> This (very) loose rendition of Dostoyevsky's novel is at least smart enough not to forget the basic moral dimensions of the book - but they are present only basically. Dostoevsky's complex, nightmarish theological wrestlings are more or less summed up as `So, like, you believe in Jesus, like.' I start with my main beef because the film is strong, weak, confused, and intriguing. It continues the genre initiated by Freeway and continued by Cruel Intentions (contemporary teen drama based in/contrasted with classical literature and myth), but moves beyond them. The narrator is an authentically whacko seer, Vincent (Vincent Kartheiser), part angel, part demon, a living example of Dostoyevsky's most painful but genuine thesis that genuine morality comes from those who have sinned, people who understand the breadth of human capacities for good and evil. The `Raskolnikov' figure is not an arrogant genius but teenage girl Roseanne, whose life at the start is fairly normal, mixing equal parts anxiety at home (parents hate each-other) and working for popularity at school (she's a cheerleader who dates football player Jimmy), embarking on an unconcerned hedonism condoned by modern suburban existence. Her stepfather (Michael Ironside) is either a stroke or a psychotic fit waiting happen, stewing in deep frustration as his wife (Ellen Barkin) withdraws from him into an affair with cool, romantic barkeeper Eric (Jeffrey Wright, in an oddly small role), resulting in Ironside assaulting the couple in the local yogurt barn. As home life disintegrates, Roseanne's social position is rocked. Earlier seen trying to anchor the seething emotions of her parents, Rosanne is left in the middle of an escalating marital war with her social embarrassment acute. Things spiral into the lower depths when a drunken Ironside rapes Roseanne, precipitating her breakdown at school and then her planning with Jimmy to murder her stepfather.
Obviously Roseanne isn't really an equivalent of Raskolnikov; if you can say she exists in a Godless fashion it's just in the generally unacknowledged manner of modern life and not because of a conscious intellectual challenge, and her murder is fuelled by personal, even justifiable animus; this situation is taken from the sort of occasional psychotic excesses of suburban life we hear about on the news now and then, or see for ourselves. Fair enough; Dostoyevksy and other 19th century writers liked basing their stories upon real crimes and incidents that would be both authentic starting points and also accorded to themes that the writers were interested in.
So although the movie more or less skips around updating Raskolnikov as a character, it does lead into the novel's development. Vincent takes the place of Raskolnikov's prostitute lover as the informing presence of redemption. Although introduced tattooing the apparently nihilistic emblem `Por Nada' on his arm, Vincent actually has a weird form of Christianity that balances his overt perversity (he likes following and photographing Roseanne at all hours), and becomes, as he predicted, a figure to lean on for Roseanne; she is despite herself steadily drawn towards his lurking, warped philosophical self. As Barkin has been arrested and put on trial for Ironside's murder, Roseanne is faced with either confessing or letting her mother go to prison or possibly be executed. Anyone who knows how the book goes knows where it is going (for those who don't, don't read on), as Vincent, who has photographed Roseanne committing the murder, refuses to hand her in, instead subtly encouraging her to confess. She eventually does so, suffering a period of imprisonment where she takes over the narration, glad she isn't noticed anymore. Vincent is the only person who comes to visit her and eventually when she is released, and they ride off together on his motorcycle, evoking for me Allen Ginsberg's `Angleheaded Hipsters'.
The problem the film encounters is in updating Dostoyevksy's moral dilemmas. The story makes the incidents too personal; it's very much easier for Roseanne's gnawing guilt to be inspired by her mother's imprisonment as opposed to the poor unfortunate Raskolnikov's killing is blamed on, just as her murder is less problematic. Also, Vincent's Christianity isn't as strongly affiliated with a love of humanity as Dostoyevsky's, although it is implied that Vincent's way can accept people no matter how damaged because they are all born of the same imperfection. These things said, the film is always edgy, tough, and entertaining, particularly stylish in the pep rally filmed to resemble a form of black mass.
Obviously Roseanne isn't really an equivalent of Raskolnikov; if you can say she exists in a Godless fashion it's just in the generally unacknowledged manner of modern life and not because of a conscious intellectual challenge, and her murder is fuelled by personal, even justifiable animus; this situation is taken from the sort of occasional psychotic excesses of suburban life we hear about on the news now and then, or see for ourselves. Fair enough; Dostoyevksy and other 19th century writers liked basing their stories upon real crimes and incidents that would be both authentic starting points and also accorded to themes that the writers were interested in.
So although the movie more or less skips around updating Raskolnikov as a character, it does lead into the novel's development. Vincent takes the place of Raskolnikov's prostitute lover as the informing presence of redemption. Although introduced tattooing the apparently nihilistic emblem `Por Nada' on his arm, Vincent actually has a weird form of Christianity that balances his overt perversity (he likes following and photographing Roseanne at all hours), and becomes, as he predicted, a figure to lean on for Roseanne; she is despite herself steadily drawn towards his lurking, warped philosophical self. As Barkin has been arrested and put on trial for Ironside's murder, Roseanne is faced with either confessing or letting her mother go to prison or possibly be executed. Anyone who knows how the book goes knows where it is going (for those who don't, don't read on), as Vincent, who has photographed Roseanne committing the murder, refuses to hand her in, instead subtly encouraging her to confess. She eventually does so, suffering a period of imprisonment where she takes over the narration, glad she isn't noticed anymore. Vincent is the only person who comes to visit her and eventually when she is released, and they ride off together on his motorcycle, evoking for me Allen Ginsberg's `Angleheaded Hipsters'.
The problem the film encounters is in updating Dostoyevksy's moral dilemmas. The story makes the incidents too personal; it's very much easier for Roseanne's gnawing guilt to be inspired by her mother's imprisonment as opposed to the poor unfortunate Raskolnikov's killing is blamed on, just as her murder is less problematic. Also, Vincent's Christianity isn't as strongly affiliated with a love of humanity as Dostoyevsky's, although it is implied that Vincent's way can accept people no matter how damaged because they are all born of the same imperfection. These things said, the film is always edgy, tough, and entertaining, particularly stylish in the pep rally filmed to resemble a form of black mass.