Crime and Punishment (1935) User Reviews

Early performance by Lorre, dark film

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 18 May 2009]

Josef von Sternberg directed this version of "Crime and Punishment," starring Peter Lorre, Edward Arnold, and Marian Marsh in 1935. It's an updating of the great novel, with Lorre as a man tortured by his own conscience.

It's a fairly dreary-looking affair, quite dark, with impressive use of shadows. The most interesting aspect of the way it was filmed to me is how Lorre's small stature is emphasized, as if the staircase, for instance, was over-sized. The incomparably beautiful Marian Marsh is the prostitute who tries to help him, and she gives a very gentle and heartfelt performance. Edward Arnold is the bombastic head of the murder investigation of the pawnbroker (Mrs. Patrick Campbell) - he's plenty scary. I don't blame Lorre for being a complete wreck.

Lorre is excellent playing a character who vacillates between arrogance one minute and fear the next. Definitely in the top ten of unusual faces and voices in film history, his hooded eyes show the torture the character is suffering.

Definitely worth seeing for von Sternberg's direction, Lorre and Marsh.

As a film adaptation

[Local Hero · 7/10 · 14 July 2009]

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.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (Josef von Sternberg, 1935) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 5 July 2009]

For his first Hollywood movie, Peter Lorre – billed as "the great international star" – personally chose to play the lead in an adaptation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's masterpiece, although he is curiously second billed to the film's nominal star Edward Arnold (appearing in the film's latter half as his nemesis, the Chief of Police). The film has been justifiably criticized for being a greatly oversimplified and condensed version of Dostoyevsky's mammoth novel but, not having read the book myself, I was satisfied with (and found much to admire in) von Sternberg's typically pictorial direction which highlights Lucien Ballard's atmospheric chiaroscuro lighting. Peter Lorre is perfectly cast as the arrogant genius Roderick Raskolnikov whose tracts on criminology has made him a household word with the police authorities but, perhaps due to an excess of pride, apparently also reduced him to a bottom-of-the-barrel social status; a casualty of the film's ruthless editing of the original source is the fact that Raskolnikov's fall from grace (from a master pupil to a bum) is never properly explained. Meeting up with a lovely gamine (Marian Marsh) at a heartless pawnbroker's and fully confident in his own superiority 'above the law', he soon puts his theories into practice by doing away with the latter; picked up for questioning by the Police, Arnold (also excellent) soon requests his assistance on the murder investigation itself upon learning of Lorre's true identity and, before long, an innocent neighbor (FRANKENSTEIN [1931]'s Michael Mark) is brought before them as the prime suspect. The cast also includes Gene Lockhart (as Lorre's pompous brother-in-law-to-be) and Douglas Dumbrille (as a former employer of Lorre's sister who is now seemingly hounding his steps). Reportedly, von Sternberg did this merely as a contractual assignment and is said to talk disparagingly of it in his famous autobiography, "Fun In A Chinese Laundry"; whatever the case, it was a good start for him after the termination of his celebrated long-running collaboration with Marlene Dietrich. There have been several film adaptations of the Dostoyevsky novel over the years but the most intriguing one that I would like to catch up with is Robert Wiene's 1923 German Expressionist Silent version RASKOLNIKOV which, for better or worse, was recently released on DVD by Alpha under the novel's more recognizable title.

Peter Lorre, Edward Arnold & Marian Marsh Were Fantastic!

[whpratt1 · 13 March 2003]

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.

The Greatest "Detective" Novel of All?

[theowinthrop · 6/10 · 1 May 2005]

Fyodor Dostoeyevski is, without a doubt, one of the greatest novelists of his native Russia, of 19th Century Europe, and of world literature. That said, he is also a pain in the ass to read. If you are into his views of self-sacrifice and mysticism, and of redemption through intense, sometimes meaningless suffering, you can't find anyone else like him. If you also like anti-Western slavophilia, with more than a dollop of anti-Semitism, he's your guy. These aspects appear in his Russian contemporary Tolstoi too, but Count Leo had a more universal view of forgiveness and brotherhood than Fyodor ever had. Therefore Tolstoi makes his occasional snide comments, but they are quickly dropped - not intensively developed. With these serious reservations said, Dostoeyevski remains monumental. Most people recall him for two novels: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Neither of the two novels were ever successfully made into U.S. films, despite a great director in this 1935 version of the former novel, and a grade "A" cast and production in the 1958 version of the latter that starred Yul Brynner and Maria Schell. From what I have seen a Masterpiece Theatre version of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT in the 1970s was far closer to the novel than Von Sternberg's 1935 version. But Von Sternberg, working with Columbia Pictures, did not have as good a budget (and certainly could not make a four hour film).

