Lolita (1997)

Beginning with one of the most famous opening lines in literary history ("Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta.") we are introduced once more to the inimitable Humbert Humbert and his elusive quest for the Holy Grail in the form of "nymphness" personified. And oh what a sordid sorry trek it is, taking him and his young orphaned charge to some of the seamier spots of a fifties era American landscape. To cheap hotel rooms in little podunk towns where he can for a few fleeting days share a bit of privacy with his nubile naiad. Then of course, we follow the happy pair to the final confrontaion with one Clare Quilty, the only character in cinema/literary history who could make a pedophile like Humbert Humbert look wholesome by comparison.Remakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel.It boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect.Finally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least.Lyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try.BEK

"Lolita" is a controversial and thought-provoking film that explores the complex and uncomfortable themes of love, obsession, and manipulation. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, the movie is an adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's infamous novel of the same name.One of the standout elements of "Lolita" is the brilliant performances by its cast. Jeremy Irons delivers a standout performance as Humbert Humbert, walking a fine line between sympathetic and repulsive. Dominique Swain, in her breakout role, is equally impressive as the young and alluring Lolita. Their chemistry, while uneasy due to the age difference, is convincingly portrayed on screen and adds an unsettling layer to the story.Kubrick's direction is masterful as always; he manages to create a visually stunning film that captures the essence of the book's dark undertones. The cinematography, set design, and costumes all contribute to establishing the illicit and morally ambiguous world inhabited by the characters.The film doesn't shy away from addressing the controversial subject matter head-on. However, it does so in a way that manages to provoke deep introspection rather than exploiting it for shock value. Through Humbert's narration, the audience gains insight into his twisted mindset and his desperate need for love and affection. This exploration of his psychology adds depth to the story and raises questions about the nature of desire and the moral boundaries we set for ourselves.However, some may find the film difficult to watch due to its disturbing content and subject matter. The film deals with the sexualization of a minor, which understandably can be uncomfortable for many viewers. It's important to approach "Lolita" with a critical eye and understand the intentions behind its portrayal of such taboo topics.In conclusion, "Lolita" is a visually striking and emotionally challenging film that dares to tackle taboo subject matter with nuance. It may not be for everyone due to its provocative content, but for those willing to engage with its themes, it offers a thought-provoking exploration of obsession and morality.