superb!!! Not forgetting Vladimir Mashkov (Rogojin), Inna Churikova (Elizaveta Epanchina) and nearly all the rest of the cast!

Just a few minor points:

• Nastasia Philipovna was not as spectacular as I imagined. Somehow I expected more of her beauty and acting. - The film should have started at the train scene, just as in the book!!! I can't explain why, but I felt like this was essential for the beginning of the story.

But altogether, a wonderful job on this one, thank you Mr. Bortko!