LOLITA (1962) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1997 Ted Prigge
Director: Stanley Kubrick Writer: Vladmir Nabokov (adapted from his novel) Starring: James Mason, Sue Lyon, Shelly Winters, Peter Sellers
"How did they ever make a movie like 'Lolita?'" said the posters for the 1962 Kubrick adaptation of the raunchy novel by Vladmir Nabokov of the same name. After reading it, I wondered the same thing. Here's a novel dealing with the sexual obsession a middle-aged man has for a 14-year old "nymphet" with the eponomys name, and in the early 60s, a film is being made from it. To readers of the novel, this means an unfaithful adaptation to adhere to the early 60s censors, which the film does. Anyone looking for a faithful adaptation should wait for the new one directed by Adrian Lynne to find an American distributor.
But as unfaithful as it is the novel, "Lolita" is surprisingly remarkable. It has a kind of weird comic feel to it, with small chuckles coming out of scenes that are funny because of character, not situation. And it has a kind of Sophoclean depth to it, mostly due to a structure that was forced upon the film by the distributors. The first scene of the film is the last chapter of the novel: our protagonist, Humbert Humbert (played with brilliance by James Mason, who you may remember as the head villain in Hitchcock's "North by Northwest"), goes to kill the object of his hatred, the man who stole his Lolita from him, Claire Quilty (Peter Sellars). This was done because the distributors wanted Humbert Humbert to seem like a murderer before he's a pedophile. But it instead gives a brilliant scope of fate to it. Like Oedpius, Humbert Humbert is forced to live a tragic life, his tragic flaw being his obsession with Lolita.
The novel by Vladmir Nabokov is a brilliantly written novel, told from the perspective of Humbert Humbert himself (maybe revealing a bit about Nabokov...), and filled with clever word play much like James Joyce. The novel is the journals of Humbert upon seeing everything in his life, and being a writer, Humbert has a sardonic, pretentious wit about everything. With a narration by Humbert throughout the film, maybe the point is that Humbert sees his future because of his lifestyle but can't change who he is. He's trapped to be Humbert Humbert, the pedophile.
The plot deals with Humbert who moves to America to write and get a teaching job, and ends up staying with in a big house owned by the eccentric, overbearing, sexual-crazed, nightmare mother, Charlotte Haze (a remarkably thin Shelley Winters), primarily because he sees her daughter, Lolita (Sue Lyon, actually a little over 16), tanning in a bikini in her garden. The film's only flaw is its backup for Humbert, which the novel supplies as being that he lost a childhood sweetheart to death, and she reminds him of her. Although this isn't a big flaw, it does make Humbert look more like a pedophile than he is in the book.
Soon, Humbert has married Charlotte, solely so he can see Lolita more and wait for Charlotte to die of a failing kidney she has. But when Charlotte discovers his diaries, which he kept for more of thrill with the situation, she storms out and is thankfully hit by a car, killing her instantly. He goes off with Lolita on a road trip, and is constantly running into people who we know is the same person: Claire Quilty from the beginning, another pedophile writer (though this time a playwright) obsessed with Lolita. As the film goes on, Quilty is constantly disguising himself as various different people: a police officer, a german psychiatrist, etc (hinting at the kind of chameleon-like role playing Sellars would do in Kubrick's next film, "Dr. Strangelove") in an effort to rob Lolita from Humbert, who is pathetically trying to control her.
What's remarkable about this film is its sense of humor. The film has a darkly comic feel mixed with the tragic story. It's like watching Greek Tragedy with lots of humor in it. Although one slapstick moment seems too disjointed from the film (a scene involving a cot, a sleeping Lolita, and a loud Hotel Attendant), the film maintains humor from the characters and their nuances. This is not a film we laugh hard at, but we do get lots of chuckles out of just watching the characters shine do their stuff.
Stanley Kubrick has always been an amazing director, and it's easy to dismiss this film from the other films in his oeuvre. It lacks the scope of many of his other films, as well as the hypnotism. But when grading a director's work, one must ignore all the others and concentrate on the film as it stands alone. It's a simple film, despite its taboo topic, and it never lets its gimmick of a grown man in love with a teenage girl overcome its purpose of describing a tragic character, and the situation surrounding him.
Besides, there are so many brilliant things about it, like the gorgeous black and white photography, showing the sadness lying within the film. And there are several brilliant scenes, like the opening which is among Kubrick's most intense and funniest sequences, with a hung over and crazed Quilty playing oblivious to Humbert's mortal threats. Charlotte's death scene is also brilliant, with a cruel bit humor dumped in for a better effect. And the final scene where Lolita explains what happened to her after Quilty stole her and Humbert finally gives in is sad without becoming melodratic. Kubrick easily lets this be funny and tragic without mixing the two elements wrong.
The acting from all is brilliant. Sue Lyon, although looking way too old to play the character at a young age and too young to play the character at an older age, nails her acting, showing Lolita as a very nuanced character, exhibiting all her childish bitchiness. Shelley Winters is amazing, showing a well-rounded character, and showing that back in the day, she was actually...dare I say it, attractive. And Peter Sellars is ingeniusly funny in his multiple-yet-singular role, stealing many of the scenes.
But it is James Mason who really amazed me. Despite being a crazy pedophile, he shows Humbert Humbert as being a tragic character, and easily gets our sympathy despite being who and what he is. Mason is an amazing actor, and he exhibits lots of great personality in his portrayal of Humbert Humbert. Scenes where he's trying to rule Lolita are priceless, especially one where he's just embarrassed her socially, and tries to coax her back to him. Mason's one of the many pleasures of watching this film.
"Lolita" has been wrongly presented in history as being one of Kubrick's underrated films, a hard-to-find masterpiece that has been wrongly bashed by some as being unlike the novel. But who cares if a film is unlike the novel? Espeically if it has the good excuse that it was the early 60s, where a novel as frank as "Lolita" could be written, but a film as frank as it couldn't be filmed. Besides that, it is as tragic as any old Greek play, only more humerous.
NOTE: Note how I didn't make one lame joke about this film's relation to Woody Allen...oh darn...
MY RATING (out of 4): ****
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews