A Film Script Transformation of Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment

Commentary

Choice of text and genre

I chose to transform Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment into a film script aimed at a modern cinematic Art House audience on limited release.

The specific audience would be people who take an avid interest in detective thrillers, aimed at an Art House audience on limited release.

What attracted me about the base text was the psychological and philosophical themes that suffuse the novel, which I take a strong interest in.

I conceive that the novel is multifaceted in that it can be perceived to be about psychology or social comment. This presented a large attraction to me in writing a film script because it allows the audience to interpret Rodion’s different motives for committing murder.

Structure of the transformation

My transformation begins with a description of the setting. I deliberately chose to change the backdrop from that of a late nineteenth-century police station to Russia at the height of communist power. This is achieved by the addition of a statue of Stalin. This adaptation was necessary because it is a more familiar era with modern audiences. This setting contributes to the interrogation and oppression of Rodion because this epoch was such a tyrannical one.

The dialogue in the original is far too verbose for a modern cinematic audience. Therefore I have omitted much of the redundant dialogue in order to speed the scene up and increase the tension and suspense.

I have included three flashbacks which allows the audience to access the subconscious of Rodion. These are conventions often used in modern cinema. These flashbacks take the place of the novel’s narrator and give the audience a sense of panic going through the killer’s mind.

I excluded what happens after Rodion leaves the police offices, for I wanted the scene to focus on the interrogation scene and felt this would diminish my aim: to produce a script that was taut and exhilarating.

Form

In producing the transference of the text I was constantly aware of the transformation into audiovisual form. This is demonstrated through the comprehensive stage directions and camera angles.

Since the script’s focal point is an interrogation room in which two characters are primarily seen, I felt the use of daring camera work would embellish the visual style. This is laden throughout as I hoped it would yield a positive response from my target audience.

Camera angles and character’s names are represented in capitals, whereas stage directions are in italics. This is so the structure of the piece exhibits that of a professional film script.

Material selected

Tension permeates the two chapters I have transformed because Porphyrius suspects Rodion to be the killer but is trying to elicit, paradoxically, the admission from him through projecting a very friendly attitude, "Come in, friend". I thought this and the suspense prevalent in the scene would lend themselves particularly to a film script because these are popular conventions in this genre.

The material selected is from two chapters in which an interrogation scene takes place. I thought these two chapters embody much of what Crime and Punishment is about. It enabled me to explore the psychological aspects of the text through Porphyrius’ interrogation of Rodion as well as his Machiavellian traits. Situational irony is also present through Nikola’s unexpected entrance - it presents a twist (something which I think is dramatic and would appeal to a modern audience) and instils confidence in Rodion, who believes he is now in the clear.

Linguistic choices

During my first draft, in my attempt to be faithful to the novel I used overly complex language. In my later drafts I avidly tried to ensure that the language used would be more attractive to a modern audience and be appropriate for a film script. With this in mind, I looked at more film scripts, specifically those that would fall into my genre. For example, an interrogation in The Usual Suspects - one not too dissimilar from mine. An illustration of the said change is:

Porphyrius (first draft): I am displeased that my earlier disposition displeased you.

This was transformed to:

Porphyrius (third draft): I’m sorry that my earlier attitude upset you.

The first sentence projects a very formal image of the detective, using "I am" instead of "I’m". Through this ellipsis, Porphyrius is portrayed as being more relaxed and approachable than how he is depicted in the novel. This is because I thought a rigidly formal detective wouldn’t appeal to my target audience as much as a somewhat inept, naturalistic one.

"Attitude" supersedes "disposition" because I wanted the detective to be welcoming rather than somewhat withdrawn, which is the picture I think the audience would get in listening to the first sentence. This transformation could draw comparisons to a Colombo-type figure, making Porphyrius likeable, but the audience, like Rodion, has to be wary of him at the same time because of his cunning. An example of this is when Porphyrius hypothetically analyses the temperament of a murderer, "Suppose I miss out on the delight of seeing him sweat in an interrogation such as this one". He is subtly implying Rodion’s guilt so as to frustrate him.

Some of the opening exchanges are juxtaposed through the detective’s amiable remarks, "Here you are then - in our latitude" with the student’s reticent responses, "Yesterday, you had, I fancy, a wish to examine me formally". Rodion’s comment is specifically littered with commas so as to make explicit his withdrawn and nervous attitude at this stage. This distinction between the characters’ attitudes is consistent throughout the text, but after Nikola’s sudden entrance, everything descends into chaos for Porphyrius. This is indicated through hesitancy, "Any accomplices?" and "No - umm...you can go".

