Posts
If you have ever wondered why it is that more young ladies aren’t named Lolita, a simple explanation is available through exposure to the girl envisioned by Vladimir Nabokov in 1953 (incidentally, the novel that earned fourth place on the Modern Library of America’s list of the best novels of the 20th Century was not available in the U.S. until 1958 - prior to that "custom officials refused to deliver copies of the book to those who had ordered it"). Arguably one of the most notorious books ever written, the movies spawned by the text are surrounded with similar controversy.
Read more...
This tale of European professor Humbert Humbert craving for his landlady’s young daughter and his eventual loss of her to Clare Quilty is perhaps the most famous and celebrated examination of pedophilia and unrequited love ever penned. The story is not, however, simply a black-and-white Sunday school cautionary tale, nor is it a pornographic fantasy of a depraved middle-aged man. Instead, Lolita (in all its forms) is a heavily nuanced, thought provoking and ultimately deeply disturbing depiction of the possibilities inherent in human nature.
The amazing director Stanley Kubrick directed the first version of Nabokov’s novel in 1962. Barely skirting the production code then in effect, James Mason plays a more menacing Humbert and Peter Sellers a much more extended (though humorous) Quilty than in either of the other treatments. Perhaps it was more acceptable to present the dirty old man as the instigator of the romance that ensues rather than an “innocent” young girl.
Such departures from the original text place the Kubrick version more in the realm of lighthearted entertainment than disturbing social commentary. Kubrick’s decision to place the most violent scenes at the outset of the film so that they can largely be forgotten by the end, and his clever use of implication as opposed to graphic depiction both serve to further this view.
Adrian Lyne filmed a far more faithful version of the original novel in the mid 90s. It was so controversial that initially no studios would distribute it in the U.S. Eventually the Showtime cable network bought it, however, and the Samuel Goldwyn company agreed to distribute the movie on a limited basis. Jeremy Irons is superb as Humbert, and a 15-year-old Domonique Swain plays the tempting Lolita.
In this version, as in the book, Lolita is at least as much the seducer as Humbert. In fact, she eventually controls him more than he can control her. But Humbert’s corruption is hardly shown in a positive light. Actions do have consequences, and he surely reaps what he sows. Like the other versions, the only “normal” character in this one is Lolita’s mother, Charlotte Haze. She is, however, held up to ridicule for her shallowness and generally annoying personality (indeed, a fairly accurate criticism of most “normal” people).
The Lyne version is a good, solid film. A little slow at times, it allows the characters to develop and shows how seduction plays out on a variety of levels. Granted, some scenes may be a bit gratuitous, but all in all Lyne manages to address the results of the subject matter without ignoring the actions that led to those outcomes better than one might expect.
In the end, readers and viewers come to see that the story of Lolita not only wrestles with the reality of pedophilia, but speaks more generally to the seduction of youth by their elders and vice versa. One should consider the nuances of the subject before taking in (or condemning) either the book or the films, and allow ample time for reflection on the themes afterward. All three versions of Lolita are highly recommended.
