1962 Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Humbert Humbert is a middle-aged British novelist who is both appalled by and attracted to the vulgarity of American culture. When he comes to stay at the boarding house run by Charlotte Haze, he soon becomes obsessed with Lolita, the woman's teenaged daughter.
洛丽塔, 로리타, 롤리타, Лолита, לוליטה, ロリータ, ლოლიტა, โลลิต้า, Лоліта, Chuyện Tình Nàng Lolita, 一樹梨花壓海棠
USANR
Germany12
Ireland15
UK15
Sweden15
FranceU
Italy
Brazil12
Netherlands12
Brazil
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
UK
USA
me, on a date: so what do you think about humbert humbert?
date: his actions were completely justifiable, lolita was asking for it!
me, shoving breadsticks into my purse: i'm sorry i have to leave right now immediately
This asshole ruined it for anyone who wanted to name their kid “Humbert Humbert”
I have read both Nabokov's novel and his screenplay for this film and Kubrick clearly read them as well. And then for the better part ignored them. While this method has proven to be successful in his later efforts, here it doesn't work that well.
I understand that the subject matter the story deals with would even be tricky to portray in this day and age, let alone in the time this film was made. But Kubrick makes changes to the story that distance the viewer from the proceedings and it leaves things unexplained, most notably the drive and motivation of Humbert.
In the novel, Nabokov uses the doppelganger motif, in which we are presented with an ambiguous protagonist. He…
I suppose I should read the book before really digging into this, but I want to say that the one aspect of this that really stood out is how Humbert's obsessive, controlling behavior is so easily confused for protective parenting to those who don't realize he's lusting after Lolita and acting out of jealousy. The implication is one of those searing, vicious jabs that Kubrick is good at making, that peels back the layers and reveals ugliness; it's Freud (who gets name checked) at his most fucked up. It's a bold but somehow not surprising accusation from Kubrick in 1962 (whether he intended it, whether Nabokov intended it, I cannot say): protectiveness is just another facet of sexual domination, of patriarchy, of the view of women as property. It's a bleak outlook he (whoever) has for Lolita's prospects as a free being, but better than encased in paternalistic pedophilic "love."
I don’t love spending this much time with a character who unironically uses the word "nymphet"
say what you want, the most uncomfortable thing about this movie was all the feet shots
Before I saw this, if you had told me Stanley Kubrick's Lolita is an incredible dark comedy, I would've laughed in your face. I've read the book - there's nothing funny about it. The film adaptation pretty much changes the entire tone of the novel and squeezes every bit of subtle and ironic humor it could out of such a disturbing story. There's really no way to sugar-coat it: Lolita is about child rape and a pedophile who attempts to justify his "relationship" with Lolita.
There are a lot of differences between the novel and the film, the most important being the order in which the story is told. Kubrick played around with timelines in a lot of his films,…
