Lolita (1962)

BBB

(out of 5)


Humbert Humbert () arrives from Europe to a tiny American town and takes a lodging at the home of a widow (). The clincher in the deal for him is her daughter, the teenaged “nymphet” of the title () with whom he becomes obsessed, even going so far as to marry her mother in order to be near her. Lolita begins to understand the power her sexuality allows her to have over someone in a position to give her whatever she wants, while he is so overcome by passion for her that he is willing to go to whatever lengths to have her to himself. Not far behind him is the crafty Clare Quilty (), a celebrated author who has designs of his own on the girl. Vladimir Nabokov’s novel, which still to this day finds itself at the centre of heated debates on all possible levels, has been adapted to the big screen (for the first time here, before a remake by Adrian Lyne in 1997) with much more of the book kept intact than you would assume. The opening third plays out almost exactly to the novel before the film makes significant modifications to the original, for while the novel concerned itself with the idea of passion becoming denigrated once the object of that passion becomes real (i.e. he fucks her a lot and she ceases to appeal to him), the film, in its inability to show the relationship between Humbert and Lolita in too much graphic detail, maintains his infatuation with her until the end.  Beyond this, the casting of Lolita places what looks like a sixteen year-old girl in the key role, which makes it a much different story from the book that was about an actual child. Still, Kubrick cannot be faulted for the censorship of his day (the more modern-day version still cast her older than the book described her, so perhaps it’s not just a problem of era), and he does elicit smooth-as-silk performances from everyone involved. Mason is cool European lust throughout, Lyons is never vulgarly appealing but always on the snide edge of manipulative, and Winters is perfection as a lonely woman who isn’t exactly sympathetic but is never a laughable caricature either. Sellers deserves to be praised for his multi-faceted work here too, except that his obviously fake accent(s?) makes his role such a show-pony spectacle that it stands out too much from the subtlety given by the rest of the cast (this kind of work would be much more organic to his work in Kubrick’s next film, Dr. Strangelove). The screenplay is credited to Nabokov himself, though he asked his name to be removed after Kubrick altered it beyond original recognition (Nabokov’s version of the screenplay is available in print).


United Kingdom, 1962

Directed by

Screenplay by , based on his novel

Cinematography by

Produced by

Music by

Production Design by

Costume Design by

Film Editing by

Film Festivals:  Venice 1962


Cast Tags:   , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , ,, , , ,


Academy Award Nomination
Best Writing (Screenplay–based on material from another medium) (Vladimir Nabokov)

Golden Globe Award Nominations
Best Performance By An Actor in a Motion Picture-Drama (James Mason)
Best Performance By An Actress in a Motion Picture-Drama (Shelley Winters)
Best Director (Stanley Kubrick)
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture (Peter Sellers)

Directors Guild Award Nomination
Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures (Stanley Kubrick)

British Academy Award Nomination
Best British Actor (James Mason)


IMG_20141105_1615182288285e3weiyyalv5ws2fkmhjmxz52z1njvv3gml4muhmmvoxh_ftjbzv41hwsbubkmqj92klnytumfuydvnwd7_wgLolita

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s