The new version was never released in the US. No US distributor would touch it. It was shown on Showtime.
The new version does not have Dominic Swain nude. The most explicit thing is her sitting on HH lap in a rocking chair. Her skirt cover the point of contact and he has on a robe and a shirt that we can see. The only nudity is from Frank Langella. He runs straight at the camera in an open bathrobe and he is bouncing away.
I really liked Jermey Irons as HH and I thought Donimic was good as well. I want to get the book on tape of Jermey Irons reading it but it was 80 dollars.
The problem with making this book into a film is they have to cut something and they cut the second year of the relationship and the second trip across America. This totally changes the story.
I always tell people that Lolita is about trying to have sex with an underage girl the same way that Moby Dick is about whale hunting.
I guess if I never read the book or if it was an original screen play, I might have liked it. But I thought that the humor was a bit forced, I don’t think it captured the dark humor of the novel. It has been a while since I watched it but I didn’t really like Jeremy Irons. Maybe if I gave it another chance I would change my mind, he is roughly what I would picture HH to look like. But I don’t think that the girl who played Lolita looked the part (in my opinion). I didn’t picture lolita as a 11 year old who looks older. She was a little girl, HH did not like when nymphets turned 16 so why would he fall in love w/ a girl with boobs. I know that they had to gloss over the ugliness of HH in order to make a movie, but part of his ugliness was that he liked children, not teenagers.
Also I agree, it is not stricly about sex w/ an underage girl. I worked at a bookstore, and I heard a girl call it pornography. On a certain level, I don’t think she read the same book as me.
(on an unrelated note, one movie that succeeded w/ the same type of dark humor was Happiness, and without glossing anything over. Not recomended for sensitive types.)
Oops. Well. I meant that her actual DATE of birth didn’t matter. All that mattered was her age when those scenes were shot. Not the film’s date of begin of Principal Photography, not the date of release. Just how old she was when scenes that might be objectionable under law were actually filmed.
I can’t bear to quote your quote of my quote of your quote of me.
What I mean, and am apparently paralyzed with here, is the following.
Someone gave the date of her birth. ALL I was saying <sob, gasp> is that giving her specific date of birth didn’t matter. All that mattered was whether or not she was an underage minor at the time, etc etc.
I sweah to you all, I won’t come back to this. Out ! Out, foul thread !!!
Cartooniverse
p.s. Scary to think that I passed out of Freshman Comp at Penn State with an eloquent essay written with no prep. God. I’m old, and inarticulate. <sniffle>.
OK, you 2 are confused. The actual DOB does matter- but only as applied to the date shot, not the date of release. Ie, if she was 16 when the film was shot, it matters not that she was 20 when the film was released.
And, the “real” reason why it is not “kiddie porn” is that it is “art”, ie it has “socially redeeming meaning”.