Lolita (B or 3/4 stars)
The tag line for Stanley Kubrick's 1962 sensationalist movie was "How did they ever make a movie out of Lolita?" Well ... they did it by making the racy novel a bit tamer. James Mason plays widowed British Prof. Humbert Humbert, who seeks a relaxing summer in the resort town of Ramsdale, New Hampshire, where he rents a room from a shrill, 40-ish man-hungry widow, Charlotte Haze (a superb Shelley Winters). Winters immediately falls for sophisticated Humbert, but he only has eyes for his landlady's desirable, but fairly callous daughter, Lolita (14 yr. old Sue Lyon); who he 1st sees in a bikini sunning herself in the garden. The professor even goes so far as to marry Charlotte just so that he can be near to Lolita ... he's infatuated with her. Turning up at every opportunity is smarmy TV writer, Clare Quilty (versatile Peter Sellers), who seems extraordinarily interested in Humbert's behavior.
When Charlotte stumbles upon Humbert's diary containing his confession of love for Lolita, she is so revolted by his carnal thoughts of her young daughter that she runs into the street like a crazy woman, where she is killed by a car. Without telling Lolita that her mother has died, Humbert packs her into his car & goes on a long & tense cross-country trip, followed every mile of the way by a mysterious pursuer. Once she gets over the shock of her mother's untimely death, Lolita is more-or-less agreeable to engaging in an affair with her now stepfather (this is handled quite discreetly for 1962 audiences to handle). But when Lolita starts discovering boys her own age, she starts to drifts from Humbert; even starting to lie to him. One day, she just ups & leaves without warning. This humiliates Humbert. Furthermore, when he discovers who her secret lover actually is, the results are tragic. We, the audience, know the ending because the movie has been framed as a flashback.
Translating a highly controversial novel like 'Lolita' to the big screen was an incredible feat in '62. Director Kubrick, working from author Vladimir Nabokov's own script, was able to convey the forbidden thoughts/actions of Humbert Humbert without causing a raucous in Hollywood. Because each character is unique & because the situation (older man with a young teen girl) is so strange/taboo ... he is able to make us question our sympathies & expectations throughout the plot. Now, the film isn't perfect. I am not wild about where the story goes (though, that's actually a source material issue, not a filmic one). But the movie is never dull. In fact, I found it quite engaging; loved the banter btwn. the witty Mason & nymphet Lyons throughout their tension-filled road trip.
Mason gives an outstanding performance as the repressed intellectual. It's due to his performance, as well as the direction that we can possibly sympathize with such an ill-intentioned character. Shelley Winters is vulgar enough, yet just pathetic enough to make her fleeting moments chasing after Mason mean something. Peter Sellers takes on several intriguing personas to get what he wants from Humbert/Lolita. And Sue Lyon, just 14 at the time of filming, is stellar as the shallow teen temptress with deceit running through her veins. Good performances from all. The production values are also polished; particularly Oswald Morris' elegant black-&-white photography. Overall, I enjoyed watching the film as it went. Talent oozes from the screen (direction, writing, acting, etc.). But again, in hindsight, I found the film to be a bit diluted in its scandalous nature. I expected a little more. More passion? A better last Act? It was missing ... something.
When Charlotte stumbles upon Humbert's diary containing his confession of love for Lolita, she is so revolted by his carnal thoughts of her young daughter that she runs into the street like a crazy woman, where she is killed by a car. Without telling Lolita that her mother has died, Humbert packs her into his car & goes on a long & tense cross-country trip, followed every mile of the way by a mysterious pursuer. Once she gets over the shock of her mother's untimely death, Lolita is more-or-less agreeable to engaging in an affair with her now stepfather (this is handled quite discreetly for 1962 audiences to handle). But when Lolita starts discovering boys her own age, she starts to drifts from Humbert; even starting to lie to him. One day, she just ups & leaves without warning. This humiliates Humbert. Furthermore, when he discovers who her secret lover actually is, the results are tragic. We, the audience, know the ending because the movie has been framed as a flashback.
Translating a highly controversial novel like 'Lolita' to the big screen was an incredible feat in '62. Director Kubrick, working from author Vladimir Nabokov's own script, was able to convey the forbidden thoughts/actions of Humbert Humbert without causing a raucous in Hollywood. Because each character is unique & because the situation (older man with a young teen girl) is so strange/taboo ... he is able to make us question our sympathies & expectations throughout the plot. Now, the film isn't perfect. I am not wild about where the story goes (though, that's actually a source material issue, not a filmic one). But the movie is never dull. In fact, I found it quite engaging; loved the banter btwn. the witty Mason & nymphet Lyons throughout their tension-filled road trip.
Mason gives an outstanding performance as the repressed intellectual. It's due to his performance, as well as the direction that we can possibly sympathize with such an ill-intentioned character. Shelley Winters is vulgar enough, yet just pathetic enough to make her fleeting moments chasing after Mason mean something. Peter Sellers takes on several intriguing personas to get what he wants from Humbert/Lolita. And Sue Lyon, just 14 at the time of filming, is stellar as the shallow teen temptress with deceit running through her veins. Good performances from all. The production values are also polished; particularly Oswald Morris' elegant black-&-white photography. Overall, I enjoyed watching the film as it went. Talent oozes from the screen (direction, writing, acting, etc.). But again, in hindsight, I found the film to be a bit diluted in its scandalous nature. I expected a little more. More passion? A better last Act? It was missing ... something.