Movie Club: Lolita

Tools    





My life isn't written very well.
Wait Minion! Before you go and blow money on a film you may or may not like, here are a few options:

Did you check your local library? Usually the main branch has a wide selection of DVD's/videos.

Or try Netflix.com. There you can sign up for a free 2 week trial period. All you need is a credit card--it is safe, I've been a member there for a long time. They ship the DVD's directly to your house within 2 days. After that, you can cancel without anything being charged to your Visa.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Is anyone else having trouble finding this title?
__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?



I See You When You're Sleeping
I have actually seen the film a few years back so it's not unknown. I may try those options r3, thanks.



Count me in Tim.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



My life isn't written very well.
Brian, Great! I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this, as well as your choices.

BTW Minion, in case you didn't think of it already, if you don't feel like trekking down to the library, try searching the main branch data base on the web....



Registered User
EXCELLENT idea...count me in please

but please do keep in mind for future picks...no "new" movies that may not be available overseas yet....i know its great to talk about new movies, but if you make them at least a year old, you can be sure that they are available in the great expanse downunder
__________________
"So you take me for what I am...a psychopathic, schizophrenic, serial-killing, femme fatale?"



My life isn't written very well.
Understood n7.

Well my friends 3 days left until our discussion starts. Anyone not able to find this title?

Beale the Rippe
Hondo333
Kiwi
Kong
Lord Slayton
megma
miniontv
moviefan20
Nikki
n7of9
Piddzilla
r3port3r66
verbal penguin
Yoda



Get Low, Get Low, Get Low
I found the movie, but i am a poe mofo...so bare with me for being college, paying rent, cable (which i have HBO, Max, Showtime, and STarz...my options are wide!!!), phone, car payment, insurance...cell phone....ya gotta see my money is tight, but i work in the library so i might be able to get it, or i just might have to drag my carcass down to Blockbuster!!
__________________
Seek me, for comfort, call me, for Solace, I'll be waiting, for the end of my broken heart..

Plus a lady fan of PimpDaShizzle V2.0 and Most importantly JRS



I have no problem with skipping over my turn to choose. Yoda can be next,
r3port3r66.

I was gonna pick either "Willy Wonka" or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" So if anyone thinks they can be interesting discussion topics, feel free to choose them when your turn arrives.

Now, I have to get myself a copy of Lolita.



It was beauty killed the beast.
R66, you said we'd discuss on 4-31, but there is no 4-31! So is it April 30th or May 1st? (Kong is working all day long on May 1st, so Kong probably couldn't contribute till the 2nd.)

Are you going to make a seperate thread for the film or just use this one?



I think the thread can be active as long as people post in it. If it's a day, then a day. If a week, then a week. Why put an artificial limit when there's no need?



My life isn't written very well.
R66 apologizes to Kong for the wrong date information(I'm still writing 2002 on my checks!!).

As far as when we can start discussing this movie, I think anytime after today is good. Since the title is somewhat hard to find for some (I, myself, had to hunt for a copy)it might be better to add a day or two to the deadline. But, on the other hand, if you have watched it, and the criticisms or points are fresh in your mind, by