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT has been called the first psychological detective novel, and the best. It is not a who-done-it in the spirit of Dashiell Hamnett's THE THIN MAN. It is more like a Columbo episode (and Columbo's character is obviously modeled on the laid back, wise Detective Inspector Porphiry - who patiently allows Raskolnikov to give himself away and up). Dostoeyevski lets us see the killing of the old pawn broker and her sister, and understand the twisted "philosophical altruism" that Raskolnikov uses to commit his crime. It is a murder for social purposes - get rid of the leech like money lender/pawn broker, grab her money, and use it to aid those truly unfortunate in society. Had the murder been committed quickly with only the pawn broker killed, the absurd logic might have worked. Instead, because the sister of the victim sees the killing, Raskolnikov has to kill her too for self protection. From that time forward his philosophical base begins to crash. Also he discovers that the material answer of money is not enough to help the poor or those he comes to love. As such CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is (no real slap at Conan Doyle) light-years away in effectiveness from THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. And watching the Russian police procedural in the novel, as Porphiry helps whittle away at Raskolnikov's iron core of beliefs is quite good too.

Peter Lorre gives an affecting performance as the killer, one more role in a chain beginning with "M" that would continue for much of his admirable career. It must have been well received publicly. The Ritz Brothers spoofed his performance in one of their films. Arnold is fine as Porphiry, who has seen all the murder types (and can quickly find their weak spot). Here, his best moment is when another lesser suspect confesses unexpectedly just as Lorre seemed about to confess. It leaves Porphiry perplexed and troubled, as the confession has been heard by witnesses (including a smart aleck Lorre), and Porphiry realizes an innocent man has possibly put his life in danger by such an act. There are some good supporting touches too, especially seeing Mrs. Patrick Campbell in her last performance on screen as the pawnbroker, a dried up, malevolent figure that one does not waste too much pity on (again, if she had been the only victim Raskolnikov's philosophical point would have been correct). Cuts due to budget and time considerations ruined several parts - Douglas Dumbrille as a married man who wants Lorre's sister (Lorre can't stand him) and who helps bring Lorre to book (for personal reasons) had a larger part in the novel, including suicide. That is not in the film.

With all it's budget restraints though, it is a good introduction to the great novel and I recommend it.

Sternberg self-destructs

[Anne_Sharp · 6/10 · 24 July 2001]

Inconsolable over his enforced separation from Marlene Dietrich, Sternberg took a passive-aggressive approach to this assignment from Paramount, sabotaging it by neglect at every turn. Given a star performer with infinitely more to offer than Dietrich, the fresh-from-the-continent Peter Lorre, Sternberg chose to work against rather than with him, squashing his attempts to create a coherent interpretation of Raskolnikov and photographing him to look as fat as possible, while mournfully doing his best to make Marian Marsh look Dietrichlike. In squandering the raw materials given to him, from which an ordinary director could have concocted at least a very respectable "Crime and Punishment," Sternberg not only shafted Paramount but did significant damage to Lorre's career (this was meant to have been the prestigious American debut he deserved but never got) as well as his own.

Great cast, mediocre film

[johno-21 · 6/10 · 21 January 2008]

I recently saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival as part of their Archival Treasures series. This was shown in part because Maraian Marsh had been a Palm Springs area resident. This film marked the USA debut of noted Europena actor Peter Lorre, who after breaking out from the German cinema had previously did Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew to Much and Freund's Mad Love in the UK. Josef Von Sternberg directs Joseph Anthony's screenplay of Dostoyevsky's classic 1866 detective novel. Lorre stars as Roderick Raskolnikov, a criminal justice whiz kid whose writings are widely read and respected by the criminal justice community at all professional levels from police inspectors to professors. Raskolnikov finds himself living in a flop house, never fulfilling his talents and angry with a publication that quoted his works but failed to mention his name. He also finds himself falling in love with his apartment neighbor Sonya (Marian Marsh) and in a game of wits with the local police inspector Pordiry (Edward Arnold) over the murder of pawn shop proprietor. Gene Lockhart is in support as Raskolnikov's potential brother-in-law Lushin and noted character actress Elisabeth Risdon plays Raskolnikov's mother. Proliffic Columbia studio Cinematographer Lucien Ballard photographs and Columbia's long time art director Stepehn Goosen is set decorator. Von Sternberg came out of the silents in a career that lasted into the 1950's and was at the height of his career at this time having been nominated for an Oscar twice for Best Director for Morocco in 1930 and Shanghai Express in 1932. Nice acting from the cast especially Arnold. Marsh's role never takes off with no fault to her. Lorre starts out great with a dramatic flare punctuated by comedic overtones but his character loses steam halfway through the film due to a script that somehow runs out of gas. The first half of this film is clever and well done but bogs down and becomes almost cartoonish by films end. It became so campy that the audience was laughing at parts that weren't meant to be funny. It was great to see a mid thirties film on the big screen and as a curious historical document with Lorre early in his career but there is nothing special about this film and I can only give it a 6.0 out of 10.

remarkable film

[bfrostaing · 9/10 · 11 May 2013]

I read the book so long ago that I'd forgotten many details, which was fine - I watched it as a rainy afternoon film presented by Ted Turner, and it is indeed a Turner Classic Movie.

