This past weekend I watched the Kubrick/Mason version of Lolita (1962). I’d say it has been more than a decade since I say the Adrian Lyne/Irons version (1997). I read the novel sometime around when I watched the Lyne version.
The novel’s Humbert was certainly creepy. I don’t think one can reasonably think that we are supposed to sympathize with the character. (Wiki has it that Humbert is an unreliable narrator, after all.)
I think Lyne’s version is consistent with that. Irons comes off as a little demented, self-justifying and creepy to anyone not himself.
But, while in no version Humbert goes unpunished, am I wrong to think Kubrick was playing it for laughs?
Some differences: the book has Lolita as 12, Lyne’s version (according to IMDB) has the character as 13, and Kubrick has her at 14 (also IMDB). Maybe that’s something. I don’t know.
My impression of Kubrick’s version is that while Humbert is “out there” he wasn’t that out there. It’s almost as if 14 was fair game even if just a tad young.
(Movie criticism: Kubrick/Mason’s version seemed to just toy with the idea of Humbert’s paranoia and delusions. Irons seemed definitely over the edge. Kubrick, it seems, found it merely a convenient way to end the story. 1962 limp-dick jokes were a hoot.)
It’s been years since I’ve read the book and seen both movies, but my impression at the time was that Kubrick captured the black humor of the book, but his Lolita character at 14 didn’t come across to me as the “nymphets” as described by Nabakov. The Irons version did a better job of capturing the ick factor of Humbert Humbert and his obsession with on-the-cusp-of-pubescence nymphets, but missed the subversive humor of the novel. In tone, I felt the Kubrick version was closer to the novel (which makes some sense, as Nabakov was somewhat involved in the screenplay. He is credited with it, although very little of what he wrote, to my understanding, ended up in the movie.)
Thank you. I should perhaps re-read the novel. I thought the “ick factor” was in the novel to a greater degree. But perhaps that was the way I read it.
IIRC, Kubrick said he wouldn’t have even made the movie if he knew how much of the book would be changed or censored.
Yes, the book went into a lot more detail. One of the things I remember is that in the movie HH lusted after Lolita. In the book, Lolita was just another girl in his string of conquests. There were girls before her and there will be girls after her. It wasn’t an isolated incident. I want to say she was also younger in the book as well.
As far as reading, it’s on my list to read again some day. I was probably 2/3rds of the way through the book when I realized how good the writing was. I had been ignoring all the flowery prose because I was cringing at the content, but ignoring that for a second, it’s a very well written book. Nabakov must have memorized the thesaurus by the time he was done writing it.
As mentioned above. The 1962 movie has her 2 years older than the book.
I was struck by this as well. The writing is brilliant. (Native language or not, it is one of the best English-language books I can recall.)
I think I just need to not be embarrassed, and get a copy on the shelf. It defends itself.
I understand the praise, but … it’s more than that. When I was in Jr. High, I read Stephen Donaldson’s The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever. The premise was good, and Jr. High me thought it was brilliant; I read it with a dictionary by my side. As an adult, I found the series extremely pretentious. Hell, it was just bad (still a decent premise, but…).
Nabokov didn’t merely “memorize a thesaurus”; he mastered the language.
The book transpires over a couple of years, but she starts out as 12 in the book when Humbert takes an interest in her. His quote on the “nymphets” that he is sexually attracted to goes: “Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as ‘nymphets.’” He’s not interested in girls who are fully sexually developed – but those who are on the cusp of pubescence.
Vladimir Nabakov somewhat famously himself described Lolita as a love affair with the English language. It is beautifully written, and I need to re-read it soon, as, when I read it 20 years ago, it impressed me as the best English novel I had ever read.
I meant to mention in my previous post, though a completely different genre, Stanislaw Lem. It’s SciFi, and perhaps a lot of credit should go to his translators, but, boy, it translated well.
I read the book and saw both versions within a span of two weeks for a Novel Into Film class I took as a sophomore in college. I remember thinking the 1962 version was somehow more sympathetic to Humbert; that Lolita was the least childlike, that Charlotte (the mother) was the least appealing, and that Humbert was the least creepy of the three versions.
well is seems that the russians have a knack for taking what most people would consider unreadable subjects and making beautifully written (often in a black witty/humorous way) stories
she said Lolita was written in a "lets see what i can get away with by putting in the most beautiful writing i can on whats considered the worlds worst subject and just make it with enough humor so i can see who really read it " style
I’ve seen that version of Lolita two or three times and I wish I could give you some carefully written explanation as to why I feel the way I do. I really enjoy James Mason’s work. He is one of my most favorite male dramatic actors. For anyone else who enjoys his work and who has not seen “5 Fingers”, I would like to say it is my favorite James Mason film and I would like to recommend it to anyone who may be interested. 5 Fingers (1952) - IMDb
Unfortunately, I have a large problem with this version of Lolita. There are a few actors that, for some reason, I just cannot bear to watch their work anymore. Shelley Winters is one of them. I can’t give a rational explanation. But she just makes my skin crawl and I can’t stand to watch most any film in which she appears. I found that this version of Lolita was just ruined for me because of her appearance. Whenever she is on the screen, I find that I must FF past her scene.
I think the reason may be that she just seems to be enormously out of character in every film I’ve ever seen. I find her to appear especially ridiculous when she portrays any character from the past. She just seems to me to be obviously a lady from the 20th century. You, know, that may be key to the reason. Do you agree that she never seems to act? She is always Shelley Winters. She never changes any of her mannerisms to act like someone else. This works for some people who are extremely interesting - like Jack Nicholson. But it sure does not work for Winters.
I’ve been thinking of starting a thread to ask people if they have any actors about whom they feel the same. But I’d prefer if someone else started that thread because I have difficulty explaining why these actors repel me in the way they do.
I once heard a story somewhere. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where. But I’m fairly certain the source was some popular site or maybe some documentary. It was about Shelley Winters and how she came to audition for a part and the first thing she did was to pull her two Oscars out of her purse and put them on the desk of the casting director. I suppose she felt that ensured she would get the part. Ugh! I think the one film in which she appeared that caused me to feel the way I do was Winchester 73 in which she played a dance hall girl.
