A Scene from 'Crime and Punishment'. 1935.

[@bigbrotherishere]

Peter Lorre rarely got to play normal characters like this. he had the most sincerity to his performances. He could play a character that was tragic and frightening.

[@GFBisons1]

I am so GLAD that the Library of Congress has a full print of this film---it has been wronged throughout the years. very wronged

[@abbiexx1953]

Eeek peep the Dafna Bitter outro

[@TheLuigiBrother77]

thats uh a bit of a character assasination innit?

[@m2afs]

They really butchered the book.

[@minisynthmaniac]

I bet Dostoyevsky was rolling in his grave 😓

[@BM-vi5hk]

If he was. he would be alive. so we should exhume him and ask him his opinion.

[@DCI-Frank-Burnside]

Lorre, fantastically miscast as Roderick/Raskolnikov.

[@BM-vi5hk]

I would have oved to see him as Porfiry-- basically he was a Porfiry-type character in "Casbah" as Slimane (with ever-present cigarette in hand), and he did a great job!

[@BM-vi5hk]

Even Peter Lorre couldn't save this film-- and he saved a lot of films.

[@titaniumdiveknife2]

No. I believe it is quite the opposite case. "Lorre settled in Hollywood and was soon under contract to Columbia Pictures, which had difficulty finding parts suitable for him. After some months employed effectively for research, Lorre decided that the 1866 Russian novel Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, would be a suitable project with himself in the central role. Columbia's head Harry Cohn agreed to make the film adaptation on the condition that he could lend Lorre to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, possibly as a means of recouping the cost of Lorre not appearing in any of his films." I feel happy that you learnt something interesting about Peter Lorre today.

[@BM-vi5hk]

@@titaniumdiveknife2 In the majority of films pre-Maltese Falcon that Lorre appeared in, contemporary reviews criticized the films themselves but were near unanimous in their praise for Peter's acting. This film is no different. The script is greatly edited, disjointed, and modernized and the actors do what they can with it, but Peter's performance stands out as the most memorable, although it isn't as modulated as it normally is-- likely due to the brevity of the film (88 minutes). I feel that if the movie was lengthened by 15-20 minutes and more time was devoted to the "punishment" portion of the book (Raskolnikov's mental anguish and subsequent breakdown at Porfiry's office) then the film would have been looked upon more favorably.

[@jackbuckley7816]

The actress here, in this particular scene, at least, overacts terribly, in my opinion. She talks way too fast & breathlessly. Can't see anyone doing that. I know she's desperate, stressed out, & all that, but she doesn't come off as believable. A calmer approach, such as Lorre's, may've been more effective.

[@titaniumdiveknife2]

I am disappointed that you cast judgement on her. I suspect you have never played a major role in a Hollywood film. What are your thoughts?

[@jackbuckley7816]

@@titaniumdiveknife2 I may've been a little harsh, I admit, but her performance still seems a little too intense, not overly convincing.

[@titaniumdiveknife2]

@@jackbuckley7816 I respect your opinion. Thanks Buckley.

[@BM-vi5hk]

That was the style of the 30s-- melodrama.

[@jackbuckley7816]

@@BM-vi5hk I was aware of that. Just find it hard to take now, doesn't seem terribly natural or realistic. The actress gives it her all, though, I'll say that.