At least you can say you've seen it ...
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 22:20:32 +1000
Just come back from finally seeing the feted `Lolita', on the eve of its
removal from the screen for the purpose of reconsideration by the
Classification and Censorship people, thanks to the moral minority (only 8
people turned up to the special parliamentary screening).
Boy did I hate it. The movie, I mean. Not having enough distance between
the event and now, I'm not even quite sure why, but I did. Strangely
enough, it threw the Kubrick version into high relief for me and made me
realise that he got more things write than I consciously realised. Lynes'
version had a bizarre humour which was totally unlike - and inferior to -
the equally bizarre but somehow logical humour of the book. The
continental/American clash of cultures angle was totally deficient. Most
disturbing of all is that Humbert had none of the self-loathing that
accompanies his every self-deprecating move in the book. He never would
have smiled as Lolita mounted him.And where was Nabokov's poetry? In the
visuals, certainly, but what a sin to mess with that immortal opening line!
Far from any moral evil, I found its greatest sin to be sheer boredom -
quite an assertion to make about the adaptation of one's second-favourite
book.
I'm going to have to mull this one over. Presently though, I'm afraid, Jim,
that I will have to go with Nabokov, Kubrick, and my Goldfish Bowl analogy
once more (:
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest