1
When director Stanley Kubrick released his film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel about a hopelessly pathetic middle-aged professor's sexual obsession with his 12-year-old stepdaughter, the ads read, "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?" The answer is "they" didn't. As he did with his "adaptations" of Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, and, especially, The Shining, Kubrick used the source material and, simply put, made another Stanley Kubrick movie--even though Nabokov himself wrote the screenplay. The chilly director nullifies Humbert Humbert's (James Mason's) overwhelming passion and desire, and instead transforms the story, like many of his films, into that of a man trapped and ruined by social codes and by his own obsessions. Kubrick doesn't play this as tragedy, however, but rather as both a black-as-coffee screwball comedy and a meandering, episodic road movie. The early scenes between Humbert, Lolita (a too-old but suitably teasing Lyons) and her loud, garish mother (Shelley Winters in one of her funniest performances) play like a wonderful farce. When Humbert finally fulfills his desires and captures Lolita, the pair hit the road and Kubrick drags in Peter Sellers. As the pedophilic writer Clare Quilty--Humbert's playful doppelgänger and biggest threat--Sellers dons a series of disguises with plans of stealing Lolita away from her captor. It's here more than anywhere that Kubrick comes closest to the novel. He extends Nabokov's idea of the games and puzzles played between reader and writer, Quilty and Humbert, Lolita and Humbert, etc., to those between filmmaker and audience: the road eventually goes nowhere and Humbert's reality is exposed as mad delusion. Perhaps not a Kubrick masterpiece, or the provocative film many wanted, Lolita still remains playfully fascinating and one of Kubrick's strongest, funniest character studies.
2
Lolita, light of so many lives, fire of so many loins, has become so much more than merely the book Nabokov wrote. The story of the young nymphet, Dolores (Lolita) Haze, and her seducer, Humbert Humbert, lives beyond the confines of the novel. In all the fuss about the story (and the films and Lolita-variations that keep appearing) Nabokov's novel is sometimes forgotten. This is unfortunate, because Nabokov's novel is a remarkable work of artistry, among the finest written in English in the second half of the twentieth century.
The story is well-known: Humbert Humbert has a thing for young lasses, "nymphets" as he calls them, certain maidens "between the age limits of nine and fourteen" whose allure certain "bewitched travelers" can succumb to. Succumb he does, marrying Dolores Haze's mother, becoming the girl's sole guardian, travelling across the country with her, losing her.
It is a tragic love story, a paean to America, a sordid tale humanized, a work of comic genius. Most of all it is Nabokov's writing: artfully crafted the book is a delight to read (and re-read -- as is necessary to uncover some of its secrets).
What happens in the book is terrible -- and its focus, which is, after all, around a man of about forty engaging in sexual relations with a barely pubescent girl, is particularly nasty -- but Nabokov humanizes his characters, and though what Humbert does is unforgivable the reader is entranced by the story. It is a peculiar thing that Nabokov has wrought here, but it is brilliant. Few novels are both as sad and as amusing as this one, with Nabokov mixing and managing both tragedy and comedy perfectly.
Essential reading, strongly recommended.
3
Lolita, arguably the most controversial film of the decade, has finally made it to theaters, and there's little doubt that all the hoopla was much ado about nothing.
Jeremy Irons stars as Humbert Humbert, while newcomer Dominique Swain takes on the part of Lolita. Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella have supporting roles as, respectively, Lolita's unhinged mother and Quilty, a mysterious figure who pops up periodically throughout the film.
By now, the storyline of Lolita is as well-known as the controversy surrounding it. Humbert Humbert, a man in his 40's, falls in love with Lolita, a 14 year old girl, and, needless to say, much trouble ensues. Along the way, Humbert ends up married to Lolita's mother, a coupling he agrees to only because he wants to keep seeing Lolita.
Lolita was originally slated for release last year, but because of a law passed a few years ago in the States regarding pedophilia, it was unable to secure an American distributor. I'm uncertain of what the situation was here in Canada, but the film finally premiered on the American pay-channel Showtime last month, and is slowly receiving a theatrical release.
Yes, the subject matter can be considered offensive. But the director, Adrian Lyne, has filmed the material in such a way that one would have to be awfully sensitive to be offended by anything in the movie. The scenes of intimacy between Humbert and Lolita are done in shadows and in a manner that generally keeps their affection private. It seems as though people were getting so upset about this film because of the premise, but I doubt those same people bothered to see the film.
The delicacy with which the subject has been handled is clearly the most surprising element within Lolita. Jeremy Irons portrays Humbert as possibly the most likable pedophile in movie history, while Dominique Swain perfectly captures the childish innocence of Lolita. In her portrayal, Lolita is a girl who is initially unaware of Humbert's wistful, and often lascivious gazes, but eventually comes to realize that she can use his lust to get what she needs. Her attempts at acting how she perceives a woman would behave are awkward and clumsy, just as one would expect from an inexperienced little girl. Their romance is actually quite charming for a time, until things start to get out of hand.
And not that a pedophile deserves any sympathy, but we're actually given a reason for Humbert's nature during a prologue right at the start of the film. When he was 14, he fell in love with a girl his age, and shared his first sexual experience with her. She died a few months later of a disease, and though it's not explicitly stated, we are meant to assume that's why Humbert developed into a pederast; to somehow reclaim the innocence and pleasure that he associated with that first real love. I've not read the original Nabokov novel, so I can't say whether or not this precursor to the story was implemented by the filmmakers as a way of making the audience feel more comfortable with Humbert. At any rate, it does explain quite a lot about him.
The only real miscalculation within the film is a scene of extreme violence in the third act that seems wholly out of place. It didn't really fit in with the rest of the movie, and I found it more offensive than the love affair between Lolita and Humbert. I've heard, though, that that same scene is just as gory in the novel, but perhaps a line needs to be drawn at what should be adapted for the screen and what shouldn't. For example, I am sure the love scenes between Lolita and Humbert were quite graphic in the book, but, obviously, the filmmakers chose to omit that from the film. So why stain the picture with a scene that would be more at home in a Paul Verhoeven flick?
Anyway, that is a very minor quibble. If you can look past all the controversy and the repugnant storyline, you'll find that Lolita is one of the best films of the year. It's beautifully shot, and all the performances hit just the right notes.
4
When a character's name enters the language as a general descriptor of a similar person, you know you're dealing with a classic. Lolita is exactly that film -- and the story of one man's obsession with his stepdaughter is so well-known it scarcely requires explanation. If you've never seen the original, you need to, and soon. While it's far too long at over 2 1/2 hours, these characters are so juicy and delicately balanced (this was 1962 and pedophilia was hardly accepted on film) they're a true must-see. Remade in 1997.
5
Of all of Stanley Kubrick's films, Lolita typically gets the lowest marks. While in many respects that's a fair assessment, it sells short the accomplishment of making a workable film of Vladimir Nabokov's novel within the restrictions of the early '60s, or any era, really. Working from a Nabokov script, Kubrick places his emphasis squarely on the novel's dark comedy. Strip the difference in age and Humbert Humbert's attitude toward Lolita becomes simply a portrait of the male psyche at its ugliest: obsessive in his idealization before Lolita reciprocates his affections, he becomes possessive and patronizing once their relationship gets underway. Capable of seeming charming and self-effacing even while he's destroying the lives of those around him, James Mason's performance holds the film together, but virtually every key role has been smartly cast. Peter Sellers is both funny and chilling as Mason's doppelganger, a man able to commit the same offenses with virtually none of the consequences. It's Winters, however, who grounds the film, her tremendously sad, all-too-recognizable character lending it a humanity lacking when she disappears from its second half. When Humbert's wanderings begin, the film itself loses its way a bit, in part due to its reliance on the interaction between Mason and Sue Lyon, who never quite displays the acting chops to match her appealing presence. A daring experiment, and in many respects a successful one, Kubrick's film is ultimately unable to maintain the uncomfortable intensity of its early domestic scenes, but still has much more going for it than its reputation as an interesting failure would suggest
6
Watching Lolita again recently I was struck by the way Kubrick and his cast flesh out the story without resorting to the 'show everything' approach taken in the '97 remake. Of course Doleres and Humbert are having a sexual relationship, but you get the sense she's done the same pattern before and certainly knows how to lead him on. Sue Lyon has Lolita's sly looks and mannerisms perfectly attuned to the sleazy confusion of the lodger who marries her overbearing mother just to stay close to the 'little girl' he first spotted in the garden ... I find Lolita the most disturbing character in the film for many reasons - she is directly responsible for the ultimate fates of her mother, Humbert and Quilty (although all contribute in some way to their own destruction). James Mason is great in a difficult role (I read somewhere this was at one point intended for Noel Coward, which would have been fascinating ... Peter Sellers put his mimicry talents to good use again as Quilty, but manages to invest this character with a true personality as well, you sense he is as much a victim as Humbert. The only false note is Shelley Winters, who is simply frightful with her cherry pie and her shrine to a 7 years dead husband. Lolita is a slow paced film with many layers and its circular structure where we see the 'ending' first and return to it at the end is an excellent trick.
7
One has got to wonder why director Adrian ("Fatal Attraction") Lyne felt so compelled to adapt Nabakov's story of pedophilia. Stanley Kubrick did it once in 1963 and although he admits it was one of his weaker efforts, the theme doesn't exactly cry out for re-examination. Given this, one surmises that Lyne will soon get offers to be the Master of Ceremonies at pedophilia parades or be asked to staff an informational booth at PedFest '98. In fact, if he plays his cards right in championing this unpopular cause, Lyne stands a fair chance of becoming the next Charlton Heston, if a tad less immoral.
Because Americans take some deranged pride in being the moral hypocrites of the world (an older guy screwing an underage girl is unmentionable, while little black kids blowing each other away with AK-47s is celebrated with its own genre of rap), the film has been kept from theatrical release in the States. Undoubtedly, it will show in the U.S. some day with the dreaded NC-17 rating or in a severely edited version with all the references to sex dubbed over in Japanese and any glimpses of naughty bits covered by the grinning, superimposed face of Tipper Gore.
With only a brief glimpse of little Lo's bod, Lyne resigns himself to constructing a huge, lip-smackingly-good innuendo sandwich. Professor Humpert marries Lo's mom (Melanie Griffith) to get to the little girl. After mom's death, Humpert takes Lo on a whirlwind tour of New England, growing ever more jealous that she may be doing something seedy, possibly with another local pervert (Frank Langella).
Naturally, this sort of thing is fated to end badly which, regrettably, does not include a graphic scene of Melanie's noggin getting burst like a ripe cantaloupe upon her untimely collision with the car that propels Humpert toward his dream. And that's the true waste of this movie: If you're going to incur the wrath of the MPAA, you might as might as well put your freedom to use and avenge "Shining Through" while you're at it.
LZ挑挑看吧
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考