Crime and Punishment (1979) User Reviews

Decent but Seriously Flawed

[richlandwoman · 7/10 · 4 April 2004]

This miniseries has its good points. Raskolnikov's farewell to his mother is moving; Sonya is believably sweet; the interrogation scenes are better than average; Marmeladov's long soliloquy is very well-acted.

However, there are a lot of problems. First, too many of the characters are too creepy and overdrawn, bordering on the freakish. The overacting gets seriously out of hand, especially during the funeral luncheon and its aftermath.

And, as weak as the novel's epilogue is, the film version's is even weaker, amounting to a trite exchange between Porfiry and Sonya and a reprint of the last paragraph of the book over a shot of someone crying.

And I don't think that Svidrigailov should end up as one of the story's more sympathetic characters -- thanks partly to the fact that the actor shows restraint in his role, and therefore seems recognizably human; and partly to the fact that the character's most unsavory urges have been excised from the teleplay.

Finally, I had mixed feelings about Hurt's performance. He spends a lot of the time looking scared and sweaty, but only occasionally conveys Raskolnikov's intelligence and sensitivity.

7/10

John Hurt and Timothy West

[alasdair7 · 8/10 · 11 September 2020]

John Hurt is far and away the best actor I have ever seen, anything that he was in was a recommendation in itself.

I remember enjoying the series when it aired here in Australia on ABC in 1982.

I have never forgotten the brilliance of the exchange between Porfiry Petrovich (West) and Raskolnikov (Hurt). The acting is probably the finest I have ever seen in a dual scene. Worth watching for these scenes alone.

The reviews seem to be a bit down on the series but it is interesting enough basically a great display of British acting.

Indoor Scenes.... Outdoor Scenes....

[ottard · 6/10 · 23 February 2023]

Let's face it.. John Hurt's performance gets a lukewarm reaction.. It was OK at places.. And he is too old for the part. And when the little boys, as Raskolinikov is looking at his reflection in the water, drop stones which distort his face: isn't this a metaphor for the whole film?? And some good supporting cast. And some not so good i.e. Medvedeev. Moreover, I noticed concerning the photography. The outdoor scenes are more realistic; and the indoor scenes are like a filmed play. And, for some reason, there are more outdoor scenes in Part 1 and less in Part's 2 and 3. And, again, moreover - correct me if I am wrong - but they refer to Raskolnikov (Hurt) as a professor, lawyer, student, law student...etc..etc.. One positive aspect of the film was how characters would recur in the film. And that was the closest thing to Russian novel, how there are so many characters. So - in closing - it is definitely worth a watch, but again, keep in mind it is like watching a "filmed play".

The best version for those who love the book...

[patrick.hunter · 12 January 2004]

Nowadays, many would find this mini-series overly talky, even for a TV drama. For example, in a scene of part one, actor Frank Middlemas grouses and weeps in self-pity for ten whole minutes! However, the sequence is straight out of chapter two of the novel, with most of the dialog included, and all in all, the whole mini-series is a very faithful adaptation. Yes, it may be talky, but the talk is good; few novelists were more philosophically ruminative than Dostoyevsky...

Some of the casting is first-rate. The other versions I've seen portray Raskolnikov as a somewhat demonic though poetical intellect--completely overlooking that, although a murderer, he can be often sensitive, sentimental, and even generous. John Hurt believably portrays all these qualities and he's a exemplary Raskolnikov, even if he is a little too old for the part. Timothy West is a brilliant Porfiry and his three scenes with John Hurt are model examples of nuanced and subtle acting and interacting.

This is a production for those who either love the book, or who want to love it.

the weak tenets of Chrisitanity

[osloj · 1/10 · 27 April 2007]

There is no doubt that "Crime and Punishment" would have been one of the greatest novels of the century had not Dostoevsky leaned towards the more acceptable sense of morality related to the weak tenets of Chrisitanity. In doing so, he made Rasknolikov a caricature of himself, lethargic and yet redeemable by accepting Christ's pathetic suffering. It was more appropriate to adapt Nietzsche's figure of "the noble superman" but Dostoevsky, at the time of his writing, was a destroyed soul, drinking and plagued by debts, a gambling and morphine addiction and on top of that, he was a converted Christian, which is to say he resembled a "spineless worm".

There is a powerful beginning in which the bold character Rasknolikov conceptualizes the murder of an old aged hag who serves no purpose to society but beyond that, Dostoevsky tortures us with the conscience of an obstinate man who is shattered by an insignificant crime. In all effect, Dostoevsky became an apologist not only for bourgeois values and the Czar with his corrupt regime, but for Orthodox Christianity, which not only supported the exploitation of the Russian population but welcomed it. The end of the novel, which portrays a once proud, noble, and intellectually superior young man weeping before a prostitute and the image of the bible, brings about the demise of Dostoevsky's credibility.