Jul. 03, 2002 - 3:12 am
yes. yes. i've wanted to see this for so long. since freshman year of college. wow, i can't believe i put these two Kubrick movies off for nearly 4 years. and who could have told me then that Steven Spielberg would finally push me back into them? now i've seen all ten of his films starting with Paths of Glory (1957). great work. for another Kubrick review, check out Spartacus (1960) from a couple of years prior to the making of this film. (with a little bit less control from the great Stanley.)
well Lolita is the extremely well known story written by Nabokov concerning an older man's obsession with a very young girl. i'll try to leave it at that i guess. read the book. i know i'm going to. it's waiting in line on my shelf with about 10 other things right now.
even Kubrick admitted he couldn't do everything that the novel could. tagline for this film: "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" assuming that you wanted to know the answer, i guess it was probably pretty difficult to get a chance to see back then. since it was made originally by Kubrick's own independent production company, and since it was originally rated X in the United States. but even with that rating, the film was extremely toned down. they really tried to prevent us from seeing the pedophilia that it so obviously entails. for one thing Lolita's age had to be increased from 12 in Vladimir Nabokov's original novel to 14 for the film. also censors made them choose a "well developed" girl of that age. hey, i'm just quoting the IMDb here.
anyway, let's talk about this outstanding film. i love the fact that Kubrick was always willing to tackle sexual subjects as bluntly as possible. if you love one of his movies, you need to watch all of them. he helps you come out of your shell. this film does just that.
he gives us a wonderful protagonist with Professor Humbert Humbert played by the amazing James Mason (seen recently in North by Northwest (1959)). you really can empathize with him. and the level to which that disturbs you is going to vary. he's also chosen a wonderful actress to play Lolita with Sue Lyon. she works as both the very immature Lolita, and then again when she's a few years older later on in the film. this was basically the only film she was ever in for all intensive purposes. and oh yes, who's the woman who is perfect for blocking your intense sexual/romantic desires, of course Shelley Winters. speaking of this, i have to again suggest that everyone go out and see one of my favorite films, A Place in the Sun (1951). the other person that gets in Humbert's way is Clare Quilty played by Peter Sellers who never fails to astound. does this man have any limits on the characters he can play? amazingly complex villain.
the lovely Natalie Portman was considered for the title role in the 1997 version of this story, but turned it down due to her feelings about young adult actors/actresses being exposed to sex in films. it was probably a good move. that would definitely have had her somewhat typecast after having been in both Leon (1994) and Beautiful Girls (1996). plus she's not too down with being graphically sexual in films, which the 1997 version obviously was. Natalie does however love this book and recommends it as one of the best novels ever written. ok, i'm talking too much about Natalie. but you have to come to expect that when there's actually a tie-in for me to use here.
well i've decided that i could feasibly talk about this movie all night. and so i have to stop and just give this movie a 9/10. see it. many times over.