But in my arms she was always Lolita. (Lolita [1962] (DVD))

Member Name: peel.rebekah

Product:	Lolita [1962] (DVD)
Date:	13/10/01 (380 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Yes.

Disadvantages: Nah.

Difficult intro bit:

There's this book, right, and it is (kinda unfortunately) the better known of this particular author's work, even though he wrote some really insightful and wonderful other stuff. It was originally published in a weirdy pornie type of way (Travelers Companion series)...which, I suppose, it kinda is...but then again it isn't; then there was the normal outraged UPROAR...and then a few years later, just when most of the 'disturbed' memories of Lolita were beginning to settle and gather dust somewhere in the nether regions of societies' brain (apart from those great thinkers of the Legion of Decency and the Catholic Church, because they had decided to damn the piece and its maker eternally to burn in Hell), along came a rather special man with a movie mission in mind and dusted those memories off.

Let us NEVER forget what great visions lay in cranial lobes of Stanley Kubrick: Even if we wish to argue the toss of Eyes wide shut, we see the consequences of his 'lacking' with A.I. do we not?

And in his absence, remembrance of him seems to centre on the rather more violent of his ideas and images: Before musings of Alex's murdering ways and mascara'd eyes; of "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy" and "Here's Johnny" take complete hold of our senses, let us concentrate on the black and white images of yesterday, and the beautyesque farce was is Kubrick's third film, and is Nabokov's Lolita.

*'Maybe I should mention the book before the film' bit:

Yep, there's this book; I found my raggedy old copy under the mounds of Reader's Digest at a Scout's jumble sale...it was a well thumbed copy...and I like it. Let's not get too controversial here, eh, and let's not delve deep into the reactionary pit of paedophilia; let's just say that it's a book, a fictional book, and it's a tale of a man's de
sires for an adolescent girl. There you go, that's that out the way.

Now you don't have to have any knowledge of the book to appreciate the film...but that's kind of unlikely isn't it? If this was a court case, it would be eternal, as the jury would have to be continuously dismissed for being overtly influenced by the media. Nabokov would be guilty until proven innocent and Kubrick would be given 5 to 10 for association.
How many of you, dear readers, have used the terminology of a 'Lolita' to describe a certain type of bint? A certain type of actress reaching into puberty? A certain type of seducing nymphette trying on her wiley charms?

What knowledge of the book would perhaps offer you is an insight into Kubrick's choice; on which of Nabokov's words he places importance; and of the buffoonery he makes of what society decided to take serious issue with.

*Ahh yes, the film.

We begin at the end. We begin with Humbert the Revengeful, Humbert the Broken, Humbert the CLOSURE...we begin with Humbert's (James Mason's) confrontation with, and killing of Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers).

And so with large questions on our lips, we spiral back through four years of dark pain and suffering to discover the reasons why:

The stuffy and tight lipped English man arrives in American suburbia, seeking a place to lay his head. He finds it, unfortunately in the form of the shapely bosom of 'The Haze Woman', or Charlotte, for those who feel kindlier towards her. As Humbert inspects her premises for future lodgings, he happens upon the garden, and in this garden exists the radiance of a beautiful changeling girl (just on the cusp of her adolescence) - Humbert Humbert is smitten; he has no choice, no power; no other desires but to be as close to this 'woman-child' as is humanly possible.

He takes the lodgings, he suffers Charlotte's constantly nauseating flirtations,
and he is contented (if not frustrated) by his proximity to the young Dolores 'Lolita' Haze (Sue Lyon).

Although the film only skims the cream off the book's obsession that Humbert has for Lolita - the darkness of his thoughts towards her mother, and the indulged fantasies he has for this twelve year old girl - what we get to see, hear and feel (all supplied to us via snippets of his very personal diary and deeply longing looks in Lolita's direction), is enough.

