Inderjit Sanghe, one would think someone as knowledgeable as yourself would get the character's names right. Surely you're not that careless?
Printable View
Inderjit Sanghe, one would think someone as knowledgeable as yourself would get the character's names right. Surely you're not that careless?
I thought that Mason was perfect for Humbert, as were all of the rest of the cast. Brando would have been a disaster, as per his performance in Last Tango in Paris 11 years later,.How could the all-American Brando have had the European handsomness necessary for the part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe
Portions of the novel have extremely well crafted prose; however, I thought a fair amount of it was boring and forgettable.
For those of you who voted that both Humbert and Dolores are victims, do you mean that Humbert was victimized by Dolores?
I personally find it hard to believe Humbert is a victim of Dolores. If he argues that she seduced him, I'd argue that he's not exactly the most reliable of narrators. Or do you mean Humbert is victimized by Dolores' unfaithfulness? Sleeping with another boy at summer camp and later running away with Quilty?
Or perhaps do you mean that Humbert is victimized by something else?
Humbert was victim because he was in love with her and it was inevitable that he would lose her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilde woman
Oh, you couldn't had an American play him!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
We need a new film of Lolita, I think.
Well, we could have an American play him if there were anyone available, but the current crop of Hollywood pretty boys, who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, would be out of their depth. Who do you propose for the part? Bruce Willis perhaps; but unfortunately there are no car chases or fireball explosions in the story. There may be other possiblities but I no longer bother with a Hollywood that relinquished genuine film making to the inanities of Wall Street backers years ago. The Oscars were presented recently: who cares? They give them away in Corn Flake packets these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Hmm...not sure actually. We need someone who looks sort of dignified and well-spoken...and I think they should have stubble. And they shouldn't be so old! Poor Humbert was only 36, not 50 million!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Mason was 43 when he made Lolita, somewhat short of 50 million and a very convincing age for Humbert, despite 36 being the original protagonist's age. By today's standards 36 is the new 17-years-old, although the coming depression is going to force them grow up. Personally, I am looking forward to the days when real men, rather than spoilt little pretty boys, set the standard of acting and behaviour in general. Currently, I can't think of anybody who is well-spoken and dignified, and stubble is the sign of a slob and the antithesis of dignity; despite advertisers trying to persuade impressionable people otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Yeah, you have a point. Though Jeremy Irons didn't have the right build I think, he had the right sort of style.
I thought Irons was pretty good and the girl was more in keeping with Nobokov's creation but the direction was a disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
It did look a bit awkward.
It would have to be a European playing him. You really need someone with an upper class English accent- an RSC actor type. If Hollywood made it though it would be sanitised, have an ugly script, star Tom Cruise and be completely unwatchable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I think the film would have to be sanitised to a certain extent because ( even in these degenerate days ) it would be difficult to get away with a 12 year old girl as the lover of a 36 year old man in a film. Which is why the 1961 version starring James Mason had to be made in the UK rather than the USA even though a major backer of the film was MGM. Even then, the girl was presented as a 15 year old which is practically the age of consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
The 1997 version starring Jeremy Irons was a Franco/USA co-production but, apart from Irons and the girl, was totally unconvincing to the extent that I switched off about a quater of the way through.
Both films failed for different reasons. The girl in the earlier version was a regular little glamour puss whereas the one in the later version was much nearer the mark and actually looked childlike. However, the first film was well directed by Stanley Kubrick but the second was all at sea.
Another important fact is that Nobokov scripted the earlier version.
As British actors, Irons and Mason were good as Humbert but they were not best served by the factors I have mentioned.
I found it hard to see why a 12 year old girl, or her mother, would be attracted to Mason. He wasn't at all good-looking.