Lolita Screen 5 articles

Lolita

1962

Lolita Poster
  • Almost all Kubrick's movies are adaptations, and this is the one time he bit off more than he could chew. The last few pages of the novel are among the most beautiful ever written; its screen equivalent is out of steam. But he did create a movie all his own: the sickest screwball comedy, a hilarious battle of refined ego and repulsive id, and one of those films that bridges Old Hollywood and the free-for-all to come.

  • Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers seemed to have conspired to trap and hound their players on screen. Kubrick with his camera, style and irreverence; Sellers with his clever, often improvised conscience-cracking pursuit of the tortured romantic intellectual James Mason.

  • Lolita is a Master Class in energetic direction: especially in everything to do with the concerted, integrated action of framing, staging, camera movement, costume, objects/props, and the postures and gestures of (brilliantly inventive) actors.

  • +

    Cahiers du cinéma: Jean-Luc Godard
    December 1963-January 1964 | Godard on Godard (p. 202)

    Lolita led one to expect the worst. Surprise: it is a simple, lucid film, precisely written, which reveals America and American sex better than either Melville or Reichenbach, and proves that Kubrick need not abandon the cinema provided he films characters who exist instead of ideas which exist only in the bottom drawers of old scriptwriters who believe that the cinema is the seventh art.

  • What Lolita needed more than anything else was a director in tune with Nabokov's delirious approach to his subject. We are never shown the inspiringly unconscious gestures and movements that transform the most emotionally impoverished nymphet into a creature of fantasy and desire. Kubrick goes through the motions with a hula hoop and the munching of potato chips, but there is nothing intuitive or abandoned about the man-nymphet relationship.

More Links