I didn’t approve of what Raskolnikov did, yet I could empathize with him thanks to the writer’s prowess. I don’t see why cinema would be different than literature. The guy in Breathless was a jerk and the director failed to make the audience empathize with him.

The director didn't want you to take pity on the guy or feel morally superior to him. He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience.

With Rascolnicoff, Dostoyevsky wanted from the start to condemn the ideas he had (and his actions).

> He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience.

I don't think the protagonist has a viewpoint. My impression was that he was a random jerk. Why did I watch a movie about a random jerk who is not worth paying attention to. It was definitely a waste of time. If wasting my time was the intention of the director, then I would say that he succeeded.

Well, art cinema is not for everybody

Yep, that's what I said to those who found my movie stupid.

Well, if it wasn't stupid, you'd be right to tell them that.

More often than not, it's the audience that's stupid, especially the average viewer.

Which is also why e.g. the Monkeys sold more than Miles Davis, and Bieber more than any number of much higher quality pop.