Tacit Collusion?

           The most striking feature from this last viewing of the 2008 Russian miniseries adaptation of the Brothers Karamazov were the further character developments of Smerdyakov and Ivan Fyodorovich.  I feel that the miniseries portrays a more Smerdyakovian view of events, deliberately overplaying Ivan’s reactions during his discussion with Smerdyakov over his trip to Moscow.  The miniseries seems to suggest that Ivan tacitly colluded with Smerdyakov over the dispatch of Fyodor Pavlovich.  While reading the text however, I felt that Ivan’s actions were not as overtly indicative as Ivan’s approval for Smerdyakov’s proposed actions.  In adhering to Smerdyakov’s chain of events from the start I feel that some of Ivan’s innocence is lost.  It will be interesting to see how the miniseries is to deal with Ivan’s breakdown from Book XI.

            Overall, I have to say that my impressions of the miniseries have not deviated much from what I outlined in my earlier post last week.  In actually reading the novel I feel like I am able to better understand the events that are being portrayed on screen.  A first time viewer, in contrast, would likely feel lost in the many transitions that occur between the characters and their respective stories.  This constant transition, although present in the book as well, is not near as fluid in the miniseries.  The initial scene with Ilyusha and the gang of schoolmates seems almost out of place, and had I not read the novel, would almost have doubted the events overall significance.  In addition to his, the significant meeting at the Samsonov’s is entirely left to the viewer’s imagination. 

            On the whole it is interesting to view Dostoyevsky’s eclectic tale captured on screen.  At the same time however it seems that the miniseries is incapable of accurately capturing all of the themes that are present in the text.  As with any reproduction the writers needed to decide what details to keep and which to cast to the wayside.  Unfortunately, in the manner in which Ivan is portrayed the miniseries explicitly touts the Smerdyakovian side of the story as the actual chain of events.              

The Armistice of Skotoprigonyevsk

          In many ways the epilogue to The Brothers Karamazov seems like an unlikely and ill-fitting end to such a broad literary undertaking.  The questions that have been brought up in other blogs and during our class discussions over the course of the semester have mostly remained unanswered.  As I was preparing to write this final post concerning the text, I could not help but feel that on a subtle level, this was the most fitting ending that could have been written. 

            Like the armistice that ended the First World War, the epilogue of The Brothers Karamazov left more questions than answers.  The conflict that ravaged the town of Skotoprigonyevsk over the scandalous business of the Karamazov clan inevitably brought to the fore the dominant concerns of the day.  The epilogue seems to accentuate the feeling that life will never be the same following the trial of Dmitry Fyodorovich.  The concerns that initiated the familial and societal conflict were opened to all, and now it is all who must bear the knowledge of these concerns.  Although the ending and epilogue were quite upsetting to me as a reader at first, I have come to realize that the novel almost needed to end in such an indistinct manner.  Had the novel been resolved in the epilogue I do not feel that the enduring themes of the novel would have possessed the same weight.  The divisions in Russian society did not simply end with the end of the Karamazov tale.      

            Importantly, in the midst of the epilogue Dostoyevsky stresses the importance of the town’s youth.  In my reading of the latter portions of the novel I feel the role of youth seems to demonstrate hope in the future generation of Russians.  In many ways it seems that the epilogue forcibly breaks the path between the generational and societal gaps.  The intellectual, Ivan Fyodorovich, lay infirm, whereas the embodiment of a lost Russia, Dmitry Fyodorovich, was condemned to exile in Siberia.  Importantly, Aleksey, the symbol of traditional values, served the role of the intergenerational intermediary.  He was able to express the virtues of the “popular fundamentals” to the amassed group of Ilyusha’s schoolmates.  The group of youth huddled around Ilyusha’s rock, and dedicated themselves to the memory of their deceased comrade, and to the hope that they may lead more virtuous and selfless lives.  In this context it seems that Dostoyevsky leaves the novel with the notion that it is ultimately the younger generation that will come to judge the follies of the past.  It is the younger generation that Dostoyevsky seems to purport will understand the gravity of the mistakes of the past, and in turn seek to dedicate themselves toward the course of righting the path of a fractured society.