Jim wrote: > >And by the way Jim, I certainly didn't confirm your opinion of Nabokov > >as a > >jackass. > > No, you did Camille. See, I was expressing **my own opinion** of the > Nabokov quote you provided, not attempting to reflect **your** opinion. > Have a boundary problem here, hmmm? OK, OK. I thought you were responding to my negative critique of the movie of `Lolita', not the quote (which was why I mentioned Jeremy Irons and instructed you away from the Kubrick version). Mea culpa. As far as the quote goes - it's a pretty courageous opinion of literature to take, an almost total allegiance to the idea of Art for Arts Sake, something not even Oscar Wilde could eventually adhere to. It reminds me of the way Thomas Mann wrote and worked. He saw theatre - *any* theatre, as innately and unalterably theatrical, bearing no relation whatsoever to real life. I heard a story about when he was directing one of his own plays in America and an actor was curious as to what his characters' motivation was to suddenly jump into song in what was otherwise a non-musical. `Because I want him to,' said Mann, and that was that. I guess we have to remember it was said as a writer, not a reader, too, and Nabokov's consummate craftsmanship is reflected in each and every one of his words. You have to understand, also, the tone of the quote which was one of complete sarcasm (this didn't translate well without its surrounding context). Anyone who's read `Ada' would understand that Nabokov believed in the impact of identification, but ultimately saw it as subordinate to Art. And Lolita is such a dazzling piece of art that I'm still saddened that you can't see at least the sort of appeal that one gets when looking at Millais' `Ophelia': all those flowers, all those leaves ... what a craftsman!'. I'm no publicist for Nabokov (or as you would have it, apologist), I just find it a shame that fine literature passes anyone by. > Maybe, but I think it would fail, being a "translation from the native > tongue" of Nab's "genius" :) I'm 100% sure that Lynch's version would have probably been even further away from the original book than even Kubrick's version. But I think this was part of the problem with Lynes' version. It was too sterile, too literal, there was nothing between the lines. You could argue that Kubrick's version was the exact opposite, it was 2 *hours* between the lines, but in Lynch's case - thinking of how many of his filmic tropes are in Lolita - incest, suburban dreams concealing squalor, alienated, beastly men - I would have been fascianted to see what fell between his particular lines. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest