I am not familiar with the tale of Lolita, having somehow never seen the film by Stanley Kubrick, or even read the source novel by Vladimir Nabokov. All I knew about it is what most people know about it. There's something at the heart of it that involves an older man and an underage girl. Yeah, if you've spent the past week or so getting upset about Cuties then you may want to stop reading now.
Jeremy Irons plays Humbert Humbert, a gentleman who ends up residing as a lodger in the home of Charlotte Haze (Melanie Griffith) and her young daughter, Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Dominique Swain). Swiftly growing infatuated with the child, Humbert eventually marries Charlotte, all the while scheming to do the minimum he has to do, in terms of his husbandly duties, and keep himself available to Lolita. Things do not go well in the marriage, of course, but that leads to a period of time during which Humbert and Lolita can give in to their distasteful urges.
I'm struggling to fully balance out my thoughts on Lolita. It is not a film I enjoyed, not one bit, and I am struggling to figure out the appeal of the source material, which perhaps makes some points lost in the adaptation from page to screen by Stephen Schiff (in what seems to be his first credited writing role). I guess, considering the third act, it's about a man so oblivious to how wrong his behaviour is that he needs to find someone worse than himself to help him find some kind of redemption.
Everyone involves deserves credit for giving it a try, even in 1997 this wasn't exactly something that moviegoers would be rushing to see, and the fact that it tries very hard to walk a tightrope between the intriguing and the disgusting is enough to remind you that no small amount of effort was exerted to get this done.
Director Adrian Lyne shoots things in a way that is either passive or, worse, lingering from the POV of Humbert. He places you alongside the main character, who has the benefit of being so well portrayed by Irons, and gives you nowhere to hide, even as things become darker and more sordid.
As well as a top-notch performance from Irons, Swain does well in the titular role. Her character is often very annoying, and treats the people around her quite appallingly, but she's a child being a child, even when she has moments of trying to act like a woman. She never is, and that point is emphasised at every turn, even when viewing her through the eyes of Humbert, who views her in a different way from everyone else. Griffith has a limited amount of screentime, but does well with it, and there are a couple of scenes stolen by Frank Langella.
The more I think about Lolita, the less I like it. That's not really the fault of the film though. I found the central idea too disturbing, as it was intended to be, but I also appreciated watching something that proved to be such a strong challenge. Not to sound too pretentious, but that can happen sometimes with art. A strong averse reaction can be just as rewarding, in some ways, as a strong connection to the material. The worst thing that any art can do is leave you disengaged, and Lolita certainly doesn't allow you to view it without becoming engaged.
The technical side of things is generally decent enough, and the performances give it a boost, but I hope to never watch this again. I will, however, check out the Kubrick film one day. And I may see how the novel presents things.
5/10
https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
I agree, this film is a tough sit due to the subject matter, combined with the fact that we're asked to identify, even empathize with a pedophile. The novel is equally challenging, however it's somehow easier to accept the Clare Quilty character on the page. (I will be curious to hear what you make of the Kubrick adaptation, especially with Peter Sellers in the Langella role, which gives the whole thing a perversely comic bent.)
ReplyDeleteThe Kubrick film has been one of my oversights for far too long.
Delete