Because of the way the film begins, our senses are somewhat trained to search for the face of Peter Sellers: How does he fit in to this story line (which is told purely from the standpoint of Humbert, therefore not laying any importance on the character of Quilty until he has to), and why is Humbert so blind to his obvious presence?

The story moves up a gear when Charlotte Haze decides that her sights are set on having Humbert all for herself: She organises for Lolita to be shipped off to summer camp, and, all without Humbert's knowledge, off to boarding school when the camp finishes. Humbert unwillingly becomes Charlotte's brow beaten husband in a last ditch attempt to find some sort of ownership of Lolita - a now budding flower who is more than willing to take little advantages of the glints within boys' eyes. When Humbert discovers Charlotte's plans for her daughter, he is tempted to end their marriage in a rather final way...but he refrains.

The real crunch comes when Charlotte reads Humbert's journal, discovering his loathing of her and lust for her daughter. While Humbert tries to calm her and conjure up a believable alibi of a novel that he has been writing, Charlotte escapes the house. In her hysterical state and in the driving rain, she runs into the road and is hit by a car - she is killed instantly.

Now Humbert has his heart's desire: He is now legally the father and guardian of the female he loves. How will he d
eal with this situation, with Lolita's flourish into womanhood, his own undermining jealousies and her increasingly demanding ways?

*The acting...

...Is really rather good: Mason as THAT cold and haughty voice, Shelley Winters is loud mouthed and plumptious in her overbearing state as Charlotte, and Lyon is passably cute in her bubble gum chewing guise...But the show is absolutely overrun (and therefore nearly destroyed) by the character and acting of Sellers.

Was it such a great idea to use this player? His ever so larger than life persona pokes fun at Humbert right from the start (or is that end?); Humbert's character (therefore Mason's acting) can be nothing more than prissy, tight and paranoid when juxtaposed to Sellers' flamboyant nature and energy. Sellers really does steal the show; his inclusion is a sure sign that both Kubrick AND Nabokov WANTED to highlight the social comedy of the book, wishing to leave undiscovered the unilluminated parts of the story.

One way or another, no matter what one believes of the book, the story or the controversy, this is a film that has to be seen for the lost comic talents of one man: Peter Sellers was a god among actors.

*The direction.

Although Kubrick avoids a hell of a lot of the controversy of the book, we have to remember that Nabokov was at his side when the film was being made - so we know that what we see (or rather what we don't see) was a collective choice, a communal 'copout' if you will, or a mutual decision to take our eyes to a different point in the story.

Although the book was calling for a long and glorified road movie, I feel we have to wait for Adrian Lyne's 1997 remake with Jeremy Irons to feel the full extent of that idea (this is a film with VERY different overtones and undertones, and I feel there is very little point to be made through comparing the two here).

Kubrick's vision splits the sto
ry sideways, elongating a little the first part of the story (Humbert and Charlotte's doomed relationship), until the scene where Humbert finally tells Lolita that her mother is dead. At this point we feel the atmosphere chill, the prior emotions change, and the second part of the story (and the demise of Humbert) begins.

Maybe this non road movie choice was made purely because the movie was filmed in Great Britain (therefore long, full pans of the American countryside were obviously going to be a little harder to come by), maybe both Kubrick and Nabokov wanted to ground the movie with added reality roots - more normality and domesticity to give credence to the tale.

The greatest decision that was made was definitely the casting of Sellers, and here either lies Kubrick's mastermind or madness, as while the cameras focus on what should be a background character, the rest of the message either filters through unchallenged, or falls dead to the floor unnoticed. You decide.

*Conclusion.

By no means the best of Kubrick's creations, Lolita is still an interesting illustration to the book behind the film and a rather brave project for such a young director to take on. This version has claimed the title 'classic', a title which I really hope continuous to avoid Lyne's seedy and dirty variation.

As I stated before, worth watching, even if simply for Sellers' stunning performance alone - and well worth taking an open mind to.

Recommended.

Summary: