HOMEWORK: LOLITA (1962)

I'm not as in love with Kubrick as most cinephiles. I wonder which direction Lolita will push me? Streaming on Amazon & Vudu.

ss7
ss7
3 posts
28 replies

@marsellus_h Thanks for the heads up, man. Looking forward to watching Kubrick's version this week.

hbr47
hbr47
2 posts
63 replies

Goddamn I forgot how long this movie is.

muthsarah
muthsarah
7 posts
115 replies

I like that the first Kubrick is going to be a debatable one. Did Kubrick go too far by giving Sellers apparent carte blanche to make the movie his own vehicle? Did he sanitize the story so much that it loses that which makes it unique? Personally, I think the answer to both is "yes".

But it's still a well-made film. Though there's no possible way it has displaced the book's place in pop culture. Which, for a director as great as Kubrick, has to be an even bigger disappointment, and a strong argument against the film being in The Canon, no matter how good it is.

Though, I haven't seen "Lolita" in a while. So I could end up liking it more or less.

JohnMmmm
JohnMmmm
1 posts
112 replies

Can't wait to hear Amy & Devin discuss this movie (even though I think I already know which way I'll be voting...)! I wonder how much they'll compare it to the novel.

chesterfield
chesterfield
0 posts
30 replies

Saw it some years ago, right after I had seen Being there. I mean, how great was Peter Sellers? He's known for his silly comedies, mostly, but he may well be one of my favorite actors, in large part because of those two films.

threshold
threshold
4 posts
54 replies

I haven't seen it yet, but man, will it be a great discussion/episode.

marsellus_h
marsellus_h
5 posts
202 replies

@SS7: The Lynne one sticks much closer to the original text, but lacks any of the biting satire and originality of the book, if you ask me. He adapts a book, which is esentially a lunatic's diary, into one of these mid-90s romance drama flicks. It's a bit blunt and very self-serious, tonally much closer to The English Patient. This makes it very weird to watch, kind of like an exploitation film. Also, Melanie Griffith is NO Shelley Winters.

Kubrick takes much more liberties, partially constrained by censorship I guess, but by having some original ideas he preserves the spirit of the novel much better, in my opinion. That being said, I do have my issues with the 1962 films as well... I've never been very fond of James Mason.

ss7
ss7
3 posts
28 replies

Haven't seen Kubrick's version yet, but anybody have any thoughts on how it compares to Adrianne Lynne's version from 1997?

marsellus_h
marsellus_h
5 posts
202 replies

Hey, I love you guys for choosing an adaption of one of my favorite books ever written! Seriously, that text is bonkers... it works on so many levels, and has so many allutions to other pop and high art pieces, that it might as well be to literature what Airplane! was to 70s Airport films.

As of the film, I'm a big Kubrick fan. That being said, I have never been quite sure what to make out of this film... I haven't watched it for a long time, but I remember that I was impressed that the film manages to touch upon an impressive amount of the themes presented in the book - ableit in a toned-down way. During University I played in a band for some time, and this was our drummer's favorite Kubrick. So, this film clearly has its fans. Let's see.

Please sign up to join in on the conversation!

Register