Re: Heroin, the movie

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:55:15 +1000

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