Lolita: A Screenplay (Paperback)

~ (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Vintage; 1st Vintage International Ed edition (August 26, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0679772553
• ISBN-13: 978-0679772552
• Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #340,358 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #45 in	Books > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( N ) > Nabokov, Vladimir
  #48 in	Books > Literature & Fiction > Classics > United States > Nabokov, Vladimir

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Nabokov's Screenplaying, February 11, 2000

By	The Lord of All That is Pedantic (San Antonio, TX USA) - See all my reviews

Lolita: a Screenplay is recommended reading for anyone who loved the novel and appreciates Nabokov's wonderful sense of humor. The story goes that Nabokov presented his screenplay to Kubrick, who told him, "Look, regardless of how brilliant it may or may not be, it would take eight hours to film." So it's unfilmable; if Borges can write literary criticism about books which don't exist, surely it's not so radical to devise screenplays which are never meant to be filmed. Nabokov adds much to his existing work, including a psychiatrist who speaks directly to the camera and a cameo for himself. One wishes that Adrian Lyne had added a few of the humorous elements of the screenplay to his film, which is fine but perhaps a bit too reverent which it should be audaciously funny. All in all, I highly recommend picking up what amounts to one of the 20th century's great geniuses playing hooky.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Interesting insight under Lolita, September 8, 2007

By	L. Norris "R. Slorin" (Harrisburg, PA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Ok, I'll admit it, I am another Nabokovian and my curiosity was spurred when I found out VVN's screenplay was published by vintage. My real curiosity was in what kind of insight the screenplay could offer to VVN's original novel, and it did render some of that insight. This is a fun read, not as delightful as the novel by any stretch of the mind but it is still very delightful. What makes it so insightful is the fact that the screenplay is meant for view, not necessarily to be read, and using the points that Nabokov emphasizes in the explanations of the scenery, behaviorisms, and so forth, again are extremely helpful to anyone trying to get a better grasp of the novel. In working on a piece of criticism on VVN's earlier novel The Defense, I actually used the screenplay because the Annabelle Lee theme is emphasized more than in the novel and is easier to use in a critical study.

As a work of art, it is most certainly a great piece by itself, but to readers who are expecting this to be another masterwork like the novelized Lolita or Pale Fire, this pales in comparison.

4.0 out of 5 stars A parody of a parody., July 16, 2009

By	Steven Daedalus "Steve" (Deming, NM USA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

You can practically feel Vladimir Nabokov struggling to put together something that resembled an ordinary screenplay. He really tries hard. Quilty had multiple shady appearances in the novel and the Big Reveal at the end came as a surprise, to me at least. (I guess I wasn't an "astute reader.") But here, Quilty stands out in his several scenes, as I imagine Nabokov imagined he should in a movie that isn't a book. The character must be more visible, must have lines, and so forth. So, yes, Nabokov is trying hard.

But I think we can doubt if he ever saw a traditional screenplay in his life, although he'd been an extra in some German films of the 1920s. THIS certainly doesn't look like a screenplay. It has passages squeezed into one or two flowery paragraphs that would have taken up two days of screen time.

But no matter how hard he tried, he seems to have been unable to suppress his gift for humor, irony, and originality. He has John Ray, Jr., Ph.D. introducing the story on the screen, referring to "This here manuscript." He's written himself into the screenplay as "that nut with the net over there." (His character makes gentle fun of the author.) And he leaves directions that play tricks with the camera and the editing, as if the entire enterprise were to be his own personal puppet show.

It's not a screenplay, not a book, and it never became a movie. It's an original work though, a revision of the classic novel. Not without evidence of some lapses in attention. Lolita is caused to use some British locutions -- "I shall do this," or "I'd quite forgotten" -- that sound funny in a smart but vulgar American kid.

I have some problems with Nabokov's personality. Some artists are egotists but VN was a true champion at the game. He and Vera were never excited while preparing to go out and receive another famous award of some kind because they figured it was no more than what he deserved. Some mistakes in the first publication of "Lolita" by his porno publisher in Paris were surely the author's but he attributed them to the ignorance of the protagonist instead -- "peritoneum" for "perineum." Nabokov had Appel change the incorrect peritoneum for the correct perineum, saying that the public might think he, Nabokov, had made the mistake instead of Humbert. Hah. He also praised Kubrick's film when it first appeared -- the more successful, the better, right? Then, long after its release, when it had raked in as many shekels as it was going to, he bombed it because, clearly, no movie could ever even approach the quality of his book. (It was true, but it was ungracious for VN to do what he did.)

None of that really matters though. He was a genius and I enjoyed the hell out of this queer work of art. It's touching and it's funny. I'm glad it was made public.