Review of Lolita (1962) by Allen B — 03 Jul 2010

A pretty good adaptation of the original novel. Probably the most faithful adaptation of a novel I've ever seen, actually. And pretty disturbing for a mainstream 1960s film. Heck, it would be disturbing if it came out today, let alone then.

I'm not a huge fan of the novel, and this film, since it is such a faithful adaptation, suffers from many of its flaws, namely, a disgusting premise and an unlikeable main character. It's hard to sympathize or relate to a 50 year old guy who falls madly in love with a 14 year old girl. It's just creepy; it was in the book, and it is here.

On top of that, he's just not very likable. He's sleazy and scummy and does a lot of really disturbing things to get himself close to the girl. And, to make things worse, his efforts pay off! The second half of this film is them together, and it's about as disgusting as you'd imagine. Granted, everything is implied; the two don't even share a kiss together on screen. But it's still disgusting and wrong. It was in the book, and it is here, literary classic be damned.

Despite my problems with the story, everything else is really good. The acting, especially from the girl who plays Lolita, Sue Lyon, is spot on. Even though Lolita had black hair in the novel, a rather anal point I bring up only because of its heavy emphasis in the source material, the blonde actress playing her does an extremely good job portraying the iconic "innocent seductress." She's beautiful and sexual, yet you never forget that she is ultimately still only a child being taken advantage of by a much older man.

The main character, James Mason, is also good here. The actor playing him must have had it very hard given what he's required to do throughout the film. The word "creepy" just doesn't do it justice. And Peter Sellers is a touch over the top at times; sometimes brilliant, sometimes way too out there as the mysterious playwright with an agenda toward Lolita all his own. Kubrick really ought to have told him to hold back.

Aside from the actress playing Lolita, though, I really liked the woman who played her mother, Shelley Winters. She's arguably the only sympathetic character in the film, and even she comes off like an annoying, deeply flawed, somewhat deranged individual. Her infatuation is really no different than that of our lead character in some ways, now that I think about it. Hmm.

The style of the film is also really good. Not among Kubrick's best, but it's certainly shot well, and one scene in specific involving a gun on a nightstand cleverly conveys the innermost thoughts of our main character as he ponders what to do next. I'm sure there were more shots like this, but this is the one that really stuck with me the most for some reason.

One of the ways the film most succeeds, though, and this may come off a bit surprising given my overall disgust with the subject matter, is just how well it's able to capture a man's infatuation with a woman who, ultimately, is just toying with him. His obsession over the girl, his desire to be near her, his attempts to position himself as a permanent fixture in her life, and his mounting desperation once he realizes he's losing her, are all extremely realistic, more so than in any "romantic" movie I've ever seen.

I guess this is why the novel has become such a classic since its publication: despite the irksome story, it's a pretty accurate emotional depiction of a man falling for, being with, and eventually losing the woman he loves. If you can look past the fact that this woman happens to be a young teenage girl, and the man well into his 50s, then you probably won't have a problem with the novel, nor the film.

Personally, it bothered me. I can appreciate it for what it is and what it tries to do, but, in the end, I have trouble disconnecting the "love" aspect of the story from the "old creep seducing a teenage girl" aspect, both in the original novel, and in this film.

Overall, yeah, a pretty twisted, but very faithful adaptation of a sick, disgusting novel. Well shot, directed, and extremely well acted, though. Worth watching if you can focus primarily on the emotional elements of the film rather than the literal. Oh, and what a classic Kubrick ending. It reminded me a lot of the ending to Barry Lyndon. Oh, that Kubrick.