Badmovies.org Forum

Spoilers within...

Another Kubrick work - and it's on TMC (or AMC whichever) tonight I think (check local listings).  It was kinda funny that I finished this film (watching VHS version) and right after I turned it off the commercial for it was on Cable lol.

Anyway, this was a well-filmed and decent-acted story.  Interesting in its structure as well but to be honest, I didn't care for any of the characters (similar to ACO).  I found Lolita a brat, Dr. H a creepy bastard, Lolita's Mom rather annoying, and the Peter Seller's character was even more creepy.  Still, I found myself into the story.

And I found more parallels to other Kubrick work, as always...but surprisngly, I found a lot that reminded me of EWS (or I guess I could say there was a lot in EWS that reminded me of Lolita).  There were similarities in the party scene, being approached with strange sexual confrontations, and conversations getting interrupted, just to name a few.  There were other references/parallels too although at the moment, I can't think of any significant scenes in a bathroom this time, but I could be forgetting on that.  Classism was also a big theme as is pretty typical in Kubrick's work.

And was it me or did the big house (in the beginning and the very end) remind anyone else of the house in EWS where the big party was - this house looked like the next-morning-mess after any big party.  Of course, there was a major focus on art, plays, theater, and showbiz.  Hell, the painting in the beginning/end was a nice touch.

Anyway, did anyone else find it pretty unexpected that Dr. Humpfry (sp?) got approached by the woman at the party who insisted she and her husband were "very open minded?"  - caught me off guard, especially in a movie from '62.  Not that it was unheard of back then ...just didn't expect to see it in a major film of the time.

Others' thoughts?

Although I wouldn't describe myself as a true fan of the novel Lolita, the original movie version of it puzzles me to my core. Why on earth was Lolita presented on-screen as a straightforward comedy? The book has elements of dark humor, no denying, but not to the extent or in the same fashion as the film Lolita. The actress who played Lolita was also (as has often been pointed out) way too old for the role, and James Mason was nothing at all like Humbert Humbert. Yes, movies are seldom visualizations of written works as much as they are re-imaginings, but what was done to Lolita (the novel) was one of the more extreme examples of stripping a tale down to its barest skeleton and then padding it out to a new and inferior identity. Personally I think this is Kubrick's worst production. It was miscast, badly acted, the novel was warped past recognition, and on top of that it was vaguely boring: something a story about...well, this sort of subject matter...should never be.

Never read the book myself so I can't comment on that but I have read some reviews that make the same notes you have.  I imagine that (some of) the adjustments made were partially due to the times and subject matter but I couldn't know for sure...and of course that doesn't explain all the changes (I know Peter Seller's character "Quilty?" wasn't near as present as in the film, for example. 

I know a lot of people didn't like Kubrick changing elements from the Shining novel but from what I understand, the changes he made were better...and basically told a different story.  You can tell this was an earlier work by Kubrick; although I hear Fear and Desire have the most to be desired.

I actually much prefer the Adrian Lyne 1997 version of Lolita to the Kubrick version.  I really think that if Kubrick hadn't of been dealing with the very strict censorship standards of the time that his version would have been as dark (at times) and controversial (some would say scandalous) as the 1997 version with Dominique Swain in the title role.

I've seen Kubrick's version and found it a yawn fest.  James Mason wasn't a creepy dirty old man, Sue Lyons was way too old and not an innocent/predatory type like she's supposed to be.  And Shelley Winters was just loud and annoying and really crass, or as the Brits like to say "common".  But I suppose she was supposed to be to show up the sacrifice Humbert was willing to make to get close to Lolita.

Much, much prefer the version with Jeremy Irons.  Very realistic, Irons plays the paedophile role very well and Dominique Swain is brilliant as Lolita.  I really dislike Melanie Griffiths as an actor, but she did the mother really well.  A woman who is obviously past her prime, but still tries to affect the little girl lost/sexy woman with needs persona.

I am a huge fan of the novel---in fact, I think it's the best written novel in the English language.  That's maybe one of the reasons I've held off on seeing the film.  It can't be faithfully translated to screen, because the effect depends entirely on Humbert's 1st person narration, and the ambiguity created by his unreliable narration.  It seems that ambiguity would disappear if everything were being shown to the audience as if they were spectators, rather than through Humbert's distorted lens.  Having said that, Nabokov actually wrote the screenplay himself.  I am sure he realized that it was unfilmable as written, and therefore wanted to control the direction the adaptation would take.  Some changes (like Lolita's age) were made to please the censors; Kubrick made other changes on his own.  Nabokov accepted Kubrick's alterations with "reluctant pleasure," which is probably the highest praise any writer has ever given to changes to his own script of his own novel.

The one with Jeremy Irons.  I saw that one.  Like it.

What amazes me about the writing in the novel is that English was its author's fourth language. How eloquent must Nabokov have been in the other three?

As for the movies....it says something that Peter Sellers, one of the greatest actors ever, IMHO, stole the show with so little screen time. The re-make.... I don't know, it was like a beautiful plane that never took off.

It puzzles me today to read the comment I made up above on Lolita back in 2008. I don't disagree with what I wrote then, but it feels strange to see it now.

I'm all about free expression of ideas, and I don't think the subject of Lolita was inappropriate within its context, and I think just about any story someone wants to tell is fair game, but it's less cool than it's perceived to be in Lolita to be a kid and have an adult have an attraction to you, and it happened to me more than once, including with someone supposedly in a position of trust associated with my high school (which may be one reason I dislike schools so much, shrug).

But the thing that I think about when I contemplate the message of Lolita, the alleged glam Humbert believed existed in his attraction to a child, is how I was close to a bad situation when I was thirteen and in my own downstairs family room while my parents had a party upstairs. Some man came down and skipped flirting and went straight into sexual harassment mode and it was gross and disturbing, not flattering to be some adult's sex object.

Sure, I mean a minute later after I blurted out my age he was like, "Wait, you're thirteen? I figured you were seventeen."

As if that made it all right. No harm, no foul. Right.

In fact a psychologist got on my case just last month about how my not telling anybody about these incidents at the time said something deeply negative about me. Well, I was a kid and I was embarrassed, that's about all I can say there.

So I don't know, maybe I was slightly tainted on Lolita by the time I got to it in college but I never warmed to the novel or the films, though I do completely agree Nabokov was a wordsmith with few modern peers.

One of these days I will either read the book or watch one of the movies of this.

JAMES MASON's performance make this film a masterpiece. 

It seems like a movie for perverts. That's right, i said it

^ A case could certainly be made...