Slammed by many, it is in fact very well written, extremely well acted, and a revelation of Peter Lorre's range. He carries the film brilliantly. It's essentially a long dialog between Raskolnikov, a brilliant, impoverished writer on crime, and Inspector Porphyry, nicely interrupted by Raskolnikov's thoughts on crime, interludes with his family, and his love-life. Made on a low budget, it proves yet again that money isn't everything. Intense, excellent acting, direction, editing and camera work do the job, as with so many low budget European films. It's about people and ideas, not special effects and stardom.

What you get is a minor classic with no empty spaces and nothing extra. The narrative drive is cumulative and very human. Deprived of Dietrich, von Sternberg has no problem, and gets the best out of Edward Arnold and Marian Marsh (and everyone else) as well as Lorre. No weak spots, all class. It's also the perfect demonstration of how to find an excellent film in a great novel: by not trying to include everything, but going to the heart of the matter.

Low-budget version of the Dostoyevsky novel with Peter Lorre...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 5 May 2009]

Josef von Sternberg's touch looms over CRIME AND PUNISHMENT--the dramatic lighting of shadowy photography, the Dietrich-like close-ups of its female star--but while he has captured the mood of the story with his photography, the film is flawed in many ways.

PETER LORRE's performance is uneven, his actions sometimes implausible given that he's supposed to be an expert author of an essay on crime. His sudden bursts of temper to suggest that his conscience is nagging him are almost on the point of burlesque. Von Sternberg should have taken more care in directing Lorre--as much care as he took in lighting MARIAN MARSH for the camera. She looks radiant but is just so-so in performance as the street harlot. ELISABETH RISDON is well cast as Lorre's weak mother.

MRS. PATRICK CAMPBELL makes a formidable pawnbroker and an unsympathetic victim of Lorre's crime. EDWARD ARNOLD, who gets top billing, makes a police inspector who is more jovial than crafty with a Santa Claus laugh that would have served him better if he were playing comedy rather than psychological drama.

And yet, the story remains a compelling one and the moody atmosphere with its Germanic expressionistic photography is bound to keep a viewer interested in the proceedings.

Summing up: Could have been a much better version of a tortured soul with more time spent on developing a plausible central character.

Nice updating of the classic novel

[MarcoAntonio1 · 10/10 · 9 August 2005]

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.

"Inspector? Inspect this!"

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 23 December 2015]

Peter Lorre stars in this fine adaptation of the Dostoyevsky novel, directed by Josef von Sternberg. Lorre plays a criminology student who murders an evil pawnbroker. He appears to have gotten away with it but his feelings of guilt and a police inspector's suspicions may do him in. It's a compelling crime drama with a great cast and creative direction from von Sternberg. Lorre gives a dynamic turn full of highs and lows. The highs are shades of his "M" greatness and the lows are when he gets a little campy. Edward Arnold makes a fun foil for him. The rest of the cast includes Marian Marsh, Elisabeth Risdon, Douglass Dumbrille, Gene Lockhart, and stage actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell in one of her few film roles as the pawnbroker, a completely unlikable character if there ever was one. Von Sternberg's direction is very polished by 1935 standards. His beautiful close-ups of Marian Marsh are enough to make anyone fall in love with her. Despite some pacing issues and a few oddly placed attempts at comedy, it's a strong effort from all involved. The usual 'book vs movie' complaints apply, of course, but none of them are deal-breakers to me. If you're a fan of the director or stars, it's a must-see.

Solid direction, clean story-telling, and great performances

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 3 September 2018]

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.

Solid, if not great, film adaptation of the Dostoevsky classic

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 20 July 2015]

Cramming a mammoth book, like Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, into an hour and a half is not an easy job, but while it does fall short of being a great film Josef von Sternberg's 1935 version does ably with the adapting and makes for good entertainment in its own right.

Understandably, it is very condensed with things omitted or introduced but quickly skimmed over, but the basic story, the basic themes and the psychological tension are very much intact and effectively so. The film's low budget does show at times, in some less than imaginative sets (time and place is not always very clear) and some editing that could have done with a little more tightness, and while omissions were inevitable the film could easily have been even better with a longer length to give the story more depth than there was (not that there wasn't already, just that for a story of this amount of complexity there could have been more). Marian Marsh's prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold character did feel underwritten, there is much more to the character in the book (here, like the similarly blandly played Grilov- who is affected even worse-, the character is reduced to a stereotype), and her performance did come over as bland despite her radiant looks. The romantic subplot very wisely didn't overshadow the film, but the scenes it features in don't quite have the heart and warmth they could have done, and the final third is a touch too drawn out for that reason.

