As I've covered, I also just recently completed the famed novel, for the first time, I will admit. Lolita was always a book I longed to devour, despite never being able to lay my hands on a copy. It fell into my lap recently, and I found myself disappointed.
My first peak into the mythical world of Lolita came from Stanley Kubrick's notorious 1962 adaptation. This was a world I was swept into. I'm fond of this film. So while perhaps unfair to the more recent adaptation, I immediately drew comparisons. I usually prefer to read books before seeing films, but I was just as intrigued with this take on the novel, as I was with the novel.
Lolita
In the 1962 rendition, the title character is playing to perfection by the glorious Sue Lyon. While nearly an amateur, Ms. Lyon depicted Lolita just as I expected it to be played -- and I suppose set the bar as to how I would perceive Lolita when reading the novel and viewing the latter adaptation. She is adorable, charming, witty, attractive, precocious, and believable. With her subtle charms, I believe she would have Humbert Humbert wrapped around her pubescent finger. She behaves like a child of fourteen (changed from the novel's twelve in both versions) and her rapport with both Humbert and her mother Charlotte are seemingly typical and unsurprising -- I mean this in a good way.
In 1997, the role of Dolores Haze was taken over by Dominique Swain. As the camera panned to the sprinkler-soaked, scantily-clad 90's Lo, I was shocked. I was supposed to believe this was sexy? This was a nymphet? I assure you not! When she flashed her dippy grin, complete with braces, I was lost. Her seductions come off as lacklustre and childish... And while YES, this is precisely the point, it isn't believable that these charms would even work! I completely believe that Sue Lyon's Lolita could trap a grown man in her web, but Dominique Swain's Lolita? A doe-eyed child, whom I more realistically see running and sobbing away from a grown man's touch. You see, they are more or less two different nymphets. The story and the depiction simply do not match up. This, coupled with her utter annoyance from the get-go left me frustrated with the film. She was maddeningly irritating, more so than cunningly seductive. What seems more realistic is Humbert throwing her out of a goddamn window. It seems she is conniving and obnoxious towards Humbert more often than she is playful and loving.
Humbert Humbert
James Mason as Humbert Humbert is perfection. Quietly charming, believably creepy (in a way you nearly accept?), reserved, classically European, and welcoming enough that Lolita would indeed be entranced by him and drawn to him sexually. You do not doubt where he takes the character, you believe his lust, as well as her's, and he impressively passes as an intellectual. Subtle and sly, James Mason too set the Humbert bar, quite nicely, I'll say. (But apparently David Niven nearly played the role. I'd be SO INTO THAT.)
Jeremy Irons, too dramatic. His toothy grin is off-putting, in a non-Humbert like way. He plays the character with a certain neurotic nature, which is faithful to the novel's record of insanity, but it depiction simply doesn't align with the rest of the plot. While it was neurotic, it was hardly erotic, despite the far less censored nature! Was it just me, or was it more Lolita constantly coming onto Humbert? It seemed like it was entirely her provocation, before swiftly becoming his neurosis. For what? He didn't even seem into it! He went from being aloof to crazy, with hardly any lust in between. Mr. Irons as Humbert Humbert does not seem that type that would lure a precocious little girl under his spell. Don't get me wrong, sure he passes as a perv! (But all men mostly are.) But would a young lady fall for him? Mmm, I don't quite see it. His charms are not alluring, and like I said, he hardly even puts the message out to begin with that he wants to get down! I'm supposed to believe that it was entirely initiated by a then-virgin child? YEAH RIGHT. Sex is a foreign entity at that time!
Charlotte Haze
Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze worked for me. She was annoying, not too sexy, blatantly coming on to Humbert -- which all later aligned perfectly with Nabokov's Charlotte. She was a narcissus, jealous of her daughter's youthful radiance. Totally believable, as she was a bit plump, clearly past her prime. Just as Lolita was flourishing like flowers in the spring. She was quickly coming into her own in every way, which would make the character of Charlotte Haze seethe with envy. You believe that she would go for Humbert's presumably exotic European intellect and dapper presence. You also believe that Humbert would squirm a little at settling down with Charlotte. She is believably reckless, drunk, middle-aged woman obnoxious. She manages to be realistic and does not stray from the novel.
