![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Lolita: The Adrian Lyne Movie
Aug. 7th, 2014 08:13 amLooking for some more critical books on "Lolita", I found myself browsing through some Amazon reviews of "Lolita: The Book of the Film" by Stephen Schiff, the script-writer for Adrian Lyne's movie, and I want to keep a striking note from a reviewer who said that the movie "stinks" and is unfaithful to the novel. It got and kept my attention, because I always thought the movie was as true to the book as any literary adaptation can be. However, I think he has a good point.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The strength of Nabokov's novel is the tension between Humbert Humbert's equilibristic depiction of his "relationship" with Lolita as an essentially unhappy love affair and of himself as a spurned lover, and Nabokov's subtle - and even more equilibristic - depiction of Humbert as an egocentric, manipulating monster. Nabokov himself called Humbert "a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear touching". Humbert manages this through his undoubted rhetoric skills. He simply writes enormously well, and his powers of persuasion have led many a naive reader to accept his version of the story at face value (such as Lyne and Schiff have done). Through his subtle undercutting, however, Nabokov lets the good reader see what a ridiculous monster Humbert really is. Nabokov lets Humbert praise himself a couple of times too many, he lets him speak a little bit too much French, etc., and through this brilliant, unobtrusive undermining of Humbert's own story, Nabokov demasks his own narrator. Lyne and Schiff completely miss this crucial aspect of the novel, and consequently their movie tells a deeply problematic story about an unhappy love affair between a 12-year-old girl and an adult man, rather than - as Nabokov did - telling a story about an evil, but eloquent, man who manipulates everyone around him, including the naive reader.
-- Amazon Reviewer of Adrian Lyne's movie "Lolita"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It probably is true that the movie did not hit the dark side of Nabokov's Humbert as hard as the novel. The movie certainly doesn't let Humbert off entirely, but it arguably slides around the darker, heavier aspects of his deviancy and his sexual ruthlessness, making the story seem like more of an offbeat romance. Yet, the movie had a tough enough time being shown and sold. If they hit his pedophilia any harder, it probably would not have seen the light of day for at least another generation, if ever.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The strength of Nabokov's novel is the tension between Humbert Humbert's equilibristic depiction of his "relationship" with Lolita as an essentially unhappy love affair and of himself as a spurned lover, and Nabokov's subtle - and even more equilibristic - depiction of Humbert as an egocentric, manipulating monster. Nabokov himself called Humbert "a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear touching". Humbert manages this through his undoubted rhetoric skills. He simply writes enormously well, and his powers of persuasion have led many a naive reader to accept his version of the story at face value (such as Lyne and Schiff have done). Through his subtle undercutting, however, Nabokov lets the good reader see what a ridiculous monster Humbert really is. Nabokov lets Humbert praise himself a couple of times too many, he lets him speak a little bit too much French, etc., and through this brilliant, unobtrusive undermining of Humbert's own story, Nabokov demasks his own narrator. Lyne and Schiff completely miss this crucial aspect of the novel, and consequently their movie tells a deeply problematic story about an unhappy love affair between a 12-year-old girl and an adult man, rather than - as Nabokov did - telling a story about an evil, but eloquent, man who manipulates everyone around him, including the naive reader.
-- Amazon Reviewer of Adrian Lyne's movie "Lolita"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It probably is true that the movie did not hit the dark side of Nabokov's Humbert as hard as the novel. The movie certainly doesn't let Humbert off entirely, but it arguably slides around the darker, heavier aspects of his deviancy and his sexual ruthlessness, making the story seem like more of an offbeat romance. Yet, the movie had a tough enough time being shown and sold. If they hit his pedophilia any harder, it probably would not have seen the light of day for at least another generation, if ever.
