Lolita was on Turner Classic Movies a few nights ago...

[bliss_eternal]

I have mixed feelings about this film.

How do you feel about Lolita? The movies, the book, the actresses that appeared in them? Whatever you want to discuss pertaining to Lolita.

:hi:

[Warpy]

1. "Reading Lolita in Tehran" had some wonderful insights into the

book, one that I hadn't read since I was younger than the Lolita portrayed in it.

The whole point to me was that Humbert Humbert would have been better off with an inanimate object since real life humans, even girl children he thought the could mold (translation: control) never lived up to the fantasy he kept in his head. I should probably read it again, one of these days when I can see well enough, to see what I'd missed as a kid.

The book is a brilliant one, IMO, and it did prepare me for a lot of the creeps I'd meet in my own life.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Never seen the movie but I loved the book

Been thinking about reading it again as there was a big discussion of it on the blogs. There are some creepy male writers and reviewers who focus on the salacious aspects of Humbert's exploitation of Dolores Haze. A guy by the name of John Derbyshire wrote some particularly goofy stuff in that vein. But really, you'd have to be an idiot to view the story as an endorsement of preying on young girls. Humbert Humbert is portrayed as a pathetic buffoon.

There are some who say the book is really an allegory of the relationship between Old Europe and New America, and that Nabokov even alluded to that in interviews. But I've never seen it. Maybe it's a subtext but I just read the story straightforward.

I should see the movie, the older one not the new one, to see if it follows the book faithfully.

[bliss_eternal]

3. Kubrick was forced to edit much of the film

based on 'when' he made the film, and the censorship standards of that time. Pre-code films in Hollywood had the ability to do and say what later films could not.

Kubrick (the director) later said if he had known all he would have to endure to make the film, and still not get to make the film he wanted--he never would have tried. He and the film were blasted by the Catholics, among others. Much of my knowledge of this comes from the documentary about Kubrick and his films.

There's a bit of a blurb about it on wikipedia. Not very thorough and not completely factual, as is usually the case on wikipedia--but enough to give a general idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick#Lolita

I've seen both of the movies, but have always wanted to read the book. I had a tough time finding it for a while. But I found out I can order it if it isn't in my local bookstore, and plan to do so. Thanks for the feedback on the book, Warpy and catburglar!

[efhmc]

4. I truly hated that book and the movie was even worse. I thought that

"Reading Lolita in Tehran" was a good and illuminating book, but I could not understand the fascination for the book in the title. To me the female characters in "Lolita" were used and abused. Yet many seem to feel that this book is about female sexual emancipation. Please tell me what I am missing here. I am certainly open to hearing your ideas.

[Warpy]

5. You're missing much of what the book is about

by focusing on the women, rather than focusing on what a sad, twisted sap Humbert is. Remember, he's the one who's trying to make real humans match the fantasy in his head and is thwarted at every turn by those damn stubborn women who fail to adhere to the script they've never read.

It's really a great case study in male controlling behavior and what happens as it fails, and it always does.

As I recall, Humbert is left dumped and disappointed. The women go on with their lives.