However, despite the low-budget and that it's not a beautiful-looking film, Crime and Punishment has many parts where it still looks good. The lighting is appropriately shadowy, adding much to the atmosphere and psychological tension of the film, and the semi-Expressionist cinematography is wonderfully dark and striking. Von Sternberg directs with cracking efficiency and knack for suspense. Crime and Punishment is hauntingly scored and the script keeps to the tone and substance of Dostoevsky's writing style, the interplay between Raskolnikov and Porfiry is nail-biting in its tension and entertainment value. The story still is incredibly compelling and tautly paced and structured, even with the condensation this is classic Dostoevsky and his style still shines.

Peter Lorre could be as over-theatrical in places, but actually it is more subtle than some of his other work. Raskolnikov's menacing characteristics are really quite haunting, and his anguish is even more convincing and very powerfully and movingly portrayed. Edward Arnold is similarly perfectly cast, he is an absolute joy to watch and gets even more enjoyable and intimidating as Raskolnikov feels more guilt and paranoia after being laid-back initially. Of the solid supporting cast, Mrs. Patrick Campbell stands out, in a formidably wicked performance as a loathsome character that you feel absolutely no sympathy or loss towards her when she's killed off.

All in all, an entertaining and atmospherically effective film but could have been greater. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The punishment is in the watching.

[st-shot · 5/10 · 3 June 2013]

This rather static and flat telling of Doestevski's classic novel is a turgid affair from the get go. Peter Lorre's Raskanikov is moodily over the top throughout while Joseph Von Sternberg's direction moves his characters listlessly through hazy sets that resemble abandoned buildings. The real crime in this picture is its construction.

Raskonikov graduates at the top of his class being singled out for his uncanny ability to deduce with superior insight. It does not translate into a well paying job however and he is soon off to the vile pawnbroker to keep his family above water. At the shop he encounters a streetwalker,getting her fair share of abuse from the pawnbroker and a friendship ensues. Raskonikov furious of the inequity between his decent friend and the well heeled harridan decides to off her. Confident that his superior intelligence will keep him from getting caught he goes through with it but comes up against a worthy adversary inspector Poriphy and the battle of wits begins. Raskonikov is also fighting on a second front with his conscience.

Without meal ticket Marlene and big studio Paramount's production values director Josef Von Sternberg's future got a good look at it with this stilted interpretation of minimalist set decoration and haphazard lighting. With the exception of a few scenes isolating Lorre this early master of light and shadow goes from artist to house painter with drab tableaux in a fog. Lorre is all over the place and his erratic lead lurches to and fro while a becalmed inspector, effectively performed by Edward Arnold, gives him more than enough rope to seal his fate. The underrated Marian Marsh as Sonya also shines but with Lorre chewing scenery in large bites and Von Sternberg without his Paramount perks Crime and Punishment has you doing time.

Extremely Well Done

[Michael_Elliott · 11 June 2009]

Crime and Punishment (1935)

*** (out of 4)

Dostoyevsky's classic novel turned into a classic film by the legendary von Sternberg. In the film Peter Lorre plays a brilliant but poverty stricken criminalologist who resorts to murder when his mom and sister are threatened with being homeless. The crime seems to go off without a hitch until his conscience begins to haunt him and his fear of a detective (Edward Arnold) starts to cause more panic. This is an extremely impressive version of the novel and also features a terrific performance by Lorre but the real beauty here is the vision by von Sternberg. His stamp is all over this film and it's easy to see early on with the beautiful lighting, which creates some wonderful atmosphere and real tension. The way the cinematography picks up each and every shadow just makes the tension in the story build and build and this is especially true right after the murder when Lorre panics and tries to get away without being seen. This entire segments contains some great suspense and the director gets most of the credit. I found Lorre's performance to be one of the greatest of his career because he's actually got quite a bit too do here. Not only must he play a genius but he also must show fear, panic and even a comic tone. When Lorre's character loses his fear it turns into some comic touches and he delivers on all the notes. Arnold turns in another strong performance and his laid back approach is perfect opposite Lorre's breakdown. The one weak spot in the film for me is the final act, which seems to be drawn out too long due to Lorre's relationship with a poor woman (Marian Marsh). Mrs. Patrick Campbell is downright wicked in her role of the murdered pawnbroker. With a little bit of editing this movie could have been a real masterpiece of the genre but as it stands, this is a perfectly entertaining "B" movie that has plenty going for it.

