Lolita

A significant part of Stanley Kubrick's genius was his ability to translate a literary style into a visual one. It is demonstrated nowhere more brilliantly than in LOLITA and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

LOLITA is perhaps the more stunning accomplishment, in that Nabokov's style is complex and multi-layered. Yet Kubrick captures the effect of it in camera angles and movements, in timing and point of view.

The broadest layer of Nabokov's novel, the parable of the aging culture of Europe trying to revivify itself by debauching the seductive young culture of America, is really missing in the film. But everything else is there, despite the fact that the film departs from the exact events of the novel.

Not to say that the film depends on the novel. It stands by itself quite easily. But it succeeds brilliantly in conveying the ideas and feelings that are the core of the novel, and it does so in completely cinematic terms. If films are to be based on works of literature, this is the way to do it, and the way it is almost never done.

Not the two words that came to mind when I first read the book. This movie nicely handles the taboo subject matter and is tremendously funny as well. Peter Sellers was warming up for his triumph in Dr. Strangelove, Shelly Winters gave her best performance, and James Mason made us feel his pain. As Lolita, Sue Lyon is convincing although Kubrick makes her character a bit older (probably to satisfy the censors, which still slapped this with an X rating originally, much to my surprise). The movie could play on TV today with no edits. I have not seen the 1997 remake but can only imagine, given its director with a reputation of going over the top, that it's not as classy and tasteful as this one. Since this was made in 1962, the risque elements from the book were left to our imagination. And the movie scores highly because of it. The movie's story is stuck in the '60s (that bubblegum music, which played during Lolita's early scenes, will stick with you), and if you are bored with the story, or cannot believe what you're seeing, you can always get a culture lesson: Hula hoops, malt shops, pseudo intellectuals, faulty cots and gas stations where they still pump your gas.

Vladimir Nabokov's 'Lolita' is a brilliantly written, beautifully constructed, hilarious (in a black-comedy way), poignant, luridly shocking (but not gratuitously so) and very daring for its time book.

Despite me considering it one of the finest books she's ever read, when describing it to people they often give me "is she mad?" looks due to its subject matter. Don't let the subject matter turn you off, no matter how it sounds, to me 'Lolita' is an essential read. Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, which saw Nabokov's involvement, is not exactly faithful and elements are downplayed, but, considering how difficult to adapt the book is and how films had to deal with censorship constraints and studio interference often, Kubrick's film is a very brave and worthy attempt.

Kubrick's 'Lolita' also succeeds incredibly well on its own terms, reminding one of Kubrick's 'The Shining' where it is very far removed from the source material but was so much scarier, more atmospheric and more shocking than anything in the more faithful mini-series. It's not quite one of Kubrick's very finest (in a very solid career where to me his only misfire was his debut 'Fear and Desire) but it is one of his most fascinating. Quibbles are very few, with my only quibbles being some over-obvious back projection representing Nabokov's nightmarish vision and the Elstree locations even more so as a result of problems with the economy and censorship.

'Lolita' however is brilliantly shot, lit and made with incredible atmosphere and directed with Kubrick's unmistakable masterly touch, meticulous but not as cold as some of his critics have criticised his directing and films for being. It's hauntingly and beguilingly scored too with a memorable main theme. While one does miss some of the book's funniest moments and the subject matter is a little more shocking in the book (with the age gap being more believable), 'Lolita' achieves an ideal balance of hilarious black comedy and affecting drama.

The story is lurid, but in a sensually captivating way and never in a vulgar way. It is also relentlessly entertaining and has moments of genuine poignancy. The characters are intriguing and the acting is terrific. Sue Lyon, while slightly too old age-wise (only by a few years though), more than holds her own against her more famous colleagues and is positively alluring. In an incredibly bold career move, James Mason superbly brings cruelty and pathos (his begging at the end is heart-breaking) to Humbert, here a complex character rather than the total creep that he could have been in lesser hands than Mason's. Shelley Winters is riotous and surprisingly poignant, while ever the scene stealer Peter Sellers brilliantly steals every scene he's in in multiple roles, especially great as Quilty, a creepy chameleon sort of character.

Overall, a fascinating film and gets better and funnier with each viewing. Not one of my favourites, but one this reviewer appreciates highly. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I'm going to say something that Kubrick fans and are not going to like. I think the 1997 remake of Lolita , directed by Adrian Lyne is a far superior film. Granted , i saw the remake first which may have had some influence but i am adamant it's a better film.

I'm not saying this version is bad , its not. In fact its really good but there are some real problems with it and they are mainly down to one person - Peter Sellers. His character Clare Quilty is so over the top . It's like there is a character from the Goon Show inserted into a serious drama and it feels wrong in every way. Why Kubrick felt this was necessary is beyond me. Frank Langella played Quilty in the remake and got it spot on. No childish voices or Pink Panther esq disguises.

James Mason is superb ( That Voice!) as is Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon who played Lolita. You have to admire Stanley Kubrick for making a film in 1962 with such a controversial subject . It was a brave thing to do. Sue Lyon plays the innocent ( or not so) teen brilliantly and i love the subtle looks she gives Humbert . The question is , is she encouraging him or is he just a sexual predator ?

Despite my thoughts on the remake being a better film , i still think this one of Kubrick's best.

This film remains my all-time favorite. It's a delicious, adult meditation on youth, obsession and sex. While not entirely faithful to the novel, it captures the book's spirit and is nonetheless a masterpiece on its own terms. To fully appreciate what Kubrick has done, compare this version to Adrian Lyne's anemic remake.

Kubrick chose his cast wisely for the most part. James Mason conveys both the tormented inner soul and the outwardly polite gentleman with such charm that you simply can't despise him for his treachery. Shelley Winters was never better as the shrill, man-hungry shrew. Sue Lyon is enormously credible in a complex role - physically attractive, childish at times in her behavior, but quietly calculating and manipulative. The weakest link is Peter Sellers, who Kubrick found amusing enough to let him run on too long. Sellers was a brilliant performer, but just not right for this film. As Quilty, he's fine. When masquerading as others, he's mostly intrusive and tends to alter the tone of what's going on.

The need to tread carefully around the censors in 1962 actually works in the film's favor. There's a sophisticated subtlety that counterbalances the lurid subject matter. In fact, I even prefer the edited-for-television version of the scene in which Humbert and Lolita first have sex. Here she merely whispers in his ear before a suggestive fade-out. In the complete version of the film, the scene continues with them discussing a silly game played at summer camp. The less said, the better.

"Lolita" has aged remarkably well. Its topic is relevant today, and the careful craftsmanship that went into this production holds up beautifully. I think it's Kubrick's best film - they tended to get more self-indulgent as time went on. This one's a gem. Not to be overlooked are the aptly provocative title sequence and Nelson Riddle's luscious piano score.