The Brothers Karamazov (1969) User Reviews

Most authentic and powerful adaptation

[de_niss · 9/10 · 12 June 2013]

Dostoevsky crossed the bounds of ordinary life and demands gods and devils to descend and speak to him. You can almost see Nietzsche writing on his superhuman nearby.

Thats a demanding story to picture, indeed. But this work from 1969 almost succeed at that. Only two flaws you can spot! First, for 40 opening minutes, there will be too much theatricality. But later on, this fades away.

And the religious brother, Alyosha, is seriously miscast. Instead of bearing passion and superhuman will, we see Myagkov quite the opposite. There will be glimpses of true Alyosha, but most of the time he is misbehaving.

Other than that, it is very good film.

Classic Russian adaptation.

[Mozjoukine · 10/10 · 15 September 2007]

In a period where Russian film making was not distinguished, their classics adaptations were the peak achievements. Apparently the one film by Bolshoi dignitary Lavrov, who also plays Ivan, this Dostoievsky production makes a stagey first impression, not unlike co-director Pyryev's version of THE IDIOT, but this is a much better film.

Concepts like Lavrov's assertion, in the presence of the priests, that morality is a product of immortality or Dimitri's claim that Korkoshko has never forgiven him for proving more ethical than herself, when he refused to take advantage of her need for money, are set up in the best printed page tradition and then elaborated in a way that we are not used to seeing in film, even those drawing on their connection with serious literature. The film form does rise to demands like the gypsy singer party or the diabolical illusion but these are not the highlights. The work's strength is in putting on screen ideas and states of mind most makers would find too demanding.

Not blessed with subtlety and in fuzzy Sov Colour, visual trimmings are minimal - ducks splashing in a pond, singing monks, a windmill distant in the fog. The weight of the piece is carried by the distinctive cast performing the Dostoievski text full blast.

Respectable versions like the Fritz Kortner or Yul Bryner films, that try to compress the piece into normal feature length, are obliterated in any comparison.

Excellent movie with spiritual awakening elements

[jacklyn_lo · 10/10 · 12 February 2018]

The discussions in Bratya Karamazovy (The Brothers Karamazov) about faith in God, the soul, and bad and good acts take place throughout the story, from beginning to end.

All the main characters take part in those discussions. However, Ivan, the oldest of the Karamazov brothers, has the most important role in the story due to his free thinking.

Ivan's mind is polluted by atheism; his linear way of thinking does not perceive the world of God. Feeling himself separated from others (i.e., other beings), Ivan continuously expresses his anti-divine's ideas, including full rights for any action without punishment. The youngest of the Karamazov brothers, the devout Aliosha, calls Ivan's mental statement "a hell in the mind" and questions how Ivan can live like that.

Footman Smerdyakov is another "dark" personality in the movie. Looking to accomplish his dream of attaining 3,000 rubles belonging to his master (Ivan's father), he stumbles upon Ivan's concept that "you can do whatever you want because there is no God or immortal soul".

Being a confederate of the Karamazov father, Smerdyakov makes a plan to get the money, but he is too afraid to cross a line - killing his master.

Smerdyakov needs someone who will approve of murder and Ivan, with his high density of consciousness, seems to be the right person for this purpose.

Ivan doesn't state his approval of Smerdyakov's plan, but for the footman, a quick glance is enough. What he reads in Ivan's eyes gives him the green light for murder.

A mental wish for his father's death leads Ivan to even more pollution of his mind; he approaches the spiritual realm of the darks and meets a demon. Even with a demon, Ivan continues his dispute about the reality of non-materialistic worlds, God and His existence without giving up his disbelief.

The end of the story clarifies how Ivan's philosophy is wrong.

Unconscious fear of the coming karma and pangs of conscience force Smerdyakov to give away the stolen money and commit suicide. These actions help him reduce the heaviness of the negative karma, which has already started its punishment for the killing of a human.

Ivan, bringing the money to the court, accuses himself of the murder, but is not able to get rid of the demon.

The lesson learnt: Every action in the physical world follows a mental statement - a thought, which is a product of the mind. A pure mind is a source of pure thoughts, while a polluted mind produces polluted thoughts and, following them, destructive actions.

admirable work

[Kirpianuscus · 19 July 2017]

for to be more a duel of ideas than a version for large public. for the way to translate the universe of the novel in a dramatic and subtle definition of characters , more as presences or symbols. for the right Ivan and father Zosima. for a form of delicacy to explore a world so simple and with profound roots. it is a classic. not surprising. except the meet with atmosphere of an universe who becomes more than special but propose, in inspired manner, the return to the Dostoyevski questions and expected answers.

A mixed bag

[ferenc_molnar · 5/10 · 6 July 2011]

Some good performances, particularly Mark Prudkin as Fyodor Pavlovich, but the film's overbearing theatricality works against the drama of Dostoevsky's novel. The staginess is also not supported by the production design so the storm and stress performances feel ill matched to their realistic backgrounds. There's not much of a cinematic style to the film either and what there is is rather unimaginative. There's very little humor in the film for an adaptation of a novel that can be deeply and unsettlingly funny. And then there's the strange, wrong headed casting of Andrey Myagkov as Alyosha, arguably the central point of view of the novel. Myagkov's Alosha is a doltish void, somewhat of a holy fool, a characterization that might be found in other Dostoevsky novels but not in this one. All in all, a disappointment, not as embarrassing as the Yul Brenner adaptation but just as vulgar in its own way.