Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Should I Watch Stanley Kubrick's Lolita?

Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:22 pm
Posted by Flibie
Member since Oct 2017
7 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:22 pm
I'm asking because it will be on TCM. I have seen Dr. Strangelove and 2001 already and loved those but I don't hear much talk about Lolita.
Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Not where I want to be
Member since Aug 2014
1481 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:24 pm to
Yes, but focus on Peter Sellers, not the girl.
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
39195 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:24 pm to
Yes, its great.
Posted by Flibie
Member since Oct 2017
7 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:26 pm to
quote:

Yes, but focus on Peter Sellers, not the girl.

All I focused on in Strangelove.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89528 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 8:36 pm to
It's an odd movie - Sellers really steals the show.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 10:10 pm to
The idea of it is strange to me. I watched it a little while back because it was one of the few Kubrick films that I had not seen yet. It probably should be watched for that reason alone just because it is a film by a great film maker. That said, I'm not sure what I make of it. I guess it's supposed to be a satire, but I don't think that I understand all of the significance.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 10:12 pm to
quote:

All I focused on in Strangelove.




You missed a lot of great performances then George Scott was pretty amazing as was Pickins.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36050 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 10:17 pm to
I think that Kubrick was so in awe of Sellers that he thought that the audience wouldn't realize that he was playing multiple characters. It's the only flaw in the film. But James Mason's performance is amazing.

Posted by jdd48
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2012
22086 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:08 am to
I've never seen the original. I saw the 1997 remake with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89528 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:33 pm to
quote:

That said, I'm not sure what I make of it. I guess it's supposed to be a satire, but I don't think that I understand all of the significance.



***SPOILERS LIKE A MUG - YOU'VE BEEN ADVISED ***


The entire Lolita story (Nabokov was a master, BTW) is heavily, heavily layered - very much like Fitzgerald (which is high praise from me) and only a handful of filmmakers could have pulled it off - Kubrick for his part indicated that if he had known about the serious censorship requirements, he never would have made the film.

It's about not being satisfied with what you have - Humbert could have flourished (maybe) in a relationship with Charlotte. However, his wholly unnatural (recall that Lolita is 12 in the novel and only raised to 14 in the film because of the MPAA) obsession (Mason was ~50, Sue Lyon was 14, but cast partially because she appeared older) with the daughter drives a wedge between himself and an appropriate relationship, which indirectly leads to his wife/Lolita's mother's death. The novel makes it clear this is a pattern of Humbert, all but calling him a pedophile. He's also a murderer and generally a cad.

Then it is about power, and robbing a child of childhood innocence and a normal life. Lolita (the child) realizes this fairly quickly and acts "adult" in the situation and ditches Humbert after a brief dalliance. When he finds her later, she is an expectant mother, attempting to live a normal (not a fantasy with an old man) life, as her mother would have wanted - as we all deserve.

He directs his anger at this loss at Quilty, ultimately murdering him.

Humbert, in addition to being almost certainly a pedophile, also possesses a certain amount of self-righteousness, believing his feelings trump societal norms, laws, decency, etc.

Kubrick would return to similar themes (minus pedophilia) in Eyes Wide Shut - his final film.
Posted by REG861
Ocelot, Iowa
Member since Oct 2011
36418 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:55 pm to
quote:

I guess it's supposed to be a satire, but I don't think that I understand all of the significance.




The book has a lot of themes beyond the tragic and risque subject matter. Because of the time the movie was made, Kubrick's hands were largely tied as to what he could film outright or even suggest. So he focused more on the social satire aspects of the book regarding american society and Nabokov toying with the notion of narrator and audience. It's a mixed bag as a result but you can't really fault Kubrick. I don't think it's great either.
Posted by SouljaBreauxTellEm
Mizz
Member since Aug 2009
29343 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:59 pm to
I prefer the remake
Posted by REG861
Ocelot, Iowa
Member since Oct 2011
36418 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:00 pm to
quote:

I prefer the remake




It's underrated and has a great score.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124193 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:04 pm to
Yes. It’s quite good
Posted by Flibie
Member since Oct 2017
7 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:05 pm to
Well I didn't focus entirely on Sellers, no. I just think him and Scott were the funniest.
Posted by Jack Ruby
Member since Apr 2014
22766 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 7:33 pm to
As a massive Kubrick fanatic, I never could bring myself to watch Lolita... Maybe I'm just not into pedo stuff...

BTW, was it never disturbing to anyone else just how much of that kind of stuff was the fricking subject of mainstream films... Have you ever seen Woody Allen's Manhattan?? He's like 45 and dating a 15 yr old... THATS The Premise!... And no one batted an eye.

Allen used this trope numerous times and then if course the Sun Yi stuff in real life... The guy has been an open pedophile for decades and no one cared
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36050 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

Maybe I'm just not into pedo stuff...

Get over yourself.
Posted by randomways
North Carolina
Member since Aug 2013
12988 posts
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:48 pm to
quote:


As a massive Kubrick fanatic, I never could bring myself to watch Lolita... Maybe I'm just not into pedo stuff...



Watching a movie (or reading a book, since I consider the Nabokov book a modern masterpiece) doesn't require you to be "into pedo stuff" any more than watching a movie about the Holocaust requires you to be down with gassing people to death. Or, given your username, watching a movie about the Kennedy assassination requires you to be into "murder stuff." That sort of statement just reeks of the sort of defensive self-congratulatory moral high-handedness that makes one assume you secretly shoot child porn on weekends and want to take the absolute clumsiest approach to making sure nobody suspects you of doing so.

Now if you'll excuse me, we're about to watch "Let the Right One In" as part of our October horror movie marathon at my house. It's about a prepubescent vampire accompanied by a much older pedophile servant. Not that we're into that sort of thing, of course. Well, my wife might be -- I have my suspicions -- but I'm not.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 10:56 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram