| Revision as of 19:22, 29 September 2005 edit81.154.236.221 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:05, 30 September 2005 edit undo203.155.1.244 (talk) Ajarn: Rewrite to bring in line with revision to Lolita(1962) & remove any unintended POVNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | '''''Lolita''''' is a ], directed by ] and was the second screen adaption from the ] by ]. The first adaption was the ] black and white ] directed by ]. The screenplay was written by ], and it has a musical score by ]. Schiff was commissioned to write the screenplay after scripts by ], ] and ] had been rejected by the producers. | ||
| {{POV}} | |||
| The plot of the new film is the same as that of the earlier film and it maintains the same structure as the earlier film with a prologue and the events leading up to it, told as a flashback. It is, however, given the ]s setting of the novel, rather than the contemporary setting of the original film. | |||
| ⚫ | '''''Lolita''''' is a ], directed by ] and |
||
| Schiff changed the balance of the characters, greatly reducing the role of Clare Quilty and so bringing it more in line with his place in the novel. Schiff believed that Kubrick had made a film that might better have been titled Quilty. He believed that Kubrick was very much in the thrall of ] and allowed the Quilty character to take over the movie, with Sellers improvising vast swatches of dialogue. Schiff has stated that, “If you look at the Kubrick movie today, the Sellers stuff still seems amazingly energetic and funny and alive; the rest of the story plods by comparison”. | |||
| This production avoids many of the earlier film’s mistakes. It is given the ] setting of the book, rather than the contemporary setting of the original film. | |||
| Kubrick moved the novel’s ending to the beginning of the film and it became the film’s prologue. Lynne changed this prologue to an unexplained car chase and returned the novel’s ending to its true place. This allows the events in the story to unfold in a chronological sequence and allows the new film to have the same dramatic ending as the novel, which Kubrick admitted he had sacrificed in the earlier film. | |||
| Nabokov’s self-coined term “]” is freely introduced into the new production’s dialogue, whereas it was never used in the original, perhaps owing to ] worries. | |||
| Lolita is now shown as a pubescent young girl, rather than the post-pubescent |
Lolita is now shown as a pubescent young girl, rather than the post-pubescent teenager of the ] production. Another change is that Lyne has maintained Humbert Humbert’s narration throughout the whole film, whereas Kubrick used it sparingly and stopped it once the odyssey across the United States began. Nabokov’s self-coined term “nymphet” is also freely used in the new production, whereas it was used only once in the original film and then without its meaning being defined. This was, however, probably due to censorship worries. | ||
| Early in the new film, some scenes are introduced that were not in the Kubrick’s film. These scenes are opened by Humbert in his role as narrator with the simple statement, “What happens to a man in the summer of his fourteenth year affects him for the rest of his life”. Here the fourteen-year-old Humbert meets his first and perhaps his only love, a fourteen year old “nymphet” named Annabel. After four months, this romance ends in tragedy with Annabel’s sudden death from typhoid and Humbert’s emotions are frozen forever. These scenes and this simple statement go a long way to explaining, although not excusing his lust for and obsession with Lolita. She is Annabel reborn. | |||
| ] gives an excellent performance as Humbert. Initially he is the definitive ] ] intellectual, only really at ease in the ordered, cloistered world of academia. But, after he becomes smitten with his "nymphet", he is a man, whose obsession bristles beneath his timorous demeanor. His performance is understated but evocative with every move and gesture. He evokes much sympathy for the character. | ] gives an excellent performance as Humbert. Initially he is the definitive ] ] intellectual, only really at ease in the ordered, cloistered world of academia. But, after he becomes smitten with his "nymphet", he is a man, whose obsession bristles beneath his timorous demeanor. His performance is understated but evocative with every move and gesture. He evokes much sympathy for the character. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| The film received good reviews on its release, but remains a subject of debate, particularly amongst dedicated fans of Stanley Kubrick. | The film received good reviews on its release, but remains a subject of debate, particularly amongst dedicated fans of Stanley Kubrick. | ||
| ==Reference== | |||
| * An Interview with Stephen Schiff by Suellen Stringer-Hye For comments about other scripts and “Quilty” | |||
| (http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/schiff1.htm) | |||
| * An Interview with Stanley Kubrick (1969) by Joseph Gelmis –Kubrick’s comments on his rearrangement of the plot, together with his reasons for filming in England and the censorship problems. “Kubrick, The Film Director as Superstar" (Doubleday and Company: Garden City, New York) Copyright ©1970 Joseph Gelmis. (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html) | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 08:05, 30 September 2005
Lolita is a 1997 film, directed by Adrian Lyne and was the second screen adaption from the novel of the same name by Vladimir Nabokov. The first adaption was the 1962 black and white film of the same name directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay was written by Stephen Schiff, and it has a musical score by Ennio Morricone. Schiff was commissioned to write the screenplay after scripts by James Dearden, David Mamet and Harold Pinter had been rejected by the producers.
