Subject
Re: Kubrick's Lo(w) (fwd)
Date
Body
From: Rodney Welch <RWelch@scjob.sces.org>
As someone who fears the worst for Adrian Lyne's LOLITA, I
certainly understand the horror with which other Nabokovians regard
the Kubrick version. I don't, however, share their view; I think both VN
and Kubrick were right to regard it in retrospect as a kind of noble
failure. It's a patchy film with moments of greatness. The four principal
roles are (mostly) well cast, and Kubrick's staging is smooth and
elegant. Humbert's murder of Quilty, for example, is beautifully
composed, and is quite as funny on screen as it is in the book.
Everyone has since recognized that LOLITA was made in the wrong
era, but that's only part of the problem. There is also the matter of
tone; while the novel is basically a comedy about lost youth, it also has
a deep pathos to it. Kubrick never really balances the two, but I think
he offered a way into the book without harming -- or without doing
much harm -- to the source.
RW
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Admin Frick S -- MGM/UA Inc - Santa Monica <africkxs@counsel.com>
> To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
>
> In our collective anticipation of the release of Lyne's "Lolita"
> there has been a resurfacing of anti-Kubrick rhetoric. Kubrick's
> film in this forum has been treated like a harlot dismissed for
> her faithlessness. Although it certainly does not represent a
> strict interpretation of the novel, I don't understand the
> hostility toward the film. I think it is a great film, with a
> perfectly pitched dark humor reflecting Nabokov's own comic tone.
> Are we sympathizing with VN's frustration at not achieving his
> vision of a filmed "Lolita," dismissing the adaptation which is,
> ultimately, Kubrick's and not our hero's? Or is there a solid
> case for viewing it as a defective film?
>
> Stephen Frick
> sfrick@mgm.com
As someone who fears the worst for Adrian Lyne's LOLITA, I
certainly understand the horror with which other Nabokovians regard
the Kubrick version. I don't, however, share their view; I think both VN
and Kubrick were right to regard it in retrospect as a kind of noble
failure. It's a patchy film with moments of greatness. The four principal
roles are (mostly) well cast, and Kubrick's staging is smooth and
elegant. Humbert's murder of Quilty, for example, is beautifully
composed, and is quite as funny on screen as it is in the book.
Everyone has since recognized that LOLITA was made in the wrong
era, but that's only part of the problem. There is also the matter of
tone; while the novel is basically a comedy about lost youth, it also has
a deep pathos to it. Kubrick never really balances the two, but I think
he offered a way into the book without harming -- or without doing
much harm -- to the source.
RW
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Admin Frick S -- MGM/UA Inc - Santa Monica <africkxs@counsel.com>
> To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
>
> In our collective anticipation of the release of Lyne's "Lolita"
> there has been a resurfacing of anti-Kubrick rhetoric. Kubrick's
> film in this forum has been treated like a harlot dismissed for
> her faithlessness. Although it certainly does not represent a
> strict interpretation of the novel, I don't understand the
> hostility toward the film. I think it is a great film, with a
> perfectly pitched dark humor reflecting Nabokov's own comic tone.
> Are we sympathizing with VN's frustration at not achieving his
> vision of a filmed "Lolita," dismissing the adaptation which is,
> ultimately, Kubrick's and not our hero's? Or is there a solid
> case for viewing it as a defective film?
>
> Stephen Frick
> sfrick@mgm.com