I fratelli Karamazov

Novels and movies are separate disciplines and each has its own requirements. People who want to read Dostoevsky and people who want to know what one of his books is about also have separate needs. I am a Dostoevsky lover, and have read THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV in several translations (no, I don't know Russian). This film hits all the necessary high notes to cover the book's plot, and so the screenplay serves the film well. The brothers themselves (Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, Albert Salmi and William Shatner) turn in variable performances. Basehart comes in first place, with Brynner smoldering not far behind. A young William Shatner shows promise, while Salmi's inexplicable whine is almost unbearable, which is a shame because Salmi was a good, though underused, actor. Stealing the show from the brothers in every scene he's in is the wonderful Lee J. Cobb. Fans of the book will be disappointed at the excisions, but they were necessary to pare the story down to a workable movie. And, though I love the book and think it may be the world's great novel, I prefer the ending of the movie! Dostoevsky's book is open-ended as he intended it to be an introduction to characters he intended to use in further book -- but he died before it was written. So the movie wraps everything up nicely. Ivan's end scene is much preferable (no spoilers, though! See the movie and read the book!). Although Alexei is the main character in the book, he's basically an observer. Dmitri (perfectly captured by Brynner) is the powerhouse of the book and should be the focus in a dramatic adaptation, as he is here. A worthy effort in making an unfilmable novel filmable. If you want to know what the book is about but a thick novel is daunting, this film tells you everything you need to know.

If you have not seen this-Please do. It has action,deceit,depravity,murder and all the things you might expect. The cast does a great job and after not having seen it for 44 years, it is STILL a great film.My wife asked me to order the film 10 days ago. I did. We both watched it today.Simply a great movie. Period. Enjoy.

The Brothers Karamazov has quickly become one of my favourite books, with its riveting story, interesting and thought-provoking themes and some of the most brilliant characterisation of any book (how many pieces of literature have characters this multi-dimensional?) I've ever read. This 1958 film version does pale in comparison, lacking the book's depth of characterisation, but does a brave job adapting a monumental and complex book with some scenes being impossible to film, and is a solid film overall.

It's not perfect. Sometimes the film is stodgily paced (some might say overlong, not to me, considering the length of the book and the amount of story there is if anything the film's too short). The ending was always going to be a reasonably problematic one, with it in the book being as open-ended as it is, but this viewer couldn't help shake off the feeling that the ending felt too rushed and incomplete here. Most of the casting came off surprisingly well, but there were reservations about Maria Schell, despite her alluring appearance and her impressively played early scenes she was generally too genteel for Grushenka, a role that was in need of more earthiness and peasant-like.

However, The Brothers Karamazov looks great, with lavish colour photography and an evocative re-creation of the opulent but also gritty 19th-century Russia period. It's scored with a stirring yet also understated richness by Bronislau Kaper, and does benefit from controlled direction by Richard Brooks and a literate script that really provokes though and, even when condensed with the essence and the religious and philosophical themes missing, makes an effort to keep to Dostoevsky's tone of writing and giving the film substance. It is not an easy job adapting a nearly 800 page book into a two-and-a-half hour film, and while not completely successful due, to feeling sometimes like highlights being present but not always to their full potential and major characters being significantly reduced (Alexei, Zosima) at the expense at focusing primarily on Dmitri, it does so laudably. It is still mostly riveting and there wasn't much trouble following the story, with the major events depicted and structured relatively faithfully, and there is enough atmosphere, suspense, emotion and mystery to give the story some flavour.

From the acting front, the film comes off surprisingly successfully considering that initially there were a couple of actors that seemed unlikely casting (i.e. William Shatner). The two that came off the most strongly were Yul Brynner and Lee J. Cobb. Brynner is very charismatic and gives the right emotional intensity and vulnerability, while Cobb gives his patriarchal role so much juice and life, his demeanour sometimes even quite intimidating (the role is a problematic one due to being one that could easily fall into overacted caricature, Cobb admittedly does overact but enjoyably and the character still felt real. Richard Basehart brings many layers and nuances to Ivan, Claire Bloom is spot-on as Katya and Albert Salmi is effectively insidious as Smerdyakov. William Shatner does suffer from a greatly reduced (in terms of how he's written) character, but surprisingly this is Shatner at his most subdued and moving, most of the time in his acting for personal tastes he's the opposite.

All in all, pales in comparison to the masterpiece that is the book but it is a brave attempt. Taking it on its own merits, which is a fairer way to judge, The Brothers Karamazov has short-comings but is a solid film overall. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I first read this novel as a 13 year old at my dad's recommendation! I loved it and reread it many times as a teen-ager. I was young, impressionable, and brought up in an "Orthodox" home...I was spiritually moved and felt a kinship with Dostoyevski's religiosity. I saw the movie at age 19 and was prepared to hate what Hollywood might have done to commercialize my favorite novel! Instead I was transported to 19th century Russia and was totally mesmerized. I forgave the "deletions," I forgave the "alterations"...Dostoyevski was still there and talking!!! I fell in love with Maria Schell and nearly swooned during her Gypsy dance! Alexei was the young monk who personified what it means to be a generous and forgiving Christian; Ivan the spiritually conflicted and deeply honest man of science; Dimitri the tortured deeply human soul who takes on suffering...I even understood and cried when the saintly Starets knelt before Dimitri in the powerful scene at the monastery and asked for his blessing! If only some of our US citizens who explain their draconian political notions as manifestations of their religious beliefs could learn spirituality from Father Zosima! I am now 68 years of age and thrill with each reviewing of this classic. All actors were perfect in their role and for me Schatner will always be vulnerable young Alexei...not the omnipotent Kirk!

As happens so often with film adaptations of great novels,we have a screenplay that will focus on the events of a novel,rather than on the underlying philosophical tenets and theories that seem to be involved.Perhaps it is inevitable that this be the case.The Karamazovs are,in actuality,the fragmented aspects of the author's

personality;a.)brutishness;b.)impulsiveness;c.)intellect;d.)spirituality;e.) depravity.(To wit;Feodor;Dimitri;Ivan;Alexis;Smerdyakov).And the real hero of the novel is Alexis.We are witnessing his growth and development as a hero against the sordid story of his family and the murder of their lustful,wicked father.It is development,particularly regarding the testing of his faith in the hard and often callous world,that marks the real journey of the story.This is minimalized in the film.I guess that this probably wouldn't have sold in 50s America.The adaptation ,given my observations,is really quite impressive.We can't fault any of the production values,efforts,and activities.And,with one exception,the cast is excellent.My one fault in this respect is with Lee J.Cobb.This outstanding character actor is much too young,virile,and attractive to portray accurately the character the author intended.Feodor Karamazov is supposed to be about 65,a physical wreck,sinister,and depraved.His physically debauched condition is intended to mirror his moral corruption.And,yet,given these attributes,he in nevertheless fascinating to women.(At least,certain kinds of women.I shudder to think what their agendas are if they find an old villain like this attractive.They must be as needy as all get-out,and viewing him through a fantasy veil that keeps out all accurate perceptions.)In my opinion,the late Donald Pleasence would have been a much more realistic choice for the part.Otherwise,given my criticism,this is a highly enjoyable film.