Oh, you couldn't had an American play him!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
We need a new film of Lolita, I think.
Printable View
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.
Not in the pretty boy way so prevalent among actors (?) these days, but there was a time when women were attracted to genuine masculine personalities as opposed to the male celebrities (?) ( don't make me laugh ) who infest the cinema nowadays with their total lack of personal, as opposed to publicity generated, charisma.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
They don't really have charisma these days, do they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Maybe we should get a French guy in, with a seductive accent...
Why are you so against Mason's portrayal? OK he didn't look like Jude Law or whoever the current flavour of the month may be, but he was convincing in the role. Admittedly, it's a long time since I saw the film but, given the circumstances under which it was made, I thought Stanley Kubrick got within a reasonable shot of the story. One of the things I remember from the book is that there seemed to be a certain amount of tedious prose writing that had to be waded through which, thankfully, Kubrick was able to dispense with in the film version. However, the premise of the story is so good, that I intend to read it again to see if a second reading overcomes my reservations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I really appreciate this thread! All of the interesting feedback urged me to read this book. Although I am only 1/3 of the way through it, I am entranced.
It did feel uncomfortable to get into, but Nabokov really pulls you in. His style is exactly what I have been looking for, and I expect to read many more of his books....
There's a beautifully sad bit right near the end- genius.
Where have you been Kelby? Don't you realise that we are the only ones keeping this thread alive ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Someone might come along and resucitate it, hopefully... :)
hi, i'm new here.. i'm from indonesia, sorry if my english is not very good.
well, i read Lolita a year ago.. and it suddenly became my favorite.
now i'm planning to conduct my undergraduate thesis about Lolita..
i want to discuss the narrative techniques.. but my advisor told me it will be too broad and suggested me to choose a more specific topic..what do you guys think will be the best for me?
i'd really love to read your comments..
Of course I too have read the book and this is really a marvelous book, magnum opus, something of world classic. This book was criticized as being obscene and as a matter of fact this book is philosophically appealing.
What is more this book is kind of open and straightforward and was banned in some countries when it was printed.
How about 'How does the narration affect how we view the novel?'Quote:
Originally Posted by dianwulansari
Or something along the lines of how does Nabokov manage to make a person like Humbert a somewhat sympathetic figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Or even take the tack...making a dastardly person into a sympathetic character, not only Humbert, but any character, by any narrator.
Hello, everyone!
I'm from Slovenia and I'm new on this forum. As dianwulansari, I too am writing my undergraduate thesis about Lolita... I'm thinking of writing about the Lolita's influence on modern literature and culture. Since this is a very broad theme, I don't quite know where to start. I was thinking about the title "Lolitas after Lolita", meaning I would like to concentrate on different literature works, film characters and fashion styles perhaps which have clearly been influenced on by Nabokov's character of Lolita.
If you have some useful ideas or some other suggestions, I would be extremely grateful if you could share them with me.
Thank you so much.
Lolita is a strong influence in American Beauty
You probably should a new thread..Quote:
Originally Posted by mojcaoblak
Later writers avoided having Lolitas, because underage firls can be trouble.
Yes, "American Beauty" also came to my mind:) "Reading Lolita in Teheran" is also one of the books which mention Lolita, but otherwise, I really have no other idea.....
So I agree with PeterL that maybe I should try something else. Any ideas?:)
There are many aspects of Lolita that lend themselves to comment without even suggesting lewdness. One is the parallel between Lolita and Joyce's Ulysses Nabokov was an expert on Joyce, and taught a course on Ulysses for many years. You might go through and point out as may literary allusions as you can find. There are others, but you can dream them up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojcaoblak
Lolita is my favourite novel of everything I've read. So far the language is absolutely unrivaled for me, Nabokov is a genius and it's one of the only books which makes me feel like I'm reading poetry rather than prose.
Every time I read it I'm in a flood of tears! The more I read it the more I see Lolita as the tragic victim of the novel. She's certainly not the most likeable character, especially on first reading but it's harrowing when you remember that she's really only a child, quite an immature one in some ways.
I understand the stigma that comes attached to this novel and that people would deem it inappropriate (my mum certainly didn't want me to read it even though I was 17) but I always defend it. It's far too beautiful and tragic to be seen as disgusting in any way.
Has anybody read Lo's Diary? I forget the name of the author but I believe she's Italian and it begins with P...Anyways, I read it which was such a bad decision, of course nothing was going to match or even come close to my own idea of what Lolita's narrative or inner thoughts were like but it was really quite bad. Highly disappointing but definitely my own fault for reading it!
Dolores Haze is, without a doubt, the victim of the novel, as is her mother, Charlotte Haze.
Humbert Humbert is a subtle but absolute destructive force in the lives of the Haze women. He uses both of their affections to essentially destroy them. What makes him such a complex character is that we see his love as genuine, even though we know he's an unreliable narrator. Even though we can see through his self-serving narrative and realize that his words are those of a man trying desperately to justify his actions ("Gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover" is just one of several perfect examples; the consistent addressing of a metaphorical jury blatantly shows that Humbert is a man asserting his innocence before those who would judge him -- the readers, that is), he still forces us to believe in his star-crossed, intense love for Dolores, even as he solipsizes her to tragic ends.
This is what I absolutely adore about this book above practically all others; Nabokov completely eviscerates Humbert through the written word, as most people would any pedophile who abuses a child in such an emotionally manipulative way, yet it's not in any conventional manner that he does so. Our society is aware of why child abuse is bad, no one needed a moral treatise on the subject, but what Nabokov gives us is more of a stage to reaffirm our convictions on the matter. Despite Humbert's relentless rationalization, projections, and deflections of guilt and blame, the reader can't help but be left with a feeling of utter certainty that the lives of both Charlotte and Dolores Haze would have been unmistakably better had Humbert never stepped foot into them. We realize that the whole of his actions have ruined two innocent lives. (Which is why I simply cannot understand how anyone could think Lolita glorifies pedophilia in any way; I believe the only people who could ever make that claim are those who have never read the novel).
A brilliant novel, no doubt. To date it's still one of the most frightening books I've ever read, much more frightening than any horror novels I've read. This is mostly due to the fact that Lolita makes you feel like you are inside the head of a pedophile. Pedophilia is probably one of the taboos that will never be broken and that's why Lolita will continue to be an extraordinarily powerful novel in the minds of future generations.
The victim is you.
I'll agree with this as well. The book forces the reader to be complicit in Humbert's actions. Combined with the repulsive nature of their relationship, the reader can easily be considered victimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer
Resurrecting a fairly old thread, but I want to bring some new discussion to my favourite novel. My question is that do you think Humbert Humbert truly regretted his actions at the end of the novel (some go even further to say that Humbert truly loved Lolita at the end of the novel), or was he still playing his manipulative games?
Reasons Why He Did:
- If we take him strictly by his word
- He returns thousands of dollars to Dolores Haze during their last encounter without any stipulations
- Humbert hears a chorus of children singing and laughing at play leading him to conclude that --> "...and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita's absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord."
Reasons Why He Did Not:
- Humbert is naturally an incredibly unreliable narrator who has manipulated us previously, why would he be genuine now?
- Humbert has repeatedly lied to many, many characters - Charlotte, the Farlowes; he also feigned madness to psychiatrists just to mess with them
- Humbert is writing his memoir understanding that he will be evaluated morally ("Gentlemen and Gentlewomen of the Jury!") and is thus trying to make himself look better
- Right after Humbert has his last encounter with Lolita and laments the error of his ways, he returns to Ramsdale and appears to show more questionable behaviour towards young girls:
"All at once I noticed that from the lawn I had mown a golden-skinned, brown-haired nymphet of nine or ten, in white shorts, was looking at me with wild fascination in her large blue-black eyes. I said something pleasant to her, meaning no harm, an old-world compliment, what nice eyes you have, but she retreated in haste and the music stopped abruptly, and a violent-looking dark man, glistening with sweat, came out and glared at me."
I personally was convinced Humbert was still his manipulative self at the end until I read Nabokov's Russian novel Despair (1934) which he later revised and translated in 1965. Despair involves a supposedly mad, unreliable narrator as well, Hermann, who sees a lot of doubling and eventually commits heinous crimes as well; it has been called a precursor to Lolita. In the Introduction to the English version, Nabokov writes:
"Hermann and Humbert are alike only in the sense that two dragons painted by the same artist at different periods of his life resemble each other. Both are neurotic scoundrels, yet there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann."
This leads me to think that Nabokov intended Humbert to be read as a repenting character as he claims that "there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann".
What do others think?
You really should have started a new thread for this.
But it is my opinion that Humbert was more delusional than anything else. He is a completely unreliable narrator, so we don't know what actually happened, and everything could have happened in his mind.
Yeah, but there are degrees of being delusional and it's always been a hotly debated topic among scholars to whether Humbert legitimately regretted his actions or was continuing his manipulative play. I thought the Nabokov quote from Despair was an example of how he tried to control this interpretation but w/e.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
There are people who are willing to argue whether blue of green is a better color, but doesn't make the discussion valid or useful. I wonder if those "scholars" ever figured out the difference between fiction and non-fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F. Schiller
It is my opinion that Nabokov told the story that he meant to tell, and left it open enough that people could discuss it to their hearts' content. Keep in mind that Nabokov was a professor of literature whose main course was on Ulysses, including the interpretation of Bloom's wandering.
It's been a while since I read Lolita, but I didn't get the feeling that HH tries to deliberately manipulate the reader. It is a highly subjective account of what goes on in his twisted mind and he's so poetic, witty and self-deprecating that many readers, especially first time readers, are charmed into sympathizing with him, but the hints are all there for the anyone who reads between the lines - the girl is no irresistible super-seductive Nymphet. Above all, she is not 'Lolita'. She is a normal twelve year-old girl by the name of Dolores Haze, and it is only in the narrator's twisted mind that she undergoes her demonic transformation. What I'm trying to say is, HH gives us the facts as well as his subjective viewpoint. It is up to us whether we get manipulated or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F. Schiller
As for regret, he never at any point felt his actions were justified, so in a way he was always regretful, but as long as the girl was with him, the obsessive nature of his love and overpowering lust for her overcome his conscience, and he becomes her tyrant. It is only when she leaves him that he is able to reflect on his actions in a more objective way.
