Review of Lolita (1962) by Rainer K — 16 Dec 2012

Soooo, the last of the post-The Killing Kubrick films I was missing!

Lolita is probably Stanley Kubrick's most overlooked film and I guess, rightly so.

Although, the character constellation sounds promising, as do the premises, it lacked visual potency that I expect from a Kubrick film..

Let's outline what's happening a bit. Humbert Humbert (James Mason), a British professor for French literature, prepares for his lectureship at Beardsley college somewhere in the states, under the roof of widowed Charlotte Haze and her daughter Dolores, called Lolita.

The mother and daughter are fighting for Humbert's attention and it turns out quite curiously (SPOILER: he marries the mother so he can stay close to the daugher).

Due to censorship regulations, Nabokov (who wrote screenplay himself) had trim down much of the erotic aspects, which hurt the story a lot in my opinion. It's more of a comical farce now, even more because of Peter Sellers expanded role (that wasn't as substantial in the novel, from what I've heard).

Best thing about the film is clearly the acting. Sellers does what he does best, Mason is decent as well, although he sometimes acts a bit too naive and subordinate, and Sue Lyon is even better and makes the film work in the first place. I merely have seen better work by a young actress.

Nevertheless, except for a few scenes, Lolita never feels like a Kubrick film, nor looks like one - not that the master has a very distinctive style, but the perfectionist and lavish sets and little details that he usually captures went missing a bit.

Lolita is not the worst Kubrick film (if there is something like a bad Kubrick film), but far from his best work.