Issue 154
Intro: Well, I'm not going to put this entry in the standard form. I will, however, build most of my standard sections into one large section for this one. Links will most likely return for the next entry.
Actual Entry: The Brothers Karamazov: Book vs. Movie.
Recently, I re-read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (in the "new" Pevear/Volokhonsky translation) and I must admit that in this re-reading, I actually got more out of it. I'm not sure whether it was the new translation (previously, I had read Garnett's long-maligned [for good reason] translation), or the intervening years between reads, but as it turned out, I actually got more out of it even than when I had read books 5 and 6 for my Honors Seminar last semester. Now, I actually understood Vonnegut's character Eliot Rosenwater when he said that it contained "everything there was to know about life," especially from its frequent arguing about opposing points of view, from Ivan and Aloysha arguing about whether a God (or at least one worth worshipping) exists, to whether or not Dmitri is innocent. From what I remembered, P and V had emphasized this more than Garnett did (she seemed mainly interested in making Russian literature accessible to the proles by making virtually all of Russian prose read like Dickens.) Later, I would eventually learn that there was a Hollywood version of the book available on Youtube (starring, of all people, Yul Brynner [who has by now become my mental image of Dmitri Karamazov] and William Shatner.) As I clicked the Youtube link, I asked myself a question: How could they possibly cram a 776-page novel into a 145-minute film? Well, the short answer is, by basically stripping away the philosophy and reducing it to a murder mystery (in the process taking away virtually all of the ambiguity as to Dmitri's innocence or guilt). Of course, the narrator himself, who in the novel, almost becomes a character on himself, while never interfering with the action, only with the audience's perception of it, does not appear. Of course, I would not expect that this aspect of the novel to appear in the film. But what really bugged me was that surprisingly, most of Ivan's scenes (particularly his expounding of evil and the Grand Inquisitor "poem" in Book 5, and his vision of Satan in book 11) have been cut, although, oddly, he seems to refer to the latter in the courtroom scene, of course, perhaps the content of the former scenes, in addition to lengthening the film, would have angered the Hays office [In addition to their prohibitions against sex, they also banned criticism of religion, and Ivan's well-spoken defense of rationalism would certainly qualify] and thus there was no way to include them, thus watering Ivan down to the point where he seems to be little more than a walk-on character and not one of the most compelling characters in Russian literature. Father Zosima, on the other hand, hardly even appears at all. To be fair, the scenes of his autobiography (Book 6) would likely have broken the flow of any film, but his other scenes, particularly his death rites and the smell (addressed in Book 7), would likely be a welcome addition. But for the real thing that bugged me, look no further than the opening shots. To paraphrase Austin Powers, "You know what's remarkable? Is how much Pushkin-era Russia looks in no way like virtually any Old western Town." Indeed, the only real things that made it look any different from any old western town were a few onion bulbs on the old church buildings and a few token signs in Cyrillic. I remember reading that back in the 1930s (I think the article was dated 1936), movies could be filmed that took place anywhere in the world could be filmed without even leaving California. It looks like the filmmakers took that sensibility and ran with it, but unlike a lot of movies, it really shows. Going back to Pushkin, one thing that I didn't expect to be carried over into the film was Fyodor Karamazov's apparent foot fetish; in the original novel, he himself tells Dmitri, "Don't be afraid of the barefoot ones, don't despise them, they're pearls," {in addition, Pushkin's apparent fondness for "little feet" is mentioned several times, something which is especially pronounced in Eugene Onegin, Chapter 1, stanzas 30-4} and in the film, is introduced writing on the foot of a girl he had tied to his bed. Takes all sorts, I suppose. With all of this, it should go without saying that it is unlikely that a satisfactory film version of the novel would ever come about, certainly not in anything under three hours, although there is a four-hour film version from Russia made ten years after the Hollywood version, which is likely to be closer to definitive, and according to IMDB, there was recently (like earlier this summer) a miniseries version (roughly 7 1/2 hours). Of course, none of these versions are in print on DVD. Judging from the quality of this version, perhaps this is a Good thing. But perhaps an English miniseries version might be able to do the movie justice, or maybe not.