Hi folks, My first post. so be gentle with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F. Schiller
I think Nabokov was (again) wrongfooting the hopeful interpreter in this last quote you gave.
Re-read the quote, and ask yourself 'How can there be time in Paradise?' Humbert is obviously in Paradise, I would say.
I've always noted a jarring thing in the very first words that Humbert writes:
"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul."
Notice that in this first incantation Humbert alliterates the first phrase describing Lolita, and the concluding sentence. However his alliteration deserts him when he claims that sexual power that Lolita allegedly has over him. Why? It's a kind of stumble. It's his first untruth. Such a literary genius as Humbert could surely have found a suitable phrase (I've invented some mediocre ones myself today). What we are then left with if we delete that phrase is this:
"Light of my life. My sin, my soul."
Doesn't this sound more like a sort of religious affirmation than anything sexual? (I note you used the word 'repent' which is religious in origin).
Humbert's tale, as told by him, is a lie, in one sense, from start to finish. But it's also true in another way, and doesn't resemble the everyday 'bare facts' which is the story without his 'interpretation'. I have my views on this, but they're still at the 'nymph' stage at the moment, and I don't know if they'll grow wings and fly. Surely Humbert is a butterfly, and as Nabokov mentions in 'Speak, Memory' the adult butterfly evades its enemies through the means of 'enchantment and deception' and displays an 'aesthetic beauty'. But Humbert will fly and wander down that green lane in Paradise most certainly, if I'm right.
Nabokov's estimation of 'The Metamorphosis' of Kafka (one of the greatest works of the 20th C he said) is very interesting to me, as Gregor Samsa and Humbert are sort of related. Both are imprisoned for one thing, though in apparently different ways. So is Hermann, but he'll never get 'parole'. That again is very suggestive of a particular 'spiritual' interpretation to me.
Think gnostic.
First of all, thanks for your opinion. This was the kind of response I was looking for several months ago, when I wrote my post. I re-read the quote, and I'm quite convinced that Nabokov is implying that Humbert is in Hell with Hermann but is allowed to leave Hell and enter Paradise once a year, not that Humbert is in Paradise. I believe he is alluding to mythology (there is actually a story in Chinese Mythology that is very similar and I'm guessing there is an equivalent in the West). Also, why can't there be time in Hell/Paradise? Nabokov did not believe in time altogether, although his fiction was very precise in dating. However, I've read many, many interview of Nabokov, mostly from Strong Opinions, and it's not inconceivable that he is deliberately misleading his reader. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last. I'm not sure what you're really getting at with the bit after that, so I won't comment. However, Nabokov was an agnostic who had little care for religion (looked through his letters/interviews and he never mentions it at all), so I'm not sure a spiritual reading would be effective here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RecoveringScot
I highly disagree with your penultimate point of characterizing Humbert as a butterfly. I believe it is Lolita who Nabokov characterizes as a butterfly - I actually wrote a paper for my undergraduate class last year on this and there is a similar essay in the Garland Companion to Nabokov. If you think about the word "nymphet" it alludes to the word "nymph" which is the juvenile form of the butterfly. You're right about the similarities in Speak, Memory, but once again, it seems to associate Lolita with butterflies and not Humbert (who is more in-line with Nabokov himself). The descriptions of Nabokov in the open grass enjoying the butterflies around him are very, very similar to Humbert "enjoying" Lolita. In some sentences, you could literally replace the word "butterfly" with "little girl" and the passage from Speak, Memory would sound like it was from Lolita. If anything, Humbert is associated with spiders, which is a natural predator of butterflies. From Lolita:
"I am like one of those
inflated pale spiders you see in old gardens. Sitting in the middle of a
luminous web and giving little jerks to this or that strand. My web
is spread all over the house as I listen from my chair where I sit like a
wily wizard. Is Lo in her room? Gently I tug on the silk."
Again, later on:
"My arms and legs were
convex surfaces between which--rather than upon which--I slowly progressed
by some neutral means of locomotion: Humbert the Wounded Spider."
just a note, one could easily argue, that in the sentence, life conects to fire and loins to sin (not to mention to Lolita and soul). The tale still a lie from first line...
Interesting... I've always assumed that "light of my life" was referring to the angelic and heavenly while "fire of my loins" was referring to sin and hell. Duality is a prominent theme in the novel and Lolita herself is characterized both ways, as Humbert wonders about "the nature of this twofold nymphet". He sometimes describes her as akin to an angel, yet othertimes as a demonness. On one hand, his love for her has given him new life, yet it has also condemned him to hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo