Lolita

Starring: James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon, Gary Cockrell, Jerry Stovin, Diana Decker, Lois Maxwell, Peter Sellers
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Rating: Not rated
Genre: Drama
1962

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A college professor (James Mason) becomes obsessed with a 14 year-old girl (Sue Lyon).

Review:

Tim: It would be easy to dismiss both the original novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation as the worst kind of smut. The story is certainly controversial- a middle aged man obsessed with "nymphet" starts a relationship with a very young girl. It's not often that a pedophile is a protagonist. I also want to be clear that there's nothing glamorous about older men committing statutory rape. It isn't misunderstood, it's disgusting. So, on the one hand, the book and this movie should be condemned.

However, things are rarely so clear cut. I've read Vladimir Nabokov's book and while much of it is disturbing, there's significantly more nuance and insight into the human condition than its critics would let on. It helps that the book is beautifully written. While I still struggle with the book and its contents, I'm not someone who thinks it should be thrown on the pyre. Humbert Humbert may indeed be a despicable human being, but he's also a tragic figure. There are lessons to learned from him, so to me, the book has some value.

The film adaptation is tricky. One of the posters I saw had the following line- "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" It's a good question. You have to give Stanley Kubrick credit for tackling such an audacious and uncertain project. I would say overall that Kubrick does a decent-to-good job adapting the book. He certainly gets the characters and the main events right. However, there's obviously something missing here. Nabokov wrote the screenplay, which seems positive, but I've read that most of it wasn't used, which is problematic. This film feels like a faithful adaptation, but it cannot capture the beauty of Nabokov's written word. That truly matters. The story of Humbert and Dolores is awful, but it's beautifully written and his words lift the story up to another level. That doesn't happen with the film. It never feels elevated.

It probably doesn't help that the movie skirts around the main issues. The most disturbing part of the book is that Humbert enters into a sexual relationship with this girl. Now, it proves far more challenging than he ever expected, and that event eventually wrecks his life, so it's not always glamorized. In the movie, Kubrick is extremely careful here. It's never expressly stated, but hinted at and discussed through innuendo. The problem with this is it loses much of its power. You could watch this movie and without paying close enough attention, just think Humbert was an over-controlling stepfather. I understand Kubrick couldn't shove the realities of the books down our throats, but the subtlety hurts the story. Humbert here seems obsessed for strange reasons. His actions don't always make sense in the context of the movie. The book reveals his depravity and obsession and you understand why he acts the way he does. In the book, he also reveals his own self-awareness at what he is. He pleads with the reader. None of that appears on screen.

James Mason does an admirable job as Humbert. You absolutely can't fault him for anything. This had to be one of the most challenging roles of his career and he rises to the occasion. He gives a believable, complex performance. Shelley Winters doesn't have a lot of screen time, but she makes the most of every minute. He performance hits home and you find yourself thinking about it, long after the movie ends. You have to give immense credit to Sue Lyon. I cannot fathom what it was like for this young actress to play this role. She brings a hint of seduction to the character, but balances that with naivety and vulnerability. It's a surprisingly complex performance for someone so young. From that first scene of her sunbathing to her last scene, Lyon makes this movie memorable.

I did want to talk about Peter Sellers. I really like Sellers and I believe he gave a good performance. He just never should have had so much screen time. His character departs from the novel and his scenes are some of the most drawn-out ones of the film. When you have a movie that's 2 hours and 33 minutes, you have to wonder what could have been cut. This film is overly long and Sellers didn't need to have this big of a role. His impact on the movie doesn't explain his screen time. That makes the movie too long and his role should have been severely cut.

Now, I am trying to give this movie a fair look. I hit a number of concerns, but you have to give Kubrick a ton of credit for such a brazen adaptation. He does a surprisingly good job of adapting the novel- it might have some issues, but I doubt anyone else could have done half as good of a job. I might not have loved his movie, but I certainly liked it and I respected his achievement here. I did find it interesting that Nabokov's script was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, especially when so little was used.

Lolita is a good movie, but it has a few too many issues for me to consider it especially strong. I'm glad I saw it, but this is a case where the movie cannot touch the effectiveness of the novel.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon