Mar 30, 2008

Lolita


Adrian Lyne’s adaptation of Lolita is more “revealing” than Kubrick’s film. Don’t expect to see much from Lolita (though she bares some skin). Super pervert Clare Quily exposes his horrible floppy cock in an unflattering drunken stupor (while attempting to escape execution). Lyne’s version of the novel stays truer to it’s source material than Kubrick’s ultra tame 1962 version. I felt that Lyne’s version was more of an anti-Kubrick film. I respect screenwriter Steven Schiff and director Adrian Lyne’s attempt at being original.

Jeremy Irons pulls off an Anglo pedophile in a completely natural manner. Iron’s effeminate nature has always worked to his advantage when playing sexual deviants (I.e. David Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers). His role as Humbert Humbert in Lolita is “fitting” to say the least. I found disgust in his ability to masquerade as a man of high manners while concealing the soul of a conspiratorial coward. Young Lolita (played by the talented Dominique Swain) sees through Humbert as clearly as Humbert would like to see through her dress.


Unlike Kubrick’s version of Lolita, the character of Clare Quily has a much more minor role. Lyne’s version of the film primarily focuses on Humbert Humbert and the pathetic infatuated state that guides his life into hopelessness. Stanley Kubrick seemed more focused on Clare Quily because he no doubt wanted to give Peter Sellers more screen time. Chameleon Sellers would have never accepted such a minor role (when comparing to the novel and remake).

Lyne’s version of Lolita is a worthy update of the novel. I found more intensity in his version than Kubrick’s version (and I generally believe less is more). Adrian Lyne has proven that he has the ability to make the most odd of situations erotic (I.e. Jacob’s Ladder). Although I still enjoy Kubrick’s version, it is somewhat dated and lagging. I am a product of the degenerate age. Lyne’s Lolita is worthy of being considered one of the best contemporary erotic films.


-Ty E

3 comments:

Phantom of Pulp said...

The Morricone score is also incredible. One of his very best, along with "The Unknown Woman".

I know you guys would enjoy that.

peregrine fforbes-hamilton said...

in certain ways i thought this was one of the best films of the 90`s (although it still wasn`t truthful or graphic enough, because of the lies, hypocrisy, censorship, and sexual repression that is still plagueing our society), however, its interesting to realise that when the next version is made in 2032 we will obviously get to see the 10 year old girl being buggered in graphic close-up, perhaps for the entire running time of the film, (and this remember in what will be a mainstream hollywood movie) only then will a version have finally been made that is completely true to the novel, and perhaps more importantly true to the lust and sexual violence that governs the minds of all men. Perhaps the release of that film will also be a sign that "the time of sexual repression" really is over once and for all.

tarquin fortiscue hetherington (esquire, as it were) formerley of her majestys grenadier guards said...

jeremy irons is a pile of dog-shit simply because he is british, although i did of course greatly admire the sexual orientation of his character in this movie, but in real life he is still a load of old rubbish because of his accursed nationality, BLOODY BRITISH SCUM.