Public service homicide

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 29 December 2016]

Dostoevsky's tragic protagonist Roderick Raskalnikov got a man who was born to play it cast in the lead of the film that Columbia Pictures was putting out. Peter Lorre who would soon carve out a respectable career playing all kinds of unusual characters is our lead here, fresh over from the continent where he was the lead in Fritz Lang's M and also in the cast of Alfred Hitchcock's first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

We've heard the superior man theories all before be it from Nietzche all the way to Leopold and Loeb. There are just some folks that the ordinary rules don't apply. Usually the folks who commit those thoughts to paper see themselves as those kind of people. Can you imagine if those famous child killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb had instead of killing innocent Bobby Franks had killed someone like the mean and cruel old hag pawnbroker like Lorre does here? Or some noted Chicago gangster? What would our view of them be, what would it have been back then in 1923?

Lorre is a brilliant young criminology student whose work in fact has been published. Not that he's made any big money from it, in fact his landlady is ready to give him the heave ho. But in worse straights are his mother Elizabeth Risdon and sister Tala Birrell are in. They are in deep debt to Mrs. Patrick Campbell a horrible and hideous pawnbroker. When he tries to intercede for his family, Campbell says no and Lorre just loses it and bashes her head in.

By the way in the novel Raskalnikov does her in with an ax and then kills another woman who walked in on the deed. With the new Code in place this was a way of gaining more sympathy for Lorre's character.

The bulk of the movie is almost Columbo like. Police inspector Edward Arnold just bores in on Lorre who despite all his protestations to the contrary really does have a conscience. Still because Campbell was not liked, it's Siberia for him as opposed to noose. Arnold is one relentless upholder of the law.

Back in my Crime Victims Board days when we had to determine the innocence of the victim the term public service homicide came into vogue regarding several victims whose loss was no loss to society because of their criminal activities. I think Crime And Punishment takes that view here.

A good but rather softened version of Crime And Punishment is this film.

All This Commotion Over a Nasty Pawnbroker.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 4 May 2009]

What a curious film. Peter Lorre is Roderick Raskolnikov, an impoverished writer of magazine articles in what appears to be 1930s Russia. His whole family is in financial trouble. His sister Antonya is about to marry a pompous blowhard for his money. Lorre can't pay his meager rent. He's already pawned the watch passed on to him by his father. What to do, what to do? Then it comes to him. Simply murder the old lady pawnbroker. Nobody likes her anyway, stingy old crow. And, after all, Lorre is an intellectual who has written a theory of crime resembling Nietzsche's. There are ordinary men who must play by the rules, and there are extraordinary men who can't be judged by the usual standards. Guess which kind Lorre considers himself. His heroes are Napolean and Beethoven.

So Lorre visits the old lady at night and whacks her over the head with a poker, steals her stash and hides it under a small boulder. Nothing to it. On top of that, his editor gives him a promotion and a considerable raise and Lorre begins to get cocky, what with his new suit and all that. He liberates his family from poverty and throws the churlish old suitor out of the apartment, allowing his sister Antonya to link up with her true love. And he himself meets a young and beautiful whore and begins to slip her cash as well as other gifts.

But then Lorre is called in to Police Headquarters to meet Inspector Porfiry, Edward Arnold. Arnold finds Lorre waiting for him in the anteroom, shivering with fear. But Arnold isn't interested in Lorre because of the murder. Not at all. He wants a friendly chat with Lorre because of Lorre's recent article on criminality.

Lorre is at first wary, then superior, then sweaty with guilt, giving himself away in iotas of implications. Examples: (1) When Lorre first meets Arnold, they are interrupted when a suspect of the murder is brought it and accused. At the mention of "murder" Lorre faints. Arnold begins circling his prey, all the while denying he has any interest in Lorre as a suspect. Example: Arnold visits Lorre in his flat and, chatting jovially, lights up a cigarette, goes to the iron stove, bends over and flicks the match inside. "Yes," Arnold announces. "I'm as certain that you're innocent as I am that THERE IS NO POKER IN THIS ROOM." This sort of insinuation, this cat-and-mouse game, is in some ways the most interesting part of the plot. It's like Lieutenant Columbo, except that here the murderer is plagued by a guilty conscience.

Lorre becomes obsessed with the crime he's committed. He can't seem to get it out of his head. He begins to misinterpret the innocent remarks of others. When his girl friend, the hapless hooker, Marian Marsh, begins to read the Bible story of Lazarus coming back from the dead, he hears the line about "the rising of the stone" and becomes enraged because it seems to hint that the hiding place of his loot will be discovered. He's forgotten all about "Lazarus come forth," which is just as well because Lazarus came fifth and lost the job.

