Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
WhyaDuck

Why is Lolita a classic ???

Recommended Posts

I'm asking, because maybe it's me, I don't get it......It's about a child molester, so it's hard for me to like the character......and I don't see the kid as being all that sexy or hot, maybe a brat, but thats no excuse for those over 18.....Sellers would be kind of funny except he also is a child molester

 

It's fitting that it ends with both child molesters dead....the girl seems to have married a good guy, but she says she is still in love with child molester Sellers....

 

Maybe it's me, this always seemed more child porn and dirty old men than a classic...but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since the definition of a child molester is having sex with a girl under the age of 16 or so, even if consensual, than yes, Sellers' character is a child molester. He was with the girl before the step dad (Mason).

 

While the movie takes on a daring topic I view the movie as a classic. Some really fine acting by Winters (who else is better at being annoying), Mason and Sellers (in multiple roles). The ending kind of drags on but the first 23 is unique and packs a punch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyaduck wrote:

<< Maybe it's me, this always seemed more child porn and dirty old men >>

 

The very word Lolita is associated with child porn as I found out severeal years back Googling the 1997 movie remake. :(

 

When I hear that word, the first thing comes to mind is Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafuoco. Remember *them.*

 

Joey asked Mary Jo to take him back some years ago but decided she needed him like another hole in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The consensus is pretty clear that Lolita is considered a literary classic, probably

less clear that the movie is a cinema classic. Sounds about right to me. The book,

leaving the sexual angle aside for a moment, is a wonderful dissection of American

culture, popular and other, seen through the eyes of a European, written in a superb

prose style, and in places, funny as hell. I don't think the movie emphasized that

Humbert's attraction to Lolita was deeply connected to a girl who he loved when they

were both children. And in the book, Lolita is no innocent. This doesn't excuse Humbert's

behavior in any way of course. I believe Lolita was only twelve when she first meets Humbert

and that they had to bump her age up a number of years, so that the movie wouldn't be even

more offensive than it already was. I'd call the movie good, but not great.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joey asked Mary Jo to take him back some years ago but decided she needed him like another hole in the head.

 

That's hilarious, hamradio! :):):):):):):):):):):):):)

 

You are truly a master of the moronic remark!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bildwasser said: And in the book, Lolita is no innocent. This doesn't excuse Humbert's behavior in any way of course.

 

Exactly. I see the story as pretty tragic for the adults involved. It reminds me of the phrase, "the lunatics are running the asylum".

 

And the music chosen to emphasize important scenes always strikes me as strange. But I still love Kubrick and his interpretation of the story.

 

(Why'd you change your name from Bilge?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's been a loooong time since I've read Lolita, but my impression on first reading it still sticks in my head, which is: it's only *ostensibly* about a man having a relationship with a 15 year old girl and in retrospect, that aspect has very little to do with the story (really.)

 

The book is told in three parts, with each part becoming increaingly odd and abstract (something I don't particularly care for.) The first third of the book, which is the best, is the part that "makes sense"- ie it's about Humbert, Charlotte and her daughter. After that, it gets weeeeeeeeeeird, and my interpretation was that it becomes a study of how a story the author creates comes to life, becomes something beyond the author's control and ultimately the lead character actually consumes and kills the author and begins telling the story himself in some sort of weird fusion of Agatha Christie and Kurt Vonnegut.

 

That last intriguing aspect is something they could and *should* have done in the film too, but didn't (guess Kubrick: the Great and Powerful didn't want to even suggest he could turn over the reins to anything.)

 

 

It's not a novel that screams for a film adaptation, I've never gotten why they did it, but they did it. For the record, Nabokov wrote another semi-autobiographical, serio-comic and very touching novel about a lonely Russian Professor in a college town called Pnin. It is a far better, far more filmic book that Lolita that I recommend to anyone and find it odd that *it has never been adapted for either film or television.*

 

 

I also end with carping that it super-duper **** me off when people refer to the concept and story as "Stanley Kubrick's Lolita " even when not discussing the film, it is Nabokov's Lolita through and through, for better and for worse.

 

 

ps- Why not a Duck?

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 9:11 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> It's not a novel that screams for a film adaptation, I've never gotten why they did it, but they did it.

