This is an interesting point. The omission of HH's spells in sanatoriums does, I think, tend to make him seem more "normal" to viewers. The omission of such scenes, though, was probably more in response to the limitations on the amount of "backstory" the film medium allows its characters.
 
One requirement was to make HH superficially attractive to women, which James Mason and Jeremy Irons do well. The second  was to show that he is selfish, perverted and obsessed. If the filmmaker portrays the dark aspects too well, it makes it very difficult to put across the first.  Both films fall short by giving almost no indication that what HH has done, and is doing, is a terrible crime.
 
One could have made a very different, but equally faithful film of Lolita if one showed HH's European efforts to obtain child prostitutes; HH's marriage to Valeria, and his brutal thoughts toward her; HH writing ads for his uncle's perfume business; HH obtaining sleeping pills from doctors; his plans to drown Charlotte; the system of threats and bribes by which he forces his captive to do his will; and the tears that Lolita sheds every single night. But all this would make an almost unbearably dark film.
 
As it is, a person unfamiliar with the novel could watch either film and suspect -- with the exception of a very few brief scenes in Lyne's interpretation -- that HH is doing nothing more than taking his legitimate step-daughter on a driving trip across the U.S.
 
Since neither director chose the dark path, I think the omissions they made were more about getting an amazingly rich story down to the 90 to 120 minutes of film time that the commercial movie world allows.
 
Andrew Brown
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald B. Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis



----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
    Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:00:25 EDT
    From: STADLEN@aol.com
Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
 Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
      To:

In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time,
chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:

> Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.

Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita"
mentions HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of
psychiatric history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more
"normal", more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his
perversion
(unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled 'Lolita'")
not quite so perverse?

(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He
himself sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even if,
as
VN suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be
paroled once a year.)

Anthony Stadlen

----- End forwarded message -----

In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time, chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:

Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.


Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita" mentions HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of psychiatric history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more "normal", more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his perversion (unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled 'Lolita'") not quite so perverse?

(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He himself sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even if, as VN suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be paroled once a year.)

Anthony Stadlen