I can't remember the details of the novel all that well, nor all the characters and their characteristics. I DO remember that Antonya was Dunya in the translation I read. I also remember that the murder weapon was not a poker but an ax. (Yuck.) And that Roskolnikov killed not just the mean pawnbroker but another woman who appeared on the scene, though I might be wrong about that. And in the novel, or rather in my memory of the novel, Inspector Porfiry doesn't just come out and nail Roskolnikov with, "You murdered her and you're going to pay for it." Instead, Porfiry gently prods Roskolnikov into asking, "Well, who murdered her?" This allows Porfiry to gape in amazement and reply, "Why YOU did, Roskolnikov." I'm not sure why this movie isn't more gripping than it is. Directed by the famous von Sternberg. Maybe it's the casting. Roskolnikov is a young, starving student, thin and ragged, not the chubby little Peter Lorre. Lorre had been so successful as the murderer in "M" that maybe someone thought he would be good for a second go at a similar role. And Edward Arnold is not the Inspector Porfiry who edges crablike into Roskolnikov's life. Arnold is an intimidating and domineering blowhard. The confusion and puzzlement that came so easily to Lieutenant Columbo is not Arnold's strong suit.

Disappointing Hollywood Treatment

[jacksflicks · 7/10 · 20 July 2015]

Along with "M" and "The Face Behind the Mask," this Raskolnikov is Peter Lorre's finest rôle. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the rest of the production. The stylized von Sternberg lighting and the Madonna look he gives Marian Marsh (Dietrich stand-in?) don't really suit the grim narrative.

Edward Arnold is woefully miscast as Inspector Porfiry. He's ponderous and bombastic, in his usual manner. Aside from Mrs. Patrick Campbell, the rest of the cast play their stock Hollywood characters. The only Russian about them is "the long-winded names by which they address each other." (Kael)

Coincidentally, a great French "Crime and Punishment" was made the same year. Harry Baur as Porfiry is sensational, and if he had been cast as Porfiry in the von Sternberg version, then it would have caught fire.

I give it a 7 for Lorre.

Lorre Steals Every Scene!

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 21 July 2015]

I've been entranced with Peter Lorre from the first. Unfortunately, his quirkiness typecast him as a threatening, unstable personage. LIke the character in "M," he never seemed to express joy. Unless he was drunk, he never seemed to smile. In this film, an updated version of the great Dostoevsky work, he plays the brilliant student murderer Raskolnikov, who has done in a harsh old pawnbroker. She is evil, but her worth in the eyes of God is as his. His family is being manipulated by a cad because they have no money, and so in order to appease this man, he kills the old woman. They portray him as an expert in criminology which sets him against a police detective, bent on proving his guilt. The punishment isn't a jail sentence but rather the intense guilt he experiences. This guilt manifests itself from the second he brings down a fireplace poker on the head of woman. This is well done, even though it can't match for a second the incredible book upon which it is based. Lorre and Edward Arnold parry and thrust mentally and this makes the film worth seeing, even though it is diminished by a soft Hollywood ending and some religious mumbo jumbo.

Film Adapation Of A Brilliant Novel Falls Flat

[jem132 · 6/10 · 25 April 2006]

This isn't a very good adaptation of 'Crime and Punishment'. Admittedly, budget restraints hampered the film, so we are left with an overall unsatisfying product. Still, Stenberg's film holds interest because of Lorre's and it's original subject matter.

The atmosphere is one thing that is handled well by Stenberg. Appropriately dark and gritty, it feels right. But it's not right. Lorre is ultimately miscast as regretful murderer Raskolnikov (But who else would they have got for the job In 1935?). The pivotal role of Sonia is played weakly by Marian Marsh. Stenberg seems to be bemoaning the loss of Dietrich by trying to make his leading lady into a clone of the glamour lady. It doesn't work, Marsh's screen presence is too weak and there is no disguising her 'Americanness'.

The plot is fascinating because it is pure Dostoyesky genius. As the film is relatively short, most of the major thematic elements are quickly skipped over. Some are left out completely. Yet the general concept of Dostoyesky's psychological classic still remains, and that's the most interesting thing about this film.

One must raise a smile at how Sonya's 'profession' is passed over in this film, because of the influence of that annoying Hayes Code.

6/10.

A murderer's conscience will kill him long before the hangman's noose.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 18 June 2020]

This is a brilliant version of the classic novel with Peter Lorre topping his star making performance in the German masterpiece "M", playing a brilliant but poor expert on criminal behavior who, driven to madness by a cruel society, murders a nasty pawnbroker whom he witnessed mistreating a desperate prostitute (Marian Marsh). He's already been harassed by a grasping landlady (Rafaela Ottiano), harassed by her sister's elderly fiancee (Gene Lockhart) and manhandled by a drunk on the street, not to mention being constantly harassed by the police simply for standing on the street. When he encounters the inspector investigating the murder, he meets his match, and his own guilt begins to drive him further to destruction.

