Film Adaptations of Classic Russian Novels

  There has been a long history of adapting classic Russian novels to film in the English speaking world.  These classic novels by authors like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pasternak, and others allow an English speaking audience to enter into a world with which they are completely unfamiliar and see that the issues which these people face are dealt with all over the world. 

   In this article I will look at the 1935 American film adaptation of “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Dostoevsky, the 1956 film “War and Peace”, “Brothers Karamazov” (1958), the 1965 film “Doctor Zhivago”, and the 2002 BBC adaptation of “Crime and Punishment”.  I will examine several films and television series about classic Russian novels in order to see how faithful they are to the novels themselves and how well they correspond with one another. 

  Joseph von Sternberg (1894-1969) directed “Crime and Punishment”¹, a 1935 film based upon the novel of the same name by Fyodor Dostoevsky. This film starred Peter Lorre in the title role as Rodin Raskolnikov (his first name was changed to Roderick for an American audience).  This film bore little, if any resemblance, to the novel.  In fact, the director was so disappointed with this film that he does not list it among the films he is credited with directing.         

    What was America’s fascination with classic Russian literature that in a span of two years, from 1956 to 1958, both War and Peace by Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) and “Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) were made into films?  The American people would have known very little about Russia in 1956.  Both countries were in the middle of the Cold War and there was a great deal of propaganda on both sides regarding how horrible the other country was.

    The 1956 film “War and Peace”² starred Henry Fonda as Pierre Bezuhov and Audrey Hepburn as Natasha Rostova (the two main characters).  This film does not cover every aspect of Tolstoy’s original novel, but focuses on the relationship of three of the main characters.  Very early in the film there is a scene where Pierre is getting drunk with a group of friends.  This scene contains every almost every possible Russian stereotype, except for a dancing bear.  At one point in the scene one of the characters is standing backward on the window ledge and facing inside the room.  He begins to bend over backward while drinking a bottle of vodka.  Apparently, the winner was the person who could finish drinking the vodka without falling out of the window.  Other than feeding into a Russian stereotype, what was the point of this “game”?  This scene is not in the novel; however, the director, King Vidor (1894-1982) felt it necessary to put it in the movie.

    The costumes are wonderful.  In typical Hollywood style of the time, the film makes everything appear almost larger than life by virtue of the camera angles.  This film has a wonderful cast of actors, but financially it was unsuccessful.  It earned only $250,000 for the studio. A large part of the reason might have been that this was an epic film about a Russian novel.  Americans did not normally watch epic films, particularly those about Russian novels.

     It is not that Americans were opposed to epic films.  In the same year that “War and Peace” was completed, Cecil B. DeMille completed “The Ten Commandments” for a different studio.  “The Ten Commandments” is also an epic film, but the story of Moses would have been much better known by an American audience. 

     Two years after the completion of “War and Peace”, Richard Brooks (1912-1992) directed “Brothers Karamazov”³.  This movie is based upon a novel of the same name by Fyodor Dostoevsky.  The novel tells the story of three brothers (Dmitry, Alexei, and Ivan) and their relationship with each other and their father, Fyodor.  It is also a “murder mystery” since Fyodor is killed and the reader must determine who committed the murder.

     Fyodor Karamazov (played by Lee J. Cobb) is not a very likeable figure.  In the one of the first scenes in the film, the audience is introduced to Fyodor Karamazov after he has tied a woman to his bed and is interrupted because his son, Alexei (film debut for William Shatner) has arrived at his home.  Fyodor is a rather boorish man who seems to respect Alexei only. 

      In the novel, Dmitry Karamazov sees himself as being a rather foolish person and his actions reflect his belief about himself.  In the movie, Dmitry (played by Yul Brenner) comes across as a rather self-confident, if not arrogant, person.  He constantly borrows money from his father and this has become a source of tension between the two of them since Dmitry never paid back what he borrowed. 

