My presentation will focus on the three screen interpretations of Dostoevsky’s
Crime and Punishment: the two adaptations close to the text of the
novel – Lev Kulidzhanov’s version of 1969, and Michael Darlow’s
2003 (BBC, UK), as well as Alfred Hitchcock’s original film Rope
(1948), which is a direct reference to the novel.
My presentation will explore the interpretation of the relationships within
the “symbolic triangle”: the victim(s), the transgressor(s), and
the investigator, which are significantly different in the three cases under
discussion. The styles of acting in the three films deserve special attention
as they employed several outstanding actors and “movie stars.” The
protagonist’s motivations, as well as social background also significantly
differ, as well as the philosophy behind his criminal actions, as interpreted
by the directors. In the context of dialog and polyphony, defined by Bakhtin
as the central issues of Dostoevsky’s poetics, I will investigate the
forms of the monological/dialogical in the three films. Each adaptation is closely
connected with the ideological issues of its time, and place: United States
at the end of WWII, Russia at the end of the Thaw, and Great Britain at the
aftermath of the Thatcher’s era. All three films mark the transitional
times of political change, and have their own – rather controversial -
ideological agendas, which range from the liberal to conservative. The films
challenge the philosophy of Nietzscheanism, but do so from three distinctively
different platforms, referencing the political debates of their time, and using
diverse nonverbal rhetoric to communicate their ideologies. The three film texts
function as the subversive socio-political commentaries, using the complex symbolism
of the novel to promote their messages.
The films are also very interesting in comparative analysis of their chronotopes:
the interpretations of time and space. Two of the three adaptations have innovative
and groundbreaking techniques of cinematography, carefully designed to represent
both physical and psychological space (a room, an apartment, a city / a dream,
a nightmare, a memory of the murder), in the context of the key ideas of the
novel. The dynamics of space and movement – or in terms of method acting
– the psychological goals behind the physical actions - plays an important
role in all three films. The approaches to cinematic Time - screen dynamics,
and psychological development - are also diverse in the works of the three directors.
In conclusion, I will address complex relationships between the hero and the
author, adding to this Bakhtinian topic the controversial dynamics between the
“co-authors,” who in this case include the writer, and the director.