User reviews

Like The Brothers Karamazov, also by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment is a literary masterpiece, with a story that entertains and completely engrosses, a striking degree of psychological tension, interesting themes and as ever fantastic characterisation (if not as multi-dimensional as those in The Brothers Karamazov). But, as with The Brothers Karamazov, because of the mammoth length, the amount of depth, Dostoevsky's very intelligently literate but quite wordy style and the themes, adapting a story of this length and depth was never going to be easy and this 1935 French version does a noble job doing so.

Of the two versions seen of Crime and Punishment, both from 1935 (the more well-known version being the Josef von Sternberg film with Peter Lorre) neither are perfect but both are very solid films and worth watching. If there was a personal preference between the two, they are about equal but there is a slight preference towards this. In terms of how it's adapted, the tone, substance and psychological tension of the story are kept intact but because of cramming a long book into less than two hours it is understandably and inevitably condensed with omissions and things that are still here but not given the amount of development they could have had. As in the von Sternberg adaptation Sonya I agree is treated in a rather underdeveloped way here, which gives little room for Madeleine Ozeray to give the charm and emotional vulnerability needed, and while the romance wisely doesn't overshadow the main story of the crime and how it affects Raskolnikov it is written in such a bland, low-key way it was like it was almost forgotten about.

However, this film is incredibly well-made, and far superior to the production values in the von Sternberg film. The sets are laden with a real sense of doom, the lighting is eerily shadowy and the photography is both creepy and luminous. Arthur Honnegar's haunting music score fits the mood like a glove, the script is clever and literate with the tension between Raskolnikov and Porphyre nail-biting and the story never drags its course over the nearly two hour length, the double crime scene is a masterstroke of gripping intensity and atmosphere, Raskolnikov's anguish is wholly convincing and never seemed overplayed and the chemistry between Raskolnikov and Porphyre is tension-sizzling. Pierre Chenal directs beautifully, allowing the atmosphere and tension to never slip, and the performances of the two leads along with the art direction is one of the film's main pleasures. Pierre Blanchar's interpretation of Raskolnikov is not quite as creepy as Peter Lorre's but it's more subtle, more nuanced and even more movingly anguished, without overplaying it (even just his feverish appearance is enough to convince one of the extent of the guilt). Even better is the brilliant Harry Baur (who I last saw as the definitive Valjean in the best film version of Les Miserables), the more anguished Raskolnikov and more suspicious Porphyre gets the more almost frightening the film gets.

In conclusion, a good, solid film that's sadly underseen. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment" has been adapted to the screen many times, from the silent era to contemporary 21st-century teen drama and from Hollywood, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Sweden and, of course, Russia, as well as elsewhere. Two of the more-studio-bound versions were released in 1935 from opposite sides of the Atlantic. While it seems that today the American one by renowned director Josef von Sternberg and star Peter Lorre is the better known (although still relatively little seen by non-classic-film buffs), this French film is superior in essentially every respect. Merely as a condensed transmutation of the novel's plot and selected scenes, it may be the best I've seen, and I've listed and reviewed 24 movies inspired by the book since reading it.

On the other hand, this one is hindered by the same sort of objective perspective of its 1935 American counterpart. I suppose this is an ordinary limitation of cinema, which is an inherently spectatorial or observational medium and so fails to internalize a character's stream of consciousness in the way prose may seem better suited. Indeed, few films succeed in sustaining an externalization of, the protagonist of the story, Raskolnikov's subjectivity. The German silent "Raskolnikow" (1923) did so visually with Expressionist set designs--reflecting the character's internal state of mind upon the objective world. Among talkies, "Pickpocket" (1959) handles voiceover narration the best for a similar purpose. Consequently, they're two of my favorite "Crime and Punishment" films. Simply for a traditional narrative adaptation, which is for the most part finely acted and well constructed, one might not do better than this one, though.

Especially compared to Lorre's disappointingly pugnacious performance (especially given his prior sensitive work as a murderer chased by police in "M" (1931)), Pierre Blanchar is more effective in displaying an unhinged Raskolnikov that more closely resembles the character Dostoevsky wrote: obsessive, rude, poor, sickly and wavering between fainting and pretending confidence to deflect his guilt and to go along with his grandiose philosophical pretensions of his own superiority. One of the best sequences here follows Raskolnikov, much as it happened in the book, when he goes out to murder the pawnbroker. It's somewhat Hitchcockian even in building suspense--coupling a tense score with effective editing and nice tracking shots to follow Blanchar's figure. We almost get a bit of the wry smile from him, too, as well as more good use of the music and montage, during the climactic confrontation with Sonya. Surprisingly, even the use of shadows here are more menacing, such as Raskolnikov's appearance being announced by his shadow through the glass plane of the door to the room with the axe, than in the version by von Sternberg, who is otherwise celebrated for his chiaroscuro compositions. While nothing exceptional, this version also does somewhat better to expand the photoplay beyond studio flats--although, of course, not through any novelistic exploration of Saint Petersburg. As in the 1923 picture, the architectural focus here on staircases is appropriate given the narrative. There are some nice dolly-forward close-ups. And even the continuity editing seems stronger here than in the Hollywood alternative.

Best of all, this version succeeds where the American one didn't in bringing drama out of the inspector Porfiry interrogating Raskolnikov. There are even a couple of genuinely humorous moments to come from their meetings, which is in stark contrast to some otherwise dreary adaptations of this novel. One of the best uses of dolly close-ups in this one features Harry Bauer, as Porfiry, comparing his suspect with a moth attracted to a flame. Yet, not everything here works well. The subplot involving Rasklnikov's sister, her suitors, and his mother especially suffers from the necessary shortening in the process of adapting a long book. Two exposition-heavy arguments between and among the group hardly renders this part of the story of any importance to the conservative theme bemoaning a loss of an aristocratic and religious order to new moneyed interests and new ways of thinking such as Russian nihilism. Nevertheless, this is the best 1935 "Crime and Punishment" film and one of the best adaptations of the celebrated novel overall.

There was a lot of FRench movies in the thirties which would take place in Russia ("les Nuits Moscovites" ,"les Nuits de Saint-Petersburg" and even Renoir's "les Bas-Fonds" and Lherbier 's "la Tragédie Impériale ").All these works have in common the inability to create a Russian atmosphere .Paying in roubles and kopecks is not enough to make us believe we are in Russia.

What am I driving at? Well,it is simple: if the direction and the actors are worthwhile ,then the movie can be rewarding.Such is the case of the famous Russian novel adaptation by Pierre Chenal.The scene of the double crime is particularly gripping ,using to enhance the tragedy Honegger's haunting music.

Pierre Blanchard ,sometimes a bland actor, gave in "Crime et Chatiment" his best performance ever.His haunted eyes,his feverish look and his extreme nervousness are really impressive and his portrayal shows every nuance of his fragility and of his despair.Matching him all the way is Harry Baur's mischievous smooth-tongued portrayal of Judge Porphyre:he seems to play cat and mouse with his suspect....and some viewers would go as far as to say he 's a bit Colomboesque.On the other hand,the part of Sonia is underwritten and her will to follow the convict is not really convincing.That's the main problem with the movie:the secondary are characters are not well treated .But the duel Blanchard/Baur makes it all worthwhile.

It is impossible to talk about this movie without comparing it to the book on which it is based and because of this one also has to have an opinion about the piece of literature which one might say to be the better and smart version than any film could possibly be; but also there it had its mistakes like it begin very intelligent and intriguing and it ended up very serious stupid. Here in the movie this particular movies we find the same mistake that it promises a lot by doing another patient of a wonderful book yet failing and making it interesting but how could we expect it to be interesting if it is stupid the actors really do not seem to help in this. Sad. Bad film. Boring it's nothing else.