     Another character is Smerdyakov, half-brother to the Karamazov brothers and son of Fyodor.  Smerdyakov is treated very poorly by Fyodor Karamazov in the film.  Dmitry is accused of murdering Fyodor; however, Smerdyakov confesses to Ivan Karamazov (played by Richard Basehart) that he killed Fyodor. Dmitry is put on trial for murder, but, instead of Smerdyakov confessing in court that he killed Fyodor, he kills himself. 

     In both the novel and film, Dmitry is convicted of murdering his father.  However, in the novel he accepts his fate and considers himself to be a martyr for love.  After being convicted of murder, Dmitry is sent to prison in Siberia and the woman he loved went to be with him in Siberia.

     The film shows Dmitry deciding to escape rather than board a train bound for Siberia.  He became a fugitive and the rest of the film deals with the topic: “Will Dmitry escape from Russia?”  What was the reason why Richard Brooks decided to add this into the film when it was not in the novel?  We do not know.  It is possible he did so because of the lack of justice in Dmitry’s conviction.  He was wrongfully convicted and should be able to escape rather than going to prison.  The movie ends without the audience knowing if he ever escaped from Russia. 

    It is also interesting that Yul Brenner is the only person in this film who had any connection to Russia.  He was born in Russia, but lived most of his life in either the US or Western Europe. 

    Another Western adaptation of a classic Russian novel was the 1965 film “Doctor Zhivago”⁴ starring Omar Sharif as Yuri Zhivago.  This film was based upon the novel of the same name by well-known poet, Boris Pasternak (1890-1960)⁵.  This novel was first published in Milan in 1957. Pasternak won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1958 for Doctor Zhivago, but was forbidden to attend the award ceremony by the Soviet government of Nikita Khrushchev. 

    This film continues to be extremely popular.  Like “War and Peace” this was an epic film, but it was much more acceptable to an American audience.  Perhaps it was simply the period of history when this film was made or the strong love story plot of the film, but it earned over $100,000,000 for its studio.  In the US, the success of a film is based largely upon the amount of money that the film earned rather than the depth of the subject matter. 

     Pasternak depicts Lara as an almost unscrupulous woman who uses her sexuality to obtain what she wants from life, but in the film David Lean (1908-1991), the director, presents Lara (portrayed by Julie Christie) as more of a victim.  In the 2006 Russian TV series “Doctor Zhivago”, Lara is not a very likeable character.   

     Since this film was released in 1965 and the US was still involved in the Cold War with the USSR, David Lean did not spend as much time focusing on the events of the Russian revolution as Pasternak did.   The love story between Yuri and Lara is what made this film successful along with the beauty of the Russian scenery which an American audience would never have seen in person.

      A very good English speaking adaptation of a classic Russian novel was the 2002 TV mini-series “Crime and Punishment” produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). This series was extremely faithful to the novel.  The BBC felt no obligation to change the story line in order to adapt this novel to television.  This is much easier to do with a mini-series since it continues over several episodes instead of a film which only lasts for a few hours, at most. 

    Since I wrote about the various adaptations of Anna Karenina by Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910) in another article⁶, I have decided to forego writing about it here.  One important fact to remember is that no other novel has had more film adaptations made about it than Anna Karenina. 

    Attempting to turn a novel into a film while, at the same time, remaining faithful to the original novel is not an easy process; however, this is very important. Poetic license does allow for some changes, but how many changes can be made before a movie is no longer connected with a particular novel?  I once heard it said, “Never judge a book by its movie”⁷ and there is a great deal of truth in that statement.

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Crime and Punishment: (1935 American Film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment_(1935_American_film) 

2)    “War and Peace (1956 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(1956_film)

3)    “The Brothers Karamazov (1958 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov_(1958_film)

4)    “Doctor Zhivago (film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago_(film)

5)    “Boris Pasternak” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pasternak

6)    “Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2013/03/anna-karenina-cinematic-journey-on.html  

7)    Quote by J. W. Eagan: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-11-17/features/9611170349_1_thomas-campion-faults-bear

 

 

  

The Great and the Lowly

   For years many people have argued that there are two completely separate and independent justice systems.  There is the justice system for the average person and another system for those who have money and influence.  One of the mottos of the legal system is that justice in blind, meaning that it does not treat people differently based upon whatever influence they may have; however, is this really true?  

   In regard to the issue of capital punishment there seem to be some discrepancies in this theory.  When was the last time you read about someone with money or influence being put to death by the state after being convicted of first degree murder?  Then again, how often do we read about a person with money or influence ever been convicted of first degree murder?

   One major ethical and legal issue is the tremendous disparity between black and white criminals. Statistically, African Americans who commit capital crimes are much more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants.  A major factor is the level of legal representation that African American defendants can afford. Unless they are fortunate enough to be able to retain a prominent criminal defense attorney pro-bono, most African American defendants will be represented by a public defender.¹

    Are there two completely different systems of justice based upon a person’s social standing or level of education?  This issue was addressed in the novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881).  The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, has developed a theory that people are divided into two “camps” namely the ordinary and the extraordinary.  Rodion Raskolnikov believes that the “ordinary” person must pay the consequences for their actions, but this is not true for the “extraordinary” person. 

    An impoverished former law student, Raskolnikov considers himself to be one of the “extraordinary” people. He decides to test his “theory” by robbing and murdering Alyona Ivanovna, a local unpleasant and elderly pawnbroker, with an ax which he stole and theorizes that this robbery is justified because the money will be used for a “higher purpose”.  While attempting to flee from this woman’s apartment he is confronted by her half-sister, Lizaveta Ivanovna, whom he also kills.  He manages to steal a few items, but the majority of the old woman’s wealth and possessions are left untouched.

    Following the murder of these two women, Raskolnikov begins to descend into madness.  Prior to the murder he had begun losing his grip on reality, but the double murder has only made him worse.  His suspicious behavior points to him as the primary suspect of this crime, but there is no proof of his guilt. 

    Based upon the available evidence, Raskolnikov could “get away with murder”, if it were not for the fact that his conscience is tearing him apart emotionally. He does not want to confess to this double murder and have to pay the penalty for his actions, but he is finally confesses his actions to Sonia, a prostitute who has very strong Christian values and only becomes a prostitute because of her family’s financial state.  

    While he is confessing his crime to Sonya, this confession is overheard by Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigaïlov, a former employer of Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, Rodion’s sister.  Arkady Svidrigailov, who was considered a suspect in the death of his own wife,  attempts to seduce and rape Rodion’s sister, who convinces him not to.  He spends the night in confusion and despair and in the morning he shoots himself.

    The only person besides Sonya who knows what Raskolnikov did has committed suicide.  He could simply leave St. Petersburg and begin a new life somewhere else, but Raskolnikov goes to the police station and confesses his crimes. 

    The epilogue tells of how Raskolnikov is sentenced to penal servitude in Siberia, where Sonya follows him. Avdotya and Dmitri Prokofich Razumikhin, Raskolnikov’s friend, marry and are left in a happy position by the end of the novel, while Pulkheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikova, Raskolnikov's mother, falls ill and dies, unable to cope with her son's situation. Raskolnikov himself struggles in Siberia. It is only after some time in prison that his redemption and moral regeneration begin under Sonya's loving influence. ²

     While Raskolnikov considers himself to be one of the “extraordinary” people (equal to someone such as Napoleon Bonaparte); however, by the end of the novel he is sentenced to serve a prison term in Siberia where he pays for his crime like any “ordinary” person would.  Raskolnikov could not ignore his guilty conscience.  Is Dostoevsky saying that one of the things which separate “ordinary” from “extraordinary” people is that “extraordinary people” have no conscience?   

                                                            End Notes

1)    “The Case Regarding Capital Punishment” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/02/case-regarding-capital-punishment.html

2)    “Crime and Punishment” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment