Stanley Kubrick's Lolita

I consider myself a fan of Kubrick's other films (Dr. Strangelove is one of my favorite films of all time) but for what ever reason haven't seen this remake of the classic novel. I recently recorded it (from TCM) and though I've only watched the first hour I'm enjoying it so far. My one complaint is the length, at two and a half hours it seems far too long for the subject matter. Any way, I'm curious what others think about this film? Was it faithful to the novel? Am I correct in having issues with the length or perhaps it must be that length to properly convert it to celluloid? Any opinions or discussion on the film or novel would brighten my other wise dull evening.

It's my favorite Kubrick film, but it's not overly faithful to the novel. Lolita was too old, she looks sixteen, and they put her in the manipulative, overt "seducer" role (and not an innocent, childish seducer like she is in the book).

It doesn't matter though, it's different from the book but it's still brilliant.

re. The length: I've never thought of Lolita as a particularly lengthy film, it didn't bother me.

I thought the Kubrick version of Lolita was a wonderful film. The length didn't really put me off either, due to the black humour in the story, and the wonderful performances by the main characters. In the 90s, there was a rather boring and mopey movie version made which did drag on a great deal.
It wasn't completely faithful to the book but it doesn't really matter, since a good movie was made out of it. Books don't often survive direct translation into films, but this movie was interesting enough to make me want to read the book.
The sensuality and poetic nature of Nabokov's prose style would have been impossible to capture in a film too.

Quote:

---

In the 90s, there was a rather boring and mopey movie version made which did drag on a great deal.

---

I thought the Adrian Lyne version was atrocious. It turned a beautiful comic novel into a humorless romance. They even played the farce at the end with Quilty completely straight. Just awful.

I'm a huge Kubrick fan as well, but I do feel Lolita is one of his more mediocre films. There's nothing wrong with it, but I don't think there's anything approaching the genius of his best work, and, unlike with 2001 or The Shining, I feel the novel is much better.

Kubrick's take on the novel received mixed reviews at the time of its release, one of the complaints being that it was shot in England due to legal restrictions in the USA at the time and didn't have a convincing American background. As Kubrick usually managed to turn out watchable footage I didn't think the film was too long and I thought the scenic representation well done, but the other complaint of the girl being too old for the part was, to my mind, valid.
I did find the book to be quite repetitious with regard to the constant travelling around the US but, on the whole, I think Kubrick did a good job in turning a difficult novel into a credible filmed version.

I enjoyed it although too much focus on Peter Sellers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I enjoyed it although too much focus on Peter Sellers.

---

You are right but I think Kubrick wanted to get his money's worth from Sellars who obviously didn't come cheap at that stage of his career and Sellers early years in the BBC radio Goon Show stood him in good stead to play a weirdo like Clare Quilty. A year later Kubrick had Sellers playing multiple parts, somewhat unnecessarily, in Dr. Strangelove, including the title role where it was perhaps unfortunate that he bore a passing resemblance to Dr.Henry Kissinger. However, his performance as the reticent British RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake was perfectly nuanced against his manic US commanding officer General Jack D. Ripper played by Stirling Hayden.
George C. Scott didn't like sending up the American military but Kubrick got him to do it with hilarious lines such as: "I don't say we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million people killed."

I never went overboard for Kubrick but there is no doubt that he was an original talent.

I didn't think the starlet (Sue Lyon, I believe) was too old. Starting with the killing of Peter Sellers at the beginning of the movie was a stroke of genius. Thoroughly enjoyed both the book and the movie. Nabokov wrote the sceenplay with help (uncredited) from Kubrick. Fortunately, as in most of her screen roles, Shelley Winters was killed off early. She lasted so long in A Place in the Sun (American Tragedy) that people in the audience were prompting Montgomery Cliff to hit her with an oar.

I didn't think the movie was overly long. The dramatization of Dickens' Bleak House was six hours, which I thought was just about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

I didn't think the starlet (Sue Lyon, I believe) was too old.

---

For Hollywood, she was surprisingly young, although it would have looked to be really poor taste if Lolita was played by anyone too old.

I thought she was pretty good in the role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

For Hollywood, she was surprisingly young, although it would have looked to be really poor taste if Lolita was played by anyone too old.

I thought she was pretty good in the role.

---

Well dfloyd's use of the word starlet is a good indication that she wasn't right for the part. Although it's probably true that many twelve-year-old girls are precocious they wouldn't normally look like Sue Lyon did in the part. It is suggested in the film that she is fourteen so there is one example where the film differs from the book.
Amazingly, Noel Coward was considered for the part of Humbert according to Leslie Halliwell's Film Guide. That would have been a fascinating performance to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Well dfloyd's use of the word starlet is a good indication that she wasn't right for the part. Although it's probably true that many twelve-year-old girls are precocious they wouldn't normally look like Sue Lyon did in the part.

---

I think the filmmakers were encouraged to choose a nubile teenager so Humbert's obsession is more "older man-younger woman" rather than "paedophile-prepubescent".