hydroazuanacaine
bluelighter
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,493
Lolita ('97)
i wanted to go into this movie pretending the novel didn't exist. didn't work. the book was on my mind for 99% of the movie. i couldn't help but criticize its angle and attempt at tackling what i think is a non-adaptable (in the typical book-to-film sense) work.
the movie feels like they let humbert humbert write and direct it, staying true to his account presented as the novel: lolita is irresistibly seductive and forward, he ends up truly loving her, etc. an unreliable of narrator is such an important factor in the book; i tried imagine the film also as just the narrator's (H.H.'s) account of what happened. like what is on the screen was not necessarily what is really happening, but instead an mind-hosted re-enactment of what he writes while awaiting trial. but i do not think that was the screenplay writer and director's intention. i wouldn't care about their intention except for there are enough off scenes that i couldn't stick with the lens. in the book, when he says lolita cries herself to sleep every night, it's in about a dozen words. it's almost a slip-up on his part, though maybe unconsciously intentional. the sentence screams, but it is small and among thousands that at a glance look just the same. when lolita cries herself to sleep in the movie, the shot cannot be small and subtly inserted in a way that creates that same contrast of literal tininess and huge significance. humbert would have never included that shot in his account. H.H. slips up; there are holes in the veil of his narrative. but not like that. it's too blatant. that shot is the camera's objective portrayal.
and if the film is not just the narrator's attempt to manipulate the audience, then humbert is displaying genuine regret (for what he did to lolita) and a conscience at the end of the film. it's not a last-ditch, might-as-well sham that's so typical of psychopaths--think ted bundy explaining to interviewers how the pornography industry is responsible for his actions, while on death row. so the film does not go along with my interpretation of the novel, and it did not impress me with its own. i figured that's how it'd go.
on the positive, i thought dominique swain did a great job of emulating H.H.'s descriptions of lolita's speech and gesture. the way childish way she flirts and teases. the retainer was a great addition. one of my favorite scenes is when she throws it into his champagne glass and then bites it out of his hand. H.H. wouldn't have cast her though. she looks too old to play lolita for the first half of the story--unfortunate brooke did Pretty Baby instead of Lolita--and there are few awkward shots because of it. like when she sits on his lap and is at face-to-face height with him. or when she crawls across the lobby floor and barks at the dog. fine for 12 year-old 4'10 lo, but absurd for 15-16 year-old dominique. especially in what she is wearing, things you'd find on a "barelylegal" themed porn set with no budget. nabokov's "frocks," please. and while too old to play 12, she was also too young to be making out with a 40-something actor. again and again. one shot, a strand of saliva hangs and breaks between their mouths. mr. swain was cool with that? jeremy irons tirelessly made out with that high school girl take after take, but only in the name of his craft.
i wanted to go into this movie pretending the novel didn't exist. didn't work. the book was on my mind for 99% of the movie. i couldn't help but criticize its angle and attempt at tackling what i think is a non-adaptable (in the typical book-to-film sense) work.
the movie feels like they let humbert humbert write and direct it, staying true to his account presented as the novel: lolita is irresistibly seductive and forward, he ends up truly loving her, etc. an unreliable of narrator is such an important factor in the book; i tried imagine the film also as just the narrator's (H.H.'s) account of what happened. like what is on the screen was not necessarily what is really happening, but instead an mind-hosted re-enactment of what he writes while awaiting trial. but i do not think that was the screenplay writer and director's intention. i wouldn't care about their intention except for there are enough off scenes that i couldn't stick with the lens. in the book, when he says lolita cries herself to sleep every night, it's in about a dozen words. it's almost a slip-up on his part, though maybe unconsciously intentional. the sentence screams, but it is small and among thousands that at a glance look just the same. when lolita cries herself to sleep in the movie, the shot cannot be small and subtly inserted in a way that creates that same contrast of literal tininess and huge significance. humbert would have never included that shot in his account. H.H. slips up; there are holes in the veil of his narrative. but not like that. it's too blatant. that shot is the camera's objective portrayal.
and if the film is not just the narrator's attempt to manipulate the audience, then humbert is displaying genuine regret (for what he did to lolita) and a conscience at the end of the film. it's not a last-ditch, might-as-well sham that's so typical of psychopaths--think ted bundy explaining to interviewers how the pornography industry is responsible for his actions, while on death row. so the film does not go along with my interpretation of the novel, and it did not impress me with its own. i figured that's how it'd go.
on the positive, i thought dominique swain did a great job of emulating H.H.'s descriptions of lolita's speech and gesture. the way childish way she flirts and teases. the retainer was a great addition. one of my favorite scenes is when she throws it into his champagne glass and then bites it out of his hand. H.H. wouldn't have cast her though. she looks too old to play lolita for the first half of the story--unfortunate brooke did Pretty Baby instead of Lolita--and there are few awkward shots because of it. like when she sits on his lap and is at face-to-face height with him. or when she crawls across the lobby floor and barks at the dog. fine for 12 year-old 4'10 lo, but absurd for 15-16 year-old dominique. especially in what she is wearing, things you'd find on a "barelylegal" themed porn set with no budget. nabokov's "frocks," please. and while too old to play 12, she was also too young to be making out with a 40-something actor. again and again. one shot, a strand of saliva hangs and breaks between their mouths. mr. swain was cool with that? jeremy irons tirelessly made out with that high school girl take after take, but only in the name of his craft.
