Lolita (1962)
I want to mention first that there are two film versions of Lolita; this one, by director Stanley Kubrick and another (made in 1997) by Adrian Lyne. [I will compare these two at the end of the review]. The novel, by Vladimir Nabokov was published in 1955 and has since, not only become a famous work of prose, but ranks fourth in the list of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels of the 20th Century. Lolita remains Nabokov’s most famous and controversial novel. It took only a few years for the film rights to be purchased and in 1960, it was in production.
The Plot
A middle-aged professor (played by James Mason), rents a room from Charlotte Haze (played by Shelley Winters) and ends up falling in love with her daughter.
Without reading the book (and perhaps even after reading the book) there is a sense of dirtiness in it all. This disturbing feeling is set not only because of the difference in age but in the fact that the novel and film’s main character, Professor Humbert, is a child predator. In the book, she is twelve and because the censors didn’t want to suggest pedophilia, Dolores Haze/Lolita’s age was changed to 14 for the film. I don’t have to tell you, but this was still a risky story to bring across to audiences. Where they’ve been able to “pull one over on the audience” is despite the story, they neglect to mention actually ages in both Lolita (1962) and Lolita (1997) (she is just “in school” and “goes to camp in the summer”). Secondly, both actresses, Sue Lyon (1962) and Dominique Swain (1997) were were 15/16 respectively. It should be known that a specific line is drawn in regards to Nabokov’s character – he is categorized NOT as a man that yearns for underage girls, but is attracted to a special quality. In the book, this search for love is based on Humbert’s first love, infatuation and loss, Annabel. On seeing Lolita for the first time, the character of Professor Humbert sees the resemblance and spark of his long, lost love. For many viewers, on knowing this detail, makes the story a bit more palatable. 
What really made the original worth watching was the unbelievable greatness that is Peter Sellers. First of all, the British actor adopts an American accent (he is said to be mimicking the accent of Kubrick). Secondly, a lot of his dialogue is ad-libbed and in order to capture his brilliance, Kubrick had four cameras rolling at one time (from different angles). Thirdly, Seller’s portrayal of Clare Quilty had a “coolness,” a quality that would influence and attract admirers (and young girls). Frank Langella’s portrayal of the same character in the 1997 version comes across as “creepy” and “perverted.” This is an understandable divergence, and even though “a creature” such as Nabokov’s Lolita would likely be tempted by both characters, the original version was much more entertaining to watch.
Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita (1997) featured Dominique Swain in the role of Lolita and Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert. Though it receives a lower rating (+/- 1.5 points) on IMDB, I would actually rate it HIGHER by a point/bear claw. For one, it’s the details…details that make you feel a similar way to when you are reading the book. Secondly, it’s the chemistry between Lolita and Professor Humbert – done primarily through the wonderful acting (and likely directing of Lyne) of Miss Swain. Swain embodied the nymphet and didn’t just occasionally hint at sexuality as did Lyon. But perhaps, during this time, Kubrick’s hands might have been tied. Lastly, I feel that Lolita should be in color. Black and white films certainly display a tone and direct your senses to other aspects but color (per example of Dominique Swain below) gives the story another plain of existence – that of subjective reality.
Stanley Kubrick is absolutely masterful and is among my favorite directors. Before Lolita (1962), Kubrick filmed Spartacus. Afterwards he went on to film Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, and The Shining. A consummate perfectionist, Kubrick typically assumes control of many aspects of his films (ie. writing, directing, editing), but was forced by the censors of the time to remove much of the erotic elements between James Mason’s (Humbert) and Sue Lyon’s (Lolita) characters. While this type of element would have certainly caused more controversy and/or hurt ratings, it certainly would have given substance to the story rather than just taking the characters word for it.
Lolita (1962) is a fine movie and certainly a classic film that I’ll watch again someday. If you watch the trailer, it will likely NOT entice you to watch the film, but I assure you it’s well worth your time. However, if you want something that runs closer to the source, and isn’t quite as tame, check out Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita (1997) [Trailer 2]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Trailer (Original):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Trailer 2:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Click on the image and you’ll be directed to my instagram account (@chencenter) where I post a review every 3rd picture. Be sure to follow – as that will be were each review is posted first!
THE JOYCE REVIEW 