bkoganbing 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

whpratt1 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.