Leading up to Rodion’s harangue on page six, he only participates in the dialogue on three occasions. Two of these instances are simple sentences, followed by two interrogatives, "I never revealed anything of the sort. How can you know this?" and "I don’t recollect much in my state. Nevertheless, what are you implying?" which explicitly indicate how Rodion’s control over the conversation has abated. He no longer has the answers and the detective has now succeeded in dominating the exchanges but more importantly in coercing Rodion to almost admit his guilt.

Rodion is haunted by panic that causes him to launch into hyperbolic diatribes, "Arrest me! If you suppose I am the murderer then I beg you to have me arrested, for this unbearable meeting has gone on too long". The use of the exclamation mark shows Rodion’s obvious anger here. The use of the word "suppose" in the first clause and "beg" in the second clause are contradictory. In the former he denies his guilt, whereas in the latter he craves resolution.

Porphyrius reveals Machiavellian instincts in this scene: he is manipulative and does lie, "Uhh...why, it was you. Yes, Rodian, in your state you spoke of your visit to the vicitim’s house". This is shown through his hesitancy.

He only hides this vice in his character through his skill as a detective - something which I felt would appeal to a modern-day cinematic audience. But the way he deludes Rodion is through what appears to be natural, honest solicitation, "Please, friend. Do take your seat. It’s not that important anyway". Through the use of the modal verb "do" Porphyrius is projecting a friendly persona.

That Porphyrius emphasises "pleaded" (represented in italics) on page five, demonstrates his dexterity as a detective. He uses repetition purposefully here to indicate that Rodion was acting strangely and so causes the student to launch into a vehement speech.

Nikola’s entrance means he has now become the focal point, not Rodion. He passionately proclaims his guilt and compels Porphyrius into denial. This is indicated through the use of rhetorical questions, "That can’t be? It just can’t be?"

Porphyrius becomes subdued, symptomatic of the inclusion of minor sentences, augmenting the tension and suspense, "What? You?" His confidence has radically abated, accentuated through short sentences and increasing hesitancy, "No - umm - you can go".

Whereas Porphyrius had formerly controlled the dialogue, his interlocutor begins to grasp this role, speaking in complex sentences, "You see Porphyrius, you have just been declaring this man’s innocence when you have probably been trying to embed it in his brain: you are the murderer. You are the murderer". He deliberately uses repetition to suggest Porphyrius’ belligerent interrogation style.

This self-belief starts to manifest itself in his statements. His speech becomes laced with sardonic remarks, "Why would I leave St Petersburg? It’s not as though I’ve got anything to hide." He wants to partake in the taunts that were characteristic of Porphyrius’ earlier language ("Why, Mr Romanovitch, you are a quaint person!"). For example, "farcical" is emphasised (represented in italics) because it is a slur. This is also the first occasion when he uses "Porphyrius Petrovitch". Using the first and middle name of the detective is polite in Russian society.

The use of the intensifier, "reprovingly", in the stage directions on page 5 is important because Porphyrius’ ensuing comment is a direct, but not explicit, criticism of Rodion’s article in which he proposed extraordinary people should be permitted to transgress laws because they help the universe advance. This notion disagrees with the Stalinist/Marxist attitudes that Porphyrius possesses.

In the flashback on page 6 and 9, the direction indicating that Rodion initially used the blunt side of the axe to kill Alena and then latterly the sharp side is a metaphor. This is because it represents Raskolnikov’s split personality: in the first instance, the murder is committed in a crude, disturbed way, but the second represents his more compassionate side through using the sharp side of the axe.

Since the piece is set specifically in the Stalin years of the Soviet era, I felt I could develop Porphyrius’ character to the extent that he becomes a neo Stalinist/Marxist. The diction employed by Porphyrius is distinctly pro-Communist. For instance, he uses nouns such as, "cooperation", "community", and "the common good". He also regularly reiterates the pronoun "we" to emphasise this.

In contrast, Rodion is an anti-Communist, libertarian who finds the current political system deplorable. This is characterized when his speech becomes despondent and philosophical "No other way to fail or die? We are no longer humans under this regime".

Rodion describes Porphyrius as "a docile instrument of the State" who "regurgitates Stalinist rubbish". This is because the detective’s demeanour is comparable to a robot. On three occasions, he introduces quotes by Marx and Stalin. For instance, "if a man is causing a problem, we should merely remove the man and the problem will be solved". This is an ominous hint to suggest what will happen come the denouement of the script, but it goes awry.