Kubrick’s 1962 version was pretty much what you would expect for that era. It’s a very literary adapatation apart from indulging Peter Sellers’s desire to showcase his chameleon talents - not as multiple characters, exactly, so much as one character (Clare Quilty) who adopts different guises. It is not an explicit film - everything is suggestion rather than depiction.
At what is arguably the most risque scene of all - the morning after Lolita and Humbert Humbert have stayed the night in a motel room together - Lolita suggests to HH that she has an idea, then she cups her hand to his ear and whispers something, and then it fades to black.
In the 1997 version there is precisely one brief scene which coveys some sort of sexual tryst between Lolita and HH, but it offers little or nothing for the soft porn aficionados of the video pause button. It all takes place in very arty, shadowy deep blue lighting with lots of quick cuts and strange angles. Quite frankly, for all that you can see, it could be two Teletubbies playing cards.
Wait a minute. I was just reading the imbd… I had no idea she was Jamie Archer from Face Off… Interesting. BTW, she is only a year younger than me, so I dont feel so evil now!
I would love to see a movie of Lee Siegels 1999 novel Love in a Dead Language, which riffs off of the Lolita theme. It’s about an American Sanskrit professor who becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, an Indian girl named Lalita. (Lalita is a genuine Hindu name.) His plans to seduce her are all scripted according to the Kama Sutra, and the plot of the novel itself is interwoven with the professor’s ongoing translation of the Kama Sutra. The novel has Nabokov allusions liberally sprinkled all through it. Including a projected CD-ROM version of the Kama Sutra with a translation into Zemblan.
I saw both the old version and the new version. I didn’t like either. I struggled through the old one but had too turn the new one off about halfway through. The only thing I was offended by was the film making and the acting. Forget the movie…Read the Book!!
I halfway agree with jonas…the novel is pretty damn amazing, and completely impossible to film accurately.
On the other hand, what’s the point of filming a novel accurately? I love Kubrick’s film version…I’m a sucker for James Mason and Peter Sellers and Shelley Winters. But it has about as much to do with Nabokov’s book as John Huston’s MOBY-DICK (which I also love) has to do with Melville’s.
Your right, I’m ussually too hard on movies based on books I like. (oddly enough, Steinbeck’s books translate really well on the screen). I always expect too much. Like I said I did watch the old version and I thought it was alright. I guess if they did want to make an accurate recreation of the novel it would illegal and about 50 hours long.
I’m curious about this too. In the introduction he talks about where he got the idea for the book. He said he first started thinking about writing the book after seeing an article about a monkey who was taught to draw and the first thing he drew was the bars of his cage
Well, to be fair, I suppose I should say that Nabokov’s book was about a butterfly or a little girl. Nabokov was, in fact, a lepidoptrist, and his fascination of butterflies was exceeded only by his love of sneaky double entendres, especially in his writing.
I tried searching online, but could not find the article I read as an undergraduate (it was titled “Lolita Lepidoptra,” I believe). If you reread Lolita with this in mind, it becomes obvious that Nabokov’s descriptions of Lolita are in fact descriptions of a butterfly.
A couple things here – first, one of my sisters friends was scouted to be the body double for Lolita in the newer version. She is uber-hot but is only about 5 foot 1 and very petite figure. She could have easily passed for 12 or 13 if you didn’t have a clear look at her head.
I agree with the opinions that both Lolita’s were pretty bad, and neither hold a candle to the book.
second (and apologies for the hijack),
Jonas:
If you’re talking about Of Mice and Men, I guess I can agree. If you’re talking about the James Dean abortion of a movie East of Eden, me and you’s gonna hafta step outside. East of Eden is my favortie book of all time, and that movie sucked eggs (to put it in nice GQ terms…Although I could devote a whole pit thread to that steaming pile of … nevermind…grrrrr)
BOY- talk about cross-pollination. There’s an active thread right now about child porn, and about half of this thread relates to it. So, here goes.
Her birthdate is irrelevant. If she was underage at the time the film was shot in the state it was shot in, then she was working as a minor in a film that might, or might not constitute pornography. Interesting- I don’t know where the film was shot. I do know that I now know MUCH more about Frank Langella than I EVER wanted to know. So yes, I did watch the entire thing.
Never saw the newer version, but I saw the old “Lolita” once years ago. I remember it being pretty good, and pretty tame. It probably shocked the sensibilities of people in its day, though.
I worked at a video store back in the mid-to-late '80s when they had to take all of the Traci Lords videos out of the adult section, when it was discovered she was 16 and 17 during the making of those films.
I recall her being one of the best X-rated stars at the time. I had to watch those movies to be an informed video clerk, of course.
I saw the old Lolita last year, have not seen the newer one or have read the book (though I read a Cliffs Notes-type summary of the novel and want to read it now). I thought the original film was pretty racy for it’s time, but it was not explicit at all, and I believe they changed the age of Lolita in it to 15 or 16.
I thought the most erotic and startling scene in the new one was where she was reading the comics while, ahem, “sitting” on his lap. It is very subtly done, but pretty unmistakable, as we see Irons naked, looking transported by ecstasy, and she is obviously riding him-including a shot of her going up on tip toe and down again, then throwing back her head in pleasure.
And I disagree that the new one sucked. The first one was perfectly awful, but I think that had a great deal to do with the limitations they were struggling with. I thought the new one was pretty good. But I’m a big Irons fan…
stoid
My mistake, I was thinking of an essay he wrote called On a Book Entitled Lolita written in 1956.
Nabakov writes: *As far as I can recall, the initial shiver of inspiration was somhow prompted by a newspaper strory about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes, who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature’s cage. *
I’m with Stoidela. I thought the newer version did about as good a job as could be done translating the book to film. (Short of using an actual 12-year-old, of course.) The cinematography in the film was magnificent (the best I’ve seen recently), and I thought Irons was perfect as Humbert. Those who don’t like this film: what’s your beef?
I didn’t care too much for the earlier (Kubrick) version.
