http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/29/perfectly-disturbing Comments On: Perfectly Disturbing by David Schmader en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by that traitor Kazan made some good films]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:24 -0700 The Stranger http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Film-Classi…

Posted by TIm Appelo]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:52:35 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Luke]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:50:30 -0700 The Stranger Posted by michael strangeways]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:43:44 -0700 The Stranger
Now, the Shining on the other hand...
Posted by Aussie Steve]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:33:52 -0700 The Stranger
Back to Shelley Winters: she was not only magnificent in this; she was great in a lot of stuff. Hugely underrated actress, and if you ever get a chance to read her first autobiography "Shelley: Also Known As Shirley", DO IT -- it's one of the funniest show-biz bios ever written. She fucked 'em all, our Shirley did, and had a great time doing it.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:10:25 -0700 The Stranger
Nabokov was happy with Kubrick's version, though he thought his own screenplay had merit and regretted that Kubrick hardly used it. The later movie is closer to the book in its plot, but is actually kind of glum. Kubrick better captures the tone of the book (funny, perverse, clever, tragic), notwithstanding all the changes of detail.
Posted by RobG]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:03:01 -0700 The Stranger
Anyway, all that cock-teasing stuff went away on the remake with Jeremy Irons and Lolita once again became the child that was intended. I wonder if Nabokov would have been happier with that version.
Posted by Bauhaus I]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:39:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Carollani]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:23:19 -0700 The Stranger
Humbert is not a sweet guy. He is a manipulative monster who is trying to charm the reader/viewer into pitying him, first of all by gleefully admitting to everything.

Lolita is not a pretty little cock-tease. She is a twelve year old girl who, as Humbert says, has her childhood stolen, and who nevertheless rises to some sort of tragic grandeur by the end. Humbert's representation of her is not to be believed: Nabokov intends for the reader/viewer to see through Humbert's act.
Posted by RobG]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:18:35 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:13:00 -0700 The Stranger
Kubrick turns this rather sad, sordid novel into a comedy. Interesting take on the book.

Also this weekend TCM repeated the doc on Kubrick. Kubrick's wife said the point of Lolita is that goodness and evil sometimes come in unexpected packaging. Makes sense. Humbert was a sweet kind of guy who unfortunately had a taste for pubescent bombshells. Lolita was a pretty little, cock-teasing cunt (forgive me, sisters).
Posted by Bauhaus I]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:02:59 -0700 The Stranger
Might as well call your attention to the other one: "...in James Harris and Stanley Kubrick's film...."
Posted by fixo]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:30:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by David Schmader]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:32:42 -0700 The Stranger Posted by fixo]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:28:30 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eric from Boulder]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:07:09 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:55:29 -0700 The Stranger Posted by David Schmader]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:52:27 -0700 The Stranger
She was fearless in her depictions of women audiences were always kind of glad to see die.
Posted by meowmeowkitty]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:46:50 -0700 The Stranger