Review of Lolita (1962) by Bartek F — 02 Jan 2010

What a controversial film this little flick called 'Lolita' was back in it's day. It's day was 1962, and during that time there wasn't a lot of lenience in the MPAA. Researching about this film, I found they were threatening to give it an 'X' rating if they showed any sexuality or expressions of sexuality between the middle-aged Humbert Humbert, and the breathtakingly beautiful young teenager, Lolita. This would be absurd by today's standards (the film would be able to earn a 'PG-13' at the worst if it was released today.) The movie was deemed so inappropriate and obscene, that little Sue Lyons (who played Lolita) wasn't allowed into the movie premiere of 'Lolita' because she was under age. Now, that's a load of crap, even for the 1962 era standards. Audiences were just so much more uptight back then, and we may have been like that today, if it wasn 't for the brave souls to spoke and acted against this like Stanley Kubrick, when he made the film idea of 'Lolita' into a reality.

'Lolita', based on the risqué love story novel by Vladimir Nobokov (who also provided the film's screenplay), follows a middle-aged novelist, Humbert Humbert (the late great James Mason) who is looking for a place to rent out for a couple months while he begins writing his new novel. He eventually finds a place, a house with a room up for rent. The house belongs to Charlotte Haze (Shelly Winters), a middle-aged widow who has an eye for Humbert, but that's the problem. Charlotte has a 14-year-old daughter who Humbert becomes immediately madly in lust with. Humbert eventually marries Charlotte, only to get close to Lolita so he can have his way with her. Charlotte is oblivious to this, and Humbert and Lolita start up a relationship (non-sexual) and Humbert realizes he becomes in love with her, and not just in lust with her. Humbert thinks he's got everything figured out how to be with her, but he has some competition with Charlotte's ex-boyfriend, a famous television game show host, Clare Quilty (the late and especially great Peter Sellers), whose also madly in lust with young innocent (well seemingly innocent) Lolita.

'Lolita' is a great film, but it's not one of the genius Mr. Stanley Kubrick's best films. The acting is sensational in 'Lolita' with extraordinary performances all around. James Mason is marvelous in the lead role as the conflicted Humbert Humbert. Mason perhaps provides one of the most powerful and hard to play roles in his career. Numerous Oscar winner Shelly Winters is undeniably brilliant as Charlotte Haze, she really does a lot with her role, and she stands out in the scenes she's in. It's a damn shame she didn't even get an Academy Award Nominee for this. Sue Lyon does a pretty good job as Lolita, and after this I'm not sure she did much else. The real stand-out of the film is of course, Peter Sellers. You know, he was just so perfect for the role of the sex-hungry weasel that is Clare Quilty. Instead of playing the tricky pedophile with creepiness and anger (like most people would), he riskily plays it funny and with a sense of likableness, that only an actor with such exquisite finesse and genius like Peter Sellers could do. Peter Sellers was one of his time's greatest actors, and he really steals every scene he is featured in, in Kubrick's 'Lolita'. Vladimir Nobokov's screenplay is wonderfully well-written (staying close to the novel), and Stanley Kubrick's keen direction is nothing short of meticulous, neat, beautiful, and bold. The film has shortcomings though, too. It's way overlong, and there are some dry scenes here and there. Although it wouldn't be as true to the book (and Kubrick is a stickler about that), I think cutting the film down to a more reasonable run time then 2 hours and 32 minutes, would have been a good move.

If you haven't seen the 1962 original version of 'Lolita', it's a definite must. Most people prefer the newer version with Jeremy Irons and Frank Langella, but it's so inferior to Kubrick's version. The recent version may have more sex scenes and more things to sigh in disgust and disapproval over, but the old version, Kubrick's version, is so much more better acted, better directed, better written, and overall more nicely put together then Adrian Lyne's newer film adaptation of Nobokov's novel (not to say Lyne's version is bad, it's good but just not as good as Kubrick's version.) The 1962 'Lolita' is more of a film that would be admired then liked. Most people probably wouldn't be too into it today, but for it's time it was one hell of a risky and well-made picture. That being said, 'Lolita' might have lost some if it's quality with age, but it's sure still great film from one of the best filmmakers to ever walk the earth, Stanley Kubrick.

Three and a half stars out of four.