 

The book was a controversial best-seller when it was published in the U.S. in 1958. From Robert R. Kirsh's 1958 L.A. Times review:

 

"Word-of-mouth reports hinted that 'Lolita' was hot stuff and the implication was that the book was a high-class 'Peyton Place.' "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> I also end with carping that it super-duper **** me off when people refer to the concept and story as "Stanley Kubrick's Lolita " even when not discussing the film, it is Nabokov's Lolita through and through, for better and for worse.

 

Kubrick convinced Nabakov to come to Hollywood and write the screenplay but his first version was 400 pages -- or seven hours -- long.

 

Though Nabakov came up with a shorter version, Kubrick wound up using about only 20% of it so the film is hardly "Nabakov's Lolita through and through."

 

Countdown to the inevitable snarky, vulgarity-peppered response: 10, 9, 8 . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when I said "even when not discussing the film" I meant, as in, referring to the book as Kubrick's Lolita which extends to people I've met who actually thought Kubrick wrote the book itself, or just the notion that the story began with Kubrick himself, unaware that someone else came up with it before him.

 

...although they do say every story ever told has been covered by either Shakespeare or The Bible, I don't recall anything quite like Lolita in either. (Of course, I could be wrong.)

 

*No, the 1962 film is the property of the Giant Head of Stanley Kubrick, there is no contesting that.*

 

(But the story is Nabokov's,)

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 11:44 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also in the book(which I haven't read in years), Humbert goes into a thorough explanation of what he considers a "nymphet", which is how he refers to Lolita. It has nothing to do with being "sexy" or "hot", but rather some other quality that escapes the average man. You also get the impression that he's done this all before. When, in another thread, we were discussing "what is sexy?", it would have been interesting to read anything Humbert would have posted.

 

 

For the Kubrick version, the role of Clair Quilty was beefed up for Sellers in order to take advantage of his "multiple role" skills. A true genius at it.

 

 

I don't understand the music choices in the film either. That "mock-rock" you all know by now that I can't stand. My only guess is it was intended to make the film seem contemporary.

 

 

For what it's worth(which isn't much, probably), I like Jeremy Irons' Humbert better.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even though there is much in the novel that is comic, I did feel sorry for

the many characters who ended up in a very bad place, even Humbert.

His creepiness was of a clinical rather than a gross kind, and he's such

a learned and witty narrator that he draws readers in to sympathize with him,

almost against their better judgement.

 

 

As I recall it, in the novel HH was very strict about the age limits of the

nymphet. I think that this harkened back to the childhood love that he was

trying to recapture at a much later age. Once they reached the early teen

years, a certain something was lost and they could no longer be considered

nymphet worthy. So the Lolita of Kubrick's movie wouldn't even have interested

Humbert.

 

I haven't seen the movie in a number of years. It did an adequate job of bringing

some of the book to the screen, but so much of Humbert's observations of

American life, especially on the road trip, are in the form of personal narrative

that it's hard to capture in the film medium. I can see where they had to flesh

out the role of Quilty, because in the book he's sort of an invisible man.

 

(When we had all those technical problems on the board I signed out, but I had

forgotten my password since I didn't use it that often and had never written it

down, so I had to go back and register under a new name.)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Sepia said: I don't understand the music choices in the film either. That "mock-rock" you all know by now that I can't stand.

 

Heh, I forgot about that. I hate the rolling romantic piano over Humbert's confessions of love for Lolita after she's married. It's just so over the top.

 

>Bild said: His creepiness was of a clinical rather than a gross kind, and he's such a learned and witty narrator that he draws readers in to sympathize with him

 

Exactly. In the aforementioned tearful "confession" scene, you realize he is hopelessly caught in an unattainable fantasy, like an underdeveloped adolescent. Like I stated earlier, the lunatics running the asylum.

Notice in this scene Lolita dons horn rimmed glasses like a professor?

 

And wasn't Shelly Winters murdered in this one too? (drowned in both Place In The Sun & Night of the Hunter) It certainly taught me at a young age not to be a whining complaining demanding wife!

 

(And you'll always read "Bildge" to me. Glad you're not an impostor!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sweat it, [~WhyaDuck]

 

It's not you.

 

It's not a very good movie, but TCM and a good many posters here also consider Evil Under The Sun a 'classic', so don't worry about getting a cogent answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}...

> And the music chosen to emphasize important scenes always strikes me as strange...

It's been a while since I've seen *Lolita*, and I must confess the only music from it that I remember, I quite liked. It's that "Ya -Ya" theme, played mostly near the beginning of the picture, whenever Sue Lyons appears doing innocent/sexy things like sunbathing or painting her toenails. It's a very silly-sounding piece of music, but somehow it sticks in your head. An earworm. I tried to find it on youtube; it was very difficult to find the original arrangement, and impossible ( for me,anyway) to find one with images from the film. Ah well, here's the music, I believe performed by Nelson Riddle and his orchestra:

( do not get "Ya-Ya" from *Lolita* confused with the Stones' "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" :8} )

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tiki, Winters apparently ran out in front of a car during a downpour in her hysterical state.

 

 

And if anybody cares, I'm sittin' here La-La, waitin' on MY Ya-Ya. Mm-mm. Mm-mmph.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}when I said "even when not discussing the film" I meant, as in, referring to the book as Kubrick's Lolita which extends to people I've met who actually thought Kubrick wrote the book itself, or just the notion that the story began with Kubrick himself, unaware that someone else came up with it before him. ...

>

>

>

> (But the story is Nabokov's,)

>

>

>

I remember an incident from my book store employee days...Someone came in and asked me for the novel, A Clockwork Orange. Now, I've read this novel, and I knew perfectly well who wrote it. But I must have been having a brain vacation, because for some reason, I headed for the "K.s". Yup, I was looking for A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick. I can't remember if my brain returned in time, or if a fellow staff member reminded me that that particular novel is in fact written by Anthony Burgess, which is of course where I found it. ( Since the customer did not seem to have heard of the book before anyway, maybe needed it for some course, the embarrassment factor remained strictly between me and the fellow employee.)

My point is, I associated the story so strongly with Kubrick that I temporarily thought he'd written the book.

That does not make it ok when people assume that Kubrick wrote the novel Lolita, or even fail to realize that the film was based on a book. But Addison's comment just reminded me of this experience.

Funny, just coincidence...both titles I'm speaking of here involved Stanley Kubrick movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQGNFpUrFlIzkE0sjMhgV

 

It's the Giant Head of Kubrick: hypnotizing you from *BEYOND THE GRAVE!*

" *LOOK INTO MY EYES."*

oOOOoooogie BoOOOOgie! Kubrick wrote A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick wrote Lolita, Kubrick wrote The Killing which was never a novel in the first place. Jim Thompson only contributed minor details to Paths of Glory. Barry Lyndon is totally awesome and not boring at all. Kubrick's version of The Shining doesn't miss the whole point of the novel. There never was a "Fail-Safe." Eyes Wide Shut was misunderstood....

*You will bow at the altar of Kubrick*. *You will obey the Kubrick. You will submit to the Kubrick.*

Oooogie-Boogie.

 

Now go out into the world to serve the GIANT HEAD of Kubrick: The Great and Powerful.

I say:

*OBEY!*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQGNFpUrFlIzkE0sjMhgV

>

> It's the Giant Head of Kubrick: hypnotizing you from *BEYOND THE GRAVE!*

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Now go out into the world to serve the GIANT HEAD of Kubrick: The Great and Powerful.

> I say:

> *OBEY!*

>

I hear and OBEY, O Master.

 

...And of course, *Paths of Glory*, one of Kubrick's most well-known films, was just aired on TCM (last Saturday night's Essential.) Self promotion here: if anyone's interested, they can check the 20th Century Vole thread for more information about a little-known sequel to *Pof G*.

 

EDIT: Well, maybe it wasn't an "Essential", I was wrong about that. ( Although "Lolita" was - it was aired back in August, apparently.) In any case, *Paths of Glory* was aired very recently on TCM, I'm sure. ( Just as I'm sure that A Clockwork Orange was written by Stanley Kubrick..no, wait, Anthony Burgess...no, Vladimir Nabokov....no, he wrote *Dr. Strangelove...* aaaarrrrghh...)

 

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Sep 24, 2012 12:42 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...