Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Monday, June 29, 2009

Perfectly Disturbing

Posted by David Schmader on Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:33 PM

eb29/1246303706-picture_3.png

This weekend I happened upon a cable screening of Stanley Kubrick's film of Nabakov's Lolita, and while the movie remains a mixed bag, the opening credits are perfect.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
meowmeowkitty 1
Shelley Winters is AMAZING in that film.

She was fearless in her depictions of women audiences were always kind of glad to see die.
Posted by meowmeowkitty on June 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM
2
It's true--she's so brilliantly committed to debasing herself it's sometimes painful to watch, in that Jennifer Jason Leigh cinematic-masochist way...
Posted by David Schmader on June 29, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Fnarf 3
James Mason was good, too. Peter Sellers was, surprise surprise, too over-the-top. It's a good movie, even if it's not the movie Nabokov wanted (Sue Lyons was way too old, for one thing, and thus nowhere near as creepy).
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM
4
It's the movie they could make, back then. (It's probably the movie they could make, now, for that matter.) Cast Lolita as young as Nabokov describes her, and the audiences would find the movie TOO creepy, and revolt. The novel Lolita is still often read as a glorification of pedaphilia, just as Ada is read as a glorification of incest. The assumption that the author's moral judgement is the same as that of the authorial voice is not an easy trap for inexperienced readers to avoid. And when authorial voice is a first-person narrator, as in Lolita, it's even harder. Getting back to the movie, James Mason was perfect.
Posted by Eric from Boulder on June 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 5
Wow, thanks! I own the movie, and haven't watched it in years. I think I'll go pop it in the player.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
6
Sweet. Naturally, I focused on what's important--a typo in the credits: "Miss Winter's costumes."
Posted by fixo on June 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM
7
6: If I didn't already know that you are gay, I would now know that you are gay.
Posted by David Schmader on June 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
8
@7: Cruel. But fair.

Might as well call your attention to the other one: "...in James Harris and Stanley Kubrick's film...."
Posted by fixo on June 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Bauhaus I 9
The weak link in the film is Sue Lyons. Can't act. Otherwise, it's a masterpiece.

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 on June 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Fnarf 10
Lolita wasn't a cock-teasing cunt; she didn't know what a cock was until Humbert showed her. She was just flirty, in that way little girls sometimes have, until Humbert came along and raped her. She was twelve.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM
11
@9: I think you misunderstand both the book and the movie. The novel is also a comedy, a quite brilliant one, though of course also sad and sordid. The combination is one of the reasons the book is so admired.

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 on June 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Carollani 12
9: Well, we know now that you never read the book. Thank you for your uneducated commentary, but you should know it makes you sound dumb.
Posted by Carollani http://www.carollani.com/wordpress on June 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Bauhaus I 13
Sorry, guys. I was talking only of the film. The Sue Lyons character obviously isn't twelve, and doesn't she admit close to the film's ending when Humbert visits her and her husband that she was canoodling around with Clare Quilty all along?

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 on June 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM
14
@9/13: "Canoodling around with Clare Quilty" doesn't exactly cover it. Lolita (by now 14 years old) escapes Humbert's clutches by running off with a worse pedophile, who wants her for orgies and porno films. Even worse (for her), she is actually in love with Quilty, as she is not with Humbert.

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 on June 29, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Fnarf 15
Nabokov's screenplay was later issued as a book in its own right. I have two copies, maybe three, god knows why.

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 http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Aussie Steve 16
Kubrick was very hit and miss. His films ranged from the sublime to the un-watchable. This one, for mine, is in the latter category.

Now, the Shining on the other hand...
Posted by Aussie Steve on June 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM
michael strangeways 17
i think you could argue that ALL of Kubrick's films are a mixed bag of brilliance and merde.
Posted by michael strangeways http://strangewayssideshow.blogspot.com/ on June 29, 2009 at 4:43 PM
18
@15: I will have to check out that autobiography. Night of the Hunter is one of my favorites. Robert Mitchum pretty much owns the movie, but Shelley Winters does quite well as the oblivious, gullible wife.
Posted by Luke on June 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM
19
Nabokov wished they'd used his screenplay instead, but he did admire the scene of Humbert gloating over that Haze woman's death by sipping scotch from a glass balanced on his chest in the bath. I commend to you the Richard Corliss BFI book on Lolita, which is structured like Pale Fire:
http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Film-Classi…
Posted by TIm Appelo on June 29, 2009 at 7:52 PM
20
That movie is fantastic. I love how Mason sez "low-li-tahhh" and Sellers and Winters are excellent. Baby Doll by Kazan is truly worth several viewings, the great karl Malden, Eli Wallach and the charming Caroll Baker play strikingly off each other. Highly recommended!
Posted by that traitor Kazan made some good films on June 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Add a comment

Most Commented on Slog

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use