| Revision as of 08:41, 23 October 2005 editHoary (talk | contribs)Administrators77,949 editsm Rv latest edit, which was a severe degradation← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:34, 25 October 2005 edit undoMisterwindupbird (talk | contribs)985 edits took another crack at it. if you feel this is a degradation, please address specific problems in the talk page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''''Lolita''''' is a ] directed by ] and was the second screen adaptation of the ] by ]. The screenplay was written by ], and the film has a score by ]. Schiff was commissioned to write the screenplay after scripts by ], ] and ] had been rejected by the producers. | '''''Lolita''''' is a ] directed by ] and was the second screen adaptation of the ] by ]. The screenplay was written by ], and the film has a score by ]. Schiff was commissioned to write the screenplay after scripts by ], ] and ] had been rejected by the producers. | ||
| ⚫ | The film stars ] as Humbert and ] (then fifteen) as Delores "Lolita" Haze. Jeremy Irons said in an interview, of his relationship with Dominique Swain "I just tried to become obsessed by her ... All right, I did become obsessed by her." | ||
| ⚫ | The first adaptation was the |
||
| Supporting roles are ], playing Charlotte Haze, and ] as Clare Quilty. | |||
| The $62 million film had a great deal of trouble finding a distributor in the US, reportedly due to the ] about ] at the time. It eventually premiered on the ] television network and had a subsequent limited theatrical release, where it took in approximately $1 millon, making it a major ]. Reviews were generally fair to positive, though some critics considered the film more faithful to the letter of the novel than the spirit. | |||
| Schiff said, however, that he had fonder memories of the original film, but that he did not go back to it: “my only source material, in fact, was the novel itself”. 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. | |||
| {{spoiler}} | |||
| Schiff did not play up the role of Clare Quilty as Kubrick had done. (Schiff believed that Kubrick had made a film that might better have been titled ''Quilty''.) While Kubrick moved the novel’s ending to the start of the film for a prologue. Schiff 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 chronologically and allows the new film to have the same dramatic ending as the novel. | |||
| ==Differences from the novel== | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| The film was publicized as an attempt to be faithful to the original novel, and the events of the film do match the events of the novel quite closely. Some critics and fans of the novel complained, however, that in taking such a reverent approach, many of the nuances of the novel (such as the complete unreliability of Humbert's narration) were lost. Many also felt that much of the humourous and tragic irony of the novel -- which comes largely from the differences between Hubert's self-image and his action -- was lost, since the movie essentially offers up Hubert's narration as fact. | |||
| Early in the new film, some 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 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. | |||
| Another major deviation is the depiction of Lolita as highly physically attractive. Several characters in the novel comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness, including Humbert and her own mother, and it is hinted that this is why greater suspicion does not fall on Humbert. | |||
| ] portrays Humbert as 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 with every move and gesture he evokes sympathy for the character. | |||
| In both this and the 1962 version, Lolita's age when Humbert meets her is fourteen, rather than twelve, as in the novel. | |||
| ⚫ | Jeremy Irons in an interview, of his relationship with Dominique Swain "I just tried to become obsessed by her ... All right, I did become obsessed by her." | ||
| ] portrays Charlotte Haze as a small-minded, socially conscious, suburban widow, who believes that she has a position to keep up. She maintains a thin veneer of social grace, which can become grating, particularly with her shrewish screams at her daughter to clean her room. She can be comically obtuse with her blissful ignorance of Humbert’s indifference to her. | |||
| ==Differences from the 1962 film== | |||
| Freed from the strictures of a 1962 ], ] is able to portray Lolita as the flowering nymphet, who toys with her burgeoning sexuality but who has not overcome her fundamental nature as a little brat. This Lolita is alluring as a wayward character, but elicits no pity, since her immaturity of mindset and her selfish behavior do not excuse her from complicity in her affairs. | |||
| ⚫ | The first adaptation of ''Lolita'' was the ] directed by ]. Stephen Schiff, screenwriter of the 1997 version, has commented that, “Right from the beginning, it was clear to all of us that this movie was not a 'remake' of Kubrick's film. Rather, we were out to make a new adaptation of a very great novel”. He added that, “Some of the filmmakers involved actually looked upon the Kubrick version as a kind of 'what not to do'.” | ||
| ] 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 1997 film has the ]s setting of the novel, rather than the contemporary setting of the 1962 film. | |||
| The film received good reviews on its release, but remains a subject of debate, particularly amongst dedicated fans of Stanley Kubrick. | |||
| One of the most notable changes is that Clare Quilty has a much smaller role than the 1962 version (where he was played in a major supporting role by ]), which is more in line with the novel. Schiff has quipped that Kubrick had made a film that might better have been titled ''Quilty''. | |||
| ⚫ | The 1997 version maintains Humbert Humbert’s narration throughout the whole film, whereas the 1962 version used it sparingly and stopped it once the odyssey across the United States began. Nabokov’s term “nymphet” is also freely used in the new film, whereas it was used only once in the original film and then without its meaning being defined. | ||
| The scenes from the novel are used in which Humbert relates the story of his first and perhaps only love, a fourteen-year-old “nymphet” named Annabel, who he met when he was also fourteen, and who died from ] four months later. | |||
| ==Reference== | ==Reference== | ||
| * by Suellen Stringer-Hye. For comments about other scripts and “Quilty” | * by Suellen Stringer-Hye. For comments about other scripts and “Quilty” | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 25 October 2005
Lolita is a 1997 film directed by Adrian Lyne and was the second screen adaptation of the novel by Vladimir Nabokov. The screenplay was written by Stephen Schiff, and the film has a 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 film stars Jeremy Irons as Humbert and Dominique Swain (then fifteen) as Delores "Lolita" Haze. Jeremy Irons said in an interview, of his relationship with Dominique Swain "I just tried to become obsessed by her ... All right, I did become obsessed by her." Supporting roles are Melanie Griffith, playing Charlotte Haze, and Frank Langella as Clare Quilty.
The $62 million film had a great deal of trouble finding a distributor in the US, reportedly due to the moral panic about pedophilia at the time. It eventually premiered on the Showcase television network and had a subsequent limited theatrical release, where it took in approximately $1 millon, making it a major box office bomb. Reviews were generally fair to positive, though some critics considered the film more faithful to the letter of the novel than the spirit.
Differences from the novel
The film was publicized as an attempt to be faithful to the original novel, and the events of the film do match the events of the novel quite closely. Some critics and fans of the novel complained, however, that in taking such a reverent approach, many of the nuances of the novel (such as the complete unreliability of Humbert's narration) were lost. Many also felt that much of the humourous and tragic irony of the novel -- which comes largely from the differences between Hubert's self-image and his action -- was lost, since the movie essentially offers up Hubert's narration as fact.
Another major deviation is the depiction of Lolita as highly physically attractive. Several characters in the novel comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness, including Humbert and her own mother, and it is hinted that this is why greater suspicion does not fall on Humbert.
In both this and the 1962 version, Lolita's age when Humbert meets her is fourteen, rather than twelve, as in the novel.
Differences from the 1962 film
The first adaptation of Lolita was the 1962 version directed by Stanley Kubrick. Stephen Schiff, screenwriter of the 1997 version, has commented that, “Right from the beginning, it was clear to all of us that this movie was not a 'remake' of Kubrick's film. Rather, we were out to make a new adaptation of a very great novel”. He added that, “Some of the filmmakers involved actually looked upon the Kubrick version as a kind of 'what not to do'.”
The 1997 film has the 1940s setting of the novel, rather than the contemporary setting of the 1962 film.
One of the most notable changes is that Clare Quilty has a much smaller role than the 1962 version (where he was played in a major supporting role by Peter Sellers), which is more in line with the novel. Schiff has quipped that Kubrick had made a film that might better have been titled Quilty.
The 1997 version maintains Humbert Humbert’s narration throughout the whole film, whereas the 1962 version used it sparingly and stopped it once the odyssey across the United States began. Nabokov’s term “nymphet” is also freely used in the new film, whereas it was used only once in the original film and then without its meaning being defined.
The scenes from the novel are used in which Humbert relates the story of his first and perhaps only love, a fourteen-year-old “nymphet” named Annabel, who he met when he was also fourteen, and who died from typhus four months later.
Reference
- Interview with Stephen Schiff by Suellen Stringer-Hye. For comments about other scripts and “Quilty”