The plot of the new film is the same as that of the earlier film and it maintains the same structure as the earlier film with a prologue and the events leading up to it, told as a flashback. It is, however, given the 1940s setting of the novel, rather than the contemporary setting of the original film.
Schiff changed the balance of the characters, greatly reducing the role of Clare Quilty and so bringing it more in line with his place in the novel. Schiff believed that Kubrick had made a film that might better have been titled Quilty. He believed that Kubrick was very much in the thrall of Peter Sellers and allowed the Quilty character to take over the movie, with Sellers improvising vast swatches of dialogue. Schiff has stated that, “If you look at the Kubrick movie today, the Sellers stuff still seems amazingly energetic and funny and alive; the rest of the story plods by comparison”.
Kubrick moved the novel’s ending to the beginning of the film and it became the film’s prologue. Lynne changed this prologue to an unexplained car chase and returned the novel’s ending to its true place. This allows the events in the story to unfold in a chronological sequence and allows the new film to have the same dramatic ending as the novel, which Kubrick admitted he had sacrificed in the earlier film.
Lolita is now shown as a pubescent young girl, rather than the post-pubescent teenager of the 1962 production. Another change is that Lyne has maintained Humbert Humbert’s narration throughout the whole film, whereas Kubrick used it sparingly and stopped it once the odyssey across the United States began. Nabokov’s self-coined term “nymphet” is also freely used in the new production, whereas it was used only once in the original film and then without its meaning being defined. This was, however, probably due to censorship worries.
Early in the new film, some scenes are introduced that were not in the Kubrick’s film. These scenes are opened by Humbert in his role as narrator with the simple statement, “What happens to a man in the summer of his fourteenth year affects him for the rest of his life”. Here the fourteen-year-old Humbert meets his first and perhaps his only love, a fourteen year old “nymphet” named Annabel. After four months, this romance ends in tragedy with Annabel’s sudden death from typhoid and Humbert’s emotions are frozen forever. These scenes and this simple statement go a long way to explaining, although not excusing his lust for and obsession with Lolita. She is Annabel reborn.
Jeremy Irons gives an excellent performance as Humbert. Initially he is the definitive Old World European intellectual, only really at ease in the ordered, cloistered world of academia. But, after he becomes smitten with his "nymphet", he is a man, whose obsession bristles beneath his timorous demeanor. His performance is understated but evocative with every move and gesture. He evokes much sympathy for the character.
Jeremy Irons has said in an interview, of his relationship with Dominique Swain "But I just tried to become obsessed by her ... All right, I did become obsessed by her."
Melanie Griffith is a superb Charlotte Haze, portraying her as a small-minded, socially conscious, suburban widow, who believes that she has a position to keep up. She is comically obtuse and her veneer hits all the right, grating notes. Everything from her shrewish screams at her daughter to clean her room to blissful ignorance of Humbert’s indifference to her is portrayed as something quite normal.
Freed from the strictures of a 1962 censor, Dominique Swain delivers an on-target portrayal of Lolita as the flowering nymphet, who toys with her burgeoning sexuality but who has not overcome her fundamental nature as a little brat. Swain is alluring as a wayward character, but she elicits no pity, since her immaturity of mindset and her selfish behavior do not excuse her from complicity in her affairs.
Frank Langella rounds out the cast as the mysterious Clare Quilty. He is appropriately shady, vague, and sinister when he appears from time to time, slowly revealing himself as a true villain and seducer of “little girls”. His impersonation of the police officer at the hotel is both dark and menacing and calculated to undermine the already brittle self-confidence of the guilt-ridden Humbert.
The film received good reviews on its release, but remains a subject of debate, particularly amongst dedicated fans of Stanley Kubrick.
Reference
- An Interview with Stephen Schiff by Suellen Stringer-Hye For comments about other scripts and “Quilty”
(http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/schiff1.htm)
- An Interview with Stanley Kubrick (1969) by Joseph Gelmis –Kubrick’s comments on his rearrangement of the plot, together with his reasons for filming in England and the censorship problems. “Kubrick, The Film Director as Superstar" (Doubleday and Company: Garden City, New York) Copyright ©1970 Joseph Gelmis. (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html)