That's Mrs. Patrick Campbell, the famous thespian, as the imperious pawnbroker, utilizing her power over her visitors to basically treat them with contempt, ultimately bringing on her own punishment by being brutally murdered. Edward Arnold is commanding as the inspector, showing sympathy as Lorre begins to crack, seemingly understanding of what drove Lorre to murder, yet without the evidence to arrest him. He uses passive/aggressive psychology on Lorre, yet it is not with the intent to further drive him mad. He hopes simply that Lorre will do the right thing so he can end up with a lighter sentence.

Brilliantly filmed with excellent photography, lighting and music, it is another triumph for Josef Von Sternberg, leaving Paramount for a single film at Columbia, and providing the audience with chills as this builds up to a huge crescendo as everything builds up like a psychological volcano in Lorre's mind. Elisabeth Risdon, as Lorre's mother, and Tala Birell, as his sister, are also outstanding with their limited screen time, and you can see why with a grasping mother that Lorre could become far too sensitive to handle the cruelties in life then implode when it all becomes too much. This is one of the unsung classics of the 1930's, well known as a literary classic, but forgotten as a cinematic one.

Peter Lorre is no Marlene Dietrich (or vice versa)

[pontifikator · 6/10 · 10 April 2010]

Director Josef von Sternberg had a long and distinguished career interrupted by "Crime and Punishment." Among his stellar performances are "The Blue Angel," "Morocco," "Blonde Venus," and "Duel in the Sun," to mention only a few. Many of his motion pictures starred Marlene Dietrich. In "Crime and Punishment," von Sternberg works with Peter Lorre, Edward Arnold, and Marian Marsh to get this gargantuan novel down to 99 minutes of screen time. Since I haven't read the novel, I have no clue what they left out. I'm sure it's a travesty. Since I haven't read the novel, however, I treat the movie on its own merits.

I consider of plot of little importance in this movie version. Raskolnikov (played by Lorre) is introduced as a student with great promise. Our next scene shows him impoverished but too proud to accept a loan from a former school chum. Raskolnikov is slowly pawning all his belongings because he has no other means of supporting himself. The pawn broker (played by the famous Mrs. Patrick Campbell) is absolutely appalling, and her murder by Raskolnikov is, if not excusable, at least understandable.

The irony is that Raskolnikov is famous in police circles because of his magazine article (for which he was not paid) called "On Crime." In this essay (if I understand the movie correctly) Raskolnikov advances the theory that there are two classes of people: those ordinary people who commit ordinary crimes, and an elite class, including Napoleon, whose crimes are somehow superior and above the law and therefore are not to be punished. The head of police, Inspector Porfiry, meets Raskolnikov and praises his work and asks for his help in solving the murder of the pawnbroker. It is not till this game begins that the movie gets interesting.

Until the game between Raskolnikov and Porfiry, Lorre's acting has been random and muddled. In his scenes with Arnold, though, Raskolnikov takes shape and becomes hunted, haunted, angry, brave, cowardly, and a myriad of emotions that play across Lorre's entire body. Arnold is excellent as Porfiry, an old hand at the game of crime, and Porfiry plays the game superbly. In their scenes together, you get to enjoy Porfiry's knowledge that Lorre knows he knows, and we see Lorre's anguish as he realizes Porfiry knows, knows Lorre knows he knows, and we spiral down the hole of madness of he knows he knows he knows.

Lorre is superb playing anguished men. I think he was at his best in "M" as Hans Beckert under the thumb of Inspector Lohmann. It's a shame Lorre was type cast as Sidney Greenstreet's sidekick in so many movies. I saw Peter Lorre on a 50s game show. The contestant was a blindfolded woman who was asked to chose which of three men was Peter Lorre doing a love scene with her. Each actor kissed her hand and murmured sweet nothings to her. The other two men were credible imitators, but the woman blurted out, "I want _him_!" as she picked Lorre. She didn't care whether he was the real Lorre or not; he was the man she believed in his lovemaking. Lorre was a great actor whose talent was not much used.

Better than the book.

[michaelmaleficapendragon · 10/10 · 3 June 2012]

Director Josef von Sternberg once said that the best stories come from brief sources like newspaper articles. His condensation of Dostoyevsky's cumbersome novel into an 88 minute film, bears his statement out. I've always felt that Crime and Punishment would have worked better as a short story than a novel. There's neither enough plot nor philosophical speculation to justify its length. The film is a visual treat (it's a Sternberg) and moves along at a fast enough pace to keep interest from lagging -- even when the end is inevitable from the outset (courtesy of the Production Code). But the film's greatest strength is in its actors. Edward Arnold, the too beautiful to be real Marian Marsh, and especially Peter Lorre. Mr. Lorre is riveting in his depiction of Raskolnikov's journey from poverty driven desperation, to fear, to arrogance, to his ultimate repentance and redemption. It's not only one of his finest performances, but one of the cinema's all time greats.

A homogenized, but adequate retelling of the Dosteyevsky classic

[tyrexden · 7/10 · 16 November 2019]

My biggest gripe was that the murder played out like Raskolnikov was simply desperate for money and therefore decided to murder the woman on an impulse, but my recollection from the book was much different... That the murder was very well thought out, and that Raskolnikov considered himself special, and performed the murder almost as a test to prove that there would be no moral, repercussions from God. This difference is sort of crucial, because Raskolnikov being tortured by the realization that he was wrong is the central theme to the whole book but in the movie, he's not really conflicted... just trying to get away with the crime.

The major plot points, are otherwise all here. The Inspector was really well played, and they sort of gave him all the dialog to describe Raskolnivof's predicament, stating it out right, rather than a reader of the book having to infer his mental state.

I loved the scene where Raskolnikov goes to the Inspector's office to admit he had pawned a watch with the old woman, and despite the circumstance implying suspicion, he acted very cocky.... overly so. Lorre did a great job.

Criminally Punishing

[Cineanalyst · 3/10 · 26 September 2019]

Seeking film adaptations after reading Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment," I had high hopes for this one in particular. Behind the camera, it features Josef von Sternberg, who was no stranger to crime pictures having directed the early gangster flick "Underworld" (1927) and is renowned for his cinematographic compositions. I was intrigued to discover how he might employ the chiaroscuro effects and other lighting tricks that immortalized Marlene Dietrich's star to support themes derived from Dostoevsky's work. Then, cast in front of the camera was Peter Lorre, who had already given the best performance on screen to date of a tormented murderer chased by the police in "M" (1931). He seemed perfect for the role of the protagonist Raskolnikov. Instead, it seems that this project was forced upon von Sternberg to conclude his contract with Columbia Pictures; reportedly, when finished, he considered it a failure, too. Meanwhile, Lorre is merely bellicose for his part. This "Crime and Punishment" is worse than bad; it's disappointing.

And dull. The novel is long-winded, as well as is this film--even though it clocks in at under an hour and a half, but at least the book went somewhere in the end. The film, on the other hand, ends with a clunky thud of abrupt melodramatics as it's played out by an overblown musical crescendo. I'm not surprised that a 1930s Hollywood studio picture wouldn't be well suited to transmuting Dostoevsky's mourning the loss of an aristocratic and religious order and the rise of modern and radical ideas such as Russian nihilism, let alone the protagonist's contempt for a good capitalist like the pawnbroker, but, unfortunately, neither does the film substitute these themes with anything compelling. In fact, Raskolnikov spends much of the proceedings here with his conscience at apparent ease, with his criminal act coming across as a momentary crisis of confidence, from a stout little man with a Napoleon Complex. Added for no good reason to Dostovesky's story is a scene where he's praised upon graduation and another episode where he is ironically made wealthy by his writing. At least had they cut out much of this needless blather, it could've been a tidy little feature of barely more than an hour runtime.

Moreover, despite von Sternberg's usual shadows creeping up every wall and bodily presence, this is visually dull, too. It's obviously filmed on a studio lot--and of the impoverished Columbia Pictures no less--illuminating none of the milieu of Dostovesky's Saint Petersburg and, instead, mostly takes place in boring and cramped flats with lots of talking. Very little is done to lift this production visually beyond the appearance of a stage play. This is particularly disappointing for me after having previously seen the 1923 German silent adaptation of "Raskolnikow," which featured Expressionist sets that seemed to externally reflect the inner torment, if not downright delusions, of its main character. It also doesn't help here that Lorre displays relatively little anguish in the role beyond an annoyance with the cat-and-mouse game played upon him by the inspector. The rest of the characters here, aside from Raskolnikov and the inspector, are a shell of their literary selves, which makes one wonder why some of them were included at all. I'm particularly displeased here with the "Grilov" character, who as Svidrigaïlov in the book was a rather amusing rapscallion, but is an utter bore in his reduced role here as a heavy. Sonya's pivotal part is likewise damaged (and what happened to her two siblings here?), and I don't know why they even bothered including the sister's other suitors, Dmitri and Luzhin, if they were to hardly use them. The true crime here is the adaptation itself, and the punishment awaits those who view it.

The film's 1935 counterpart made in France, "Crime et Châtiment," is an entirely superior adaptation; otherwise, the best versions of the novel I've seen, as included in my ranking, are the aforementioned 1923 film and, for loose reworkings, Robert Bresson's "Pickpocket" (1959) and Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989).