Actual Entry: The Brothers Karamazov: Book vs. Movie.
Recently, I re-read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (in the "new" Pevear/Volokhonsky translation) and I must admit that in this re-reading, I actually got more out of it. I'm not sure whether it was the new translation (previously, I had read Garnett's long-maligned [for good reason] translation), or the intervening years between reads, but as it turned out, I actually got more out of it even than when I had read books 5 and 6 for my Honors Seminar last semester. Now, I actually understood Vonnegut's character Eliot Rosenwater when he said that it contained "everything there was to know about life," especially from its frequent arguing about opposing points of view, from Ivan and Aloysha arguing about whether a God (or at least one worth worshipping) exists, to whether or not Dmitri is innocent. From what I remembered, P and V had emphasized this more than Garnett did (she seemed mainly interested in making Russian literature accessible to the proles by making virtually all of Russian prose read like Dickens.) Later, I would eventually learn that there was a Hollywood version of the book available on Youtube (starring, of all people, Yul Brynner [who has by now become my mental image of Dmitri Karamazov] and William Shatner.) As I clicked the Youtube link, I asked myself a question: How could they possibly cram a 776-page novel into a 145-minute film? Well, the short answer is, by basically stripping away the philosophy and reducing it to a murder mystery (in the process taking away virtually all of the ambiguity as to Dmitri's innocence or guilt). Of course, the narrator himself, who in the novel, almost becomes a character on himself, while never interfering with the action, only with the audience's perception of it, does not appear. Of course, I would not expect that this aspect of the novel to appear in the film. But what really bugged me was that surprisingly, most of Ivan's scenes (particularly his expounding of evil and the Grand Inquisitor "poem" in Book 5, and his vision of Satan in book 11) have been cut, although, oddly, he seems to refer to the latter in the courtroom scene, of course, perhaps the content of the former scenes, in addition to lengthening the film, would have angered the Hays office [In addition to their prohibitions against sex, they also banned criticism of religion, and Ivan's well-spoken defense of rationalism would certainly qualify] and thus there was no way to include them, thus watering Ivan down to the point where he seems to be little more than a walk-on character and not one of the most compelling characters in Russian literature. Father Zosima, on the other hand, hardly even appears at all. To be fair, the scenes of his autobiography (Book 6) would likely have broken the flow of any film, but his other scenes, particularly his death rites and the smell (addressed in Book 7), would likely be a welcome addition. But for the real thing that bugged me, look no further than the opening shots. To paraphrase Austin Powers, "You know what's remarkable? Is how much Pushkin-era Russia looks in no way like virtually any Old western Town." Indeed, the only real things that made it look any different from any old western town were a few onion bulbs on the old church buildings and a few token signs in Cyrillic. I remember reading that back in the 1930s (I think the article was dated 1936), movies could be filmed that took place anywhere in the world could be filmed without even leaving California. It looks like the filmmakers took that sensibility and ran with it, but unlike a lot of movies, it really shows. Going back to Pushkin, one thing that I didn't expect to be carried over into the film was Fyodor Karamazov's apparent foot fetish; in the original novel, he himself tells Dmitri, "Don't be afraid of the barefoot ones, don't despise them, they're pearls," {in addition, Pushkin's apparent fondness for "little feet" is mentioned several times, something which is especially pronounced in Eugene Onegin, Chapter 1, stanzas 30-4} and in the film, is introduced writing on the foot of a girl he had tied to his bed. Takes all sorts, I suppose. With all of this, it should go without saying that it is unlikely that a satisfactory film version of the novel would ever come about, certainly not in anything under three hours, although there is a four-hour film version from Russia made ten years after the Hollywood version, which is likely to be closer to definitive, and according to IMDB, there was recently (like earlier this summer) a miniseries version (roughly 7 1/2 hours). Of course, none of these versions are in print on DVD. Judging from the quality of this version, perhaps this is a Good thing. But perhaps an English miniseries version might be able to do the movie justice, or maybe not.
posted by DerekAxe at 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home