Melanie Griffith on the other hand, whom I did find ravishing, was not good for the role of Charlotte Haze! Because of simply one thing: she's SEXY. She was cool and calm towards Humbert, her seductive nature sizzling on the screen. A pretty lady, I'm sure she had no trouble being hit on at the grocery store. I don't believe that this Charlotte would feel threatened by Lolita, because she is sexy and confident. Lolita is gawky and boyish. Of course, Humbert isn't predominately into grown women, but settling down with Charlotte? Pulling teeth, is not. (Also, Humbert did have lady lovers, though they are ignored in both adaptations.) She does seem a bit reckless, mildly shattered by life, but she is what idiots would refer to as a "hot mess". (A DREADFUL SAYING. SO ANNOYING.) While attractive and enticing, Melanie Griffith didn't fit as Charlotte Haze. (While I was pondering who would, I thought, "Has to be a fat actress." Then, "OH MY GOODNESS, THE FAT ACTRESS." Kirstie Alley!)
Clare Quilty
Ehhh... Do I believe Lolita would happily run away with Peter Sellers' Quilty? Not really. He's creepy, though totally believable as a weird sex fiend! I mean, I really like Peter Sellers, but no. He isn't Quilty. A great and funny actor, but not Quilty. But he totally played the death with the nonchalance that the novel described! I applaud this.
Frank Langella... Also a big no. AND DID I REALLY NEED TO SEE HIS PENIS? I don't think so. I was innocently watching the damn film, and oh hey, FULL FRONTAL. Not necessary. He was also creepy, in a not-attractive-to-little-girls way. Just weird. Was weird in the death scene, and was just weird throughout. Not impressed. Is Quilty such a hard character to cast?
Censorship
In 1962, censors were tight on a subject like pedophilia. Lolita is vague and implied -- leaving much to the imagination. I ENJOY THIS. Lolita was not a filthy sex novel. Perverts cannot really get off on detailed accounts of sex with a child, because those prose do not exist. Therefore, I don't really deem it necessary for Lolita as a film to be a raunchy sex picture. That isn't what the novel is! Sue Lyon and James Mason are remarkably playful -- depicting just enough to let on where its going, without giving anything away. Implication and mystery is sexier than a man grinding on a child. The chemistry between the two actors keeps this relationship thriving.
So I went the distance and googled phrases like, "Lolita 1997 sex" and "Lolita Humbert sex"... And this was the best I could do.
In the thirty-plus years that extends between each adaptation, the censors changed significantly. Still, Lolita of 1997 certainly ran into issues of distribution. Yet they were allowed to make a picture which included a few "steamy" scenes. Now maybe they're supposed to be "hot", and I just don't get it because I'm not a pervy oldie, but they're just awkward and strange to me. Watching Humbert cry as he helplessly grinded atop young Lolita, as she manically howled with laughter, smearing red lipstick all over Hum's tear-soaked face, and her ever-present tongue flailing (WHY DID SHE DO THAT? IT WAS SO WEIRD!), was pathetic. I think they took advantage of the more lax censors, attempting to up Kubrick's film with this new mean, and trying to make the naughty picture everyone had been waiting for. It failed. The scenes could have been crafted in a magnificent way -- lush, vivid, beautiful, as Humbert saw it. (Like the scene with Annabel, the most elegant and appealing scene in the whole film!) Instead, it was campy, disturbing, and sorely raw. I see this as an attempt to push the envelope and be innovative, and in that impression lies failure.
Faithfulness
I would say most people's issue with the 1962 rendition of Lolita is that, despite a Vladimir Nabokov penned script (which was apparently of little use), it does stray a bit from the novel. The Quilty character is enhanced and certain details are omitted. I genuinely don't believe this makes much a difference. All main points are covered. Little details like how exactly Humbert chances Quilty about his mansion, or where Humbert plans to murder Charlotte are not included -- but it has ZERO relevance on the story. I think Kubrick managed to make an attractive and believable film that remained true to Nabokov's mission/message.
My main tiff with Lolita of '97 is its LACK OF HUMOR. Where did Nabokov's wits go? This is a strangely funny novel, and that is dissolved within this version. Here, Lolita is more unattractive and her hair is dark -- keeping with the novel. But it is simply peculiar, and does nothing for the film, except say, "Oh well, we stayed faithful to the novel." If you want a film that keeps in nearly every small detail, then this is it. But be prepared that the film translates as sub-par work.
