Customer Reviews

Lolita

5 star:		(79)
4 star:		(34)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

There is a moment in Adrian Lyne's LOLITA that effectively captures the twisted, yet surprisingly innocent feeling that Vladimir Nabokov wanted to portray with his novel. When Lolita, wonderfully played by newcomer Dominique Swain, is rushing up the stairs to say goodbye to Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons), before she leaves for summer camp, you realize that the look of excitement in Jeremy Irons face, and the nervous posture he has is that of an innocent child in love.

Indeed it is true that Humbert is a child at heart, a fact which becomes clear early in the movie, when we learn a little bit about Humbert's first encounter with love and its subsequent painful and unexpected loss.

It seems impossible to not compare Lyne's version with Stanley Kubrick's version, made over 35 years ago. I have to admit that I am an avid Kubrick fan, and that I always thought his version of Nabokov's novel, if not faithfully reproduced, was a classic. So it was that with apprehension (and some morbid curiosity) I decided to watch Lyne's version. Boy was I blown away.

It is a terrible thing that our society as a whole, at this day and age, can't see pass the taboo that apparently clogs the story. It is sad because Lyne's LOLITA is an excellent and beautiful film in every respect. From Lyne's carefully crafted visual style, to the outstanding performance given by both Swain but especially by Irons (this is his movie), to the heart-breaking music score by legendary composer Ennio Morricone. Everything is in place here.

It is clear that Lyne has a profound understanding of the novel, he successfully directs the story in a way the slowly engulfs you and never seems to fall into the traps that plagued Kubrick's version. There are a great many things that you will discover in this movie, not the least of which is the realization that, deep down inside, there is a place in each and everyone of us where love seems to have no age. In the end you understand the reasons behind the story, you will see Humbert's joy reflected in your eyes and his tears will fall down your face, but perhaps most shocking of all, you will feel like him.

Please, do yourself a favor and see this movie on DVD. Trimark has done an excellent job by including a very insightful commentary track by Adrian Lyne, a wealth of deleted scenes (some of which I wish were on the film), theatrical trailers, and perhaps the most wonderful feature of all, a casting session with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, where you see them rehearse a scene, and later get to see the final scene. Highly recommended.

The novel of "Lolita" has justly been called one of the best works written in the English language since Shakespeare. The fact that its author was not a native speaker of English makes his achievement all the more amazing. "Lolita" simply must be read, and any attempts to convert it to the medium of film must inevitably suffer in comparison. That said, Adrian Lyne's film is as close to perfect a translation from book to screen as one could hope to find. The performances are pitch-perfect: Dominique Swain, in her first film role captures the essence of Nabakov's creation, at once gangly and seductive; endearing, infuriating and a definite "starlet". The viewer, like Humbert, is quickly wooed and won. Melanie Griffith gives her small role as Charlotte a tarnished dignity and a weary grace, and Frank Langella does what he can with the enigmatic, barely-seen Quilty. But Jeremy Irons simply carries the film. Known for plumbing baser human emotions in all his films, he embues Humbert Humbert with a simple humanity that is heartbreaking to watch. To admit to liking Humbert even a little is uncomfortable--it means empathizing on some level with the force that drives him, even as we may be disgusted by his actions, but it is impossible not to be charmed. Irons drops his customary reserved demeanor to mine the humor in the role, and his voice-overs of dialog straight from the book are most effective.

This film version succeeds where Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version failed in remaining true to the spirit of Nabakov's vision. I can't recommend it highly enough. It's just a shame that the self-serving hypocrisy of the studio heads involved prevented its American theatrical release when so much commercial swill packed with violence and degradation of all kinds passes for entertainment in this country.

Beginning with one of the most famous opening lines in literary history ("Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta.") we are introduced once more to the inimitable Humbert Humbert and his elusive quest for the Holy Grail in the form of "nymphness" personified. And oh what a sordid sorry trek it is, taking him and his young orphaned charge to some of the seamier spots of a fifties era American landscape. To cheap hotel rooms in little podunk towns where he can for a few fleeting days share a bit of privacy with his nubile naiad. Then of course, we follow the happy pair to the final confrontaion with one Clare Quilty, the only character in cinema/literary history who could make a pedophile like Humbert Humbert look wholesome by comparison.

Remakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel.

It boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect.

Finally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least.

Lyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try.

BEK

Nabokov's "Lolita" is a masterwork of psychological fiction of such complexity that one marvels that it could be rendered into film, but Adrian Lyne's version is a splendid success. Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert. His superb portrayals of obsession include: Damage, Dead Ringers, M. Butterfly, Swann in Love, and Betrayal, so it is not surprising that he is so convincing as Humbert. What is astounding is the chemistry between Irons and Dominique Swain as Lolita. Swain who had no previous acting experience simply either cues off Irons or puts her own natural instincts as a fourteen year old in Director Lyne's hands and delivers not only a stunning nymphet portrayal, but its destructive effect upon her life.

In the novel Humbert maintained he, "...had the utmost respect for ordinary children with their purity and vulnerability....But how his heart beat when, among the innocent throng, he espied a demon child...maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many time older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is demoniac)". It is this delusional obsession of his that traps Lolita. Ultimately in the depths of his remorse and self-hatred for what he has done to her,and to cleanse himself of his obsession, he murders the debauched Quilty,who has "cheated me of my redemption". Viewers will want to read the novel to experience Nabokov's marvelous art and the full range of Humbert's ironic intricate character.

Adrian Lyne`s LOLITA will one day receive its due from film historians as the greatest cinematic work of the last two decades of the 20th century: a prize denied it at the moment as we war with one another over how we are to face sexual and social reality. As Maurice Girodias wrote of the novel "Lolita": "I sensed that LOLITA would become the one great modern work of art to demonstrate once and for all the futility of moral censorship and the indispensable role of passion in literature." So does this speak also for Lyne`s film. Jeremy Irons, as Humbert, opens the film with words from Nabokov`s novel. As he first catches sight of Lolita (Dominique Swain), the camera focusses slowly and lovingly on her form as she reclines on the lawn, surrounded by the wetness, lushness, humming honey-dew freshness of the garden; reading a book, from which she looks up at Humbert and smiles tenderly, tauntingly, knowingly - radiantly. She returns to her book, but with a smile of realization; aware of him yet far from troubled; silently already conspiring with him. Thus we meet Dominique Swain, proving herself already in this opening scene one of the most accomplished actresses of our time. The camera moves to dwell on her feet, raised behind her as she lies reading, glistening against a backdrop of floral beauty; nature wordless, far more eloquent than words. The camera frequently focusses lovingly and interestingly on her feet. In a later scene she sits beside him on the veranda of the Haze house, and Miss Swain is so skilful an artiste that her movements and mannerisms are not at all feigned, but are the natural movements, expressions and mannerisms of the girl she plays, as though the camera were not there. The carefree jerking of her bronzed legs and arms against his; the brush of her hair, carelessly and as if unknowingly against his cheek. Her smile lights up the screen. Her eyes mock society: its bigotry, its prejudice. ... "I should call the police and tell them you raped me, you dirty old man," she tells Humbert later, smiling tauntingly and affectionately, her retainer showing, making him smile too. She asks "Want to see my chin wobble?", and wobbles it, making us with Humbert want to press our face, laughing, against hers. She takes her retainer from her mouth and drops it in his drink while her mother has left to get some ice. Frantically, he has to fish for it and get it back in her mouth before her mother sees. He also has to quickly dispose of her bubble-gum and pop it into his own mouth before her mother espies it. As out and out bigots condemned this movie for its frankly realistic portrayal of love, so many of its half-hearted defenders displayed cowardice in their would-be sympathy, disowning and neutralising it with: "...Of course, we know what Humbert is doing is wrong," and "... Of course, we cannot sympathise with him."! And other such timid sell-outs and non-committal verbiage. (Together with the academic so-called "psychopathological analyses" etc., which are all so much garbage, and which Peter Sellers` Quilty in the original Kubrick film version mocked so well!)

A truly great film - one of the most moving and realistically performed of all time - and a superb work of art for the more enlightened people of the future to appreciate much better than we today are able to!

Anthony Walker.

First, to really appreciate this film, you need to read the book. A lot of things will be lost on you if you don't, and you'll just end up writing a review that criticizes the wrong thing (like the time period it was set in - the novel was set in the 1940's; hence, the movie is set in the 1940's). Second, make no mistake, Lolita is the victim, not Humbert. Lolita is a child; Humbert is an adult, even though he is a sympathetic character. This movie is full of passion. There are themes of love, madness, obssession, the struggle of domination in relationships (because no relationship stands on equal footing - never happens, no matter how much you like to think it does for you). Hum and Lo constantly battle for the dominate role, and in the end they both lose. Lolita plays Hum like a fiddle, but she's only using what she's learned from him. She's 14 years old when this starts (12 years old in the novel), how much can she know (in the 1940's) about sex and older men? The allusions are powerful (the bobby pin clutched in Hum's bloody hand). The word play is brilliant (the first scene with Hum and Quilty on the porch, which is wonderfully filmed and edgy)and hats off to Nabokov for his poetic language. And I must say the most powerful scene in the movie is the scene where Humbert and Lolita reach the breaking point, becoming physically violent. Quilty's murder in the movie was true to Nabokov's novel: brutal and full of dark humor. Quilty died a violent death by Nabokov's hand, so Lyne gave him no less. This movie is eloquent, maddening, devastating. Even Nabokov's son praised this remake, saying it was superb and faithful to his father's novel. Lyne did a wonderful job making Humbert and Lolita and Quilty come alive. He couldn't fit all of Nabokov's many themes and word games into his film, so he pulled out the tragic love story, which is the heart of the novel. If you see the movie, read the book. If you read the book, see the movie. I do not make mention of Kubrick's film because to me it came off too up beat and too safe compared to the novel, but it was filmed in the 60's (not to mention that, though he credits Nabokov with the screenplay, Kubrick completely ignored Nabokov's script for the movie). Nabokov wrote a dark story and Lyne has done it justice. If Dimitri Nabokov called this movie "suberb," sticking closely to his father's novel, then that's good enough for me! After all, who would know Nabokov's work better than his own son?

Director Adrian Lyne's powerfully disturbing remake of the Nabokov novel benefits from perfectly realized performances by Jeremy Irons (as the obsessive Humbert) and Dominique Swain (in the title role). Simply put, the 1997 "Lolita" is superb filmmaking and an improvement over Stanley Kubrick's uneven 1962 version. Unlike Kubrick, Lyne is more faithful to Nabokov in terms of atmosphere and narrative structure. The postwar period detail is flawlessly evoked, while the supporting performances of Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella are more grounded in reality.

A misconception with this film is that it's a remake of Stanley Kubrick's classic version. However, it is simple a remake of the novel by Vladimir Nabokov - and a much better one at that. The time in which Kubrick made Lolita (how could they ever make a picture of that) was stiff and he had to rely more on wit and insinuation than blatant content. Thus, his version seems very watered down, and doesn't have nearly the wit, the sardonic humor, or the sick obsession coming through that this new version is able to have. Even this film was met with opposition, even in the late 1990's.

The acting of Jeremy Irons is superb. He's funny the one minute, sick the next, and lovestruck in the next - and we are convinced by all of it. Dominique Swain's portrayal of Lolita is by far better than Sue Lyon's original in 1962. Lyon seemed too old, and her actions and simple externals made it rather unbelievable. Swain, though, was merely still a child when Lolita was made, and gives a gutsy, visceral, real performance that should be lauded as the best of her career. There are some holes here and there, but it's forgiveable, to be honest. She gave a great performance to a very meaty part - especially since she had never acted before in her life. Bravo. The portrayal of Lolita is more like the book's as well, with touches of childhood mixed in with sensual adult characteristics. The way the movie was filmed (out of order, like usual) Swain, growing up in real life, seems to grow in one scene and go back to being a child in the next. The differences are neglible, though, because the Lolita character in the novel was neither a child nor a young adult. It's a little bit of unintentional play that I found rather interesting.

Frank Langella and director Adrain Lyne's portrayal of Quilty is also much more like the novel's. In the novel, his name is only mentioned a few times until the ending chapters, and Humbert Humbert only sees him as a bald head with a moustache, slipping in and out of he and Lolita's lives like a sick chameleon. His performance is superb as well, albeit short.

American audiences, of course, satisfied with blood, murder, gore, and obscenity, hailed this film as "inappropriate" and it got a hard time. The fact is, the subject matter of the book is very appropriately and intelligently conveyed. The novel was smart, lyrical, and beautifully written - and this film adaptation is also smart, lyrical, and beautifully made.

I read the book after seeing this movie version, and I have never experienced any film coming closer to snagging the book's story - but more importantly it's character and life. It's one of the best, if not THE best adaptations I have ever seen.

Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it.

This DVD is the ideal way to see Adrian Lyne's "Lolita". Any tecnical quality lost in not seeing it in a theater is more than made up for by the collection of supplemantal material. It includes a nice informal director's running commentary, a "casting session" between the two stars, and an excellent collection of scenes that mostly had to be left out for reasons of time. My favorites of these are a fantasy drowning and a scene where a face on a wanted poster transforms into that of the narrator's character. The latter was actually at the direction of the original author. In the novel, he says something like, "if you make a film out of this book, do this..." It's unusual that a great novel gets made into two great films. Stanley Kubrick's 1962 "Lolita" was the box office hit it deserved to be, but is often underrated by critics now. On the other hand, Lyne's version was not the hit it deserved to be be, but I can picture that it will age well. It's a great period piece, and well acted by Jeremy Irons, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella, and above all by Dominique Swain. Hers must be one of the best debut performances on film. I enjoyed Sue Lyon in the Kubrick film, but with Swain, I felt as if I was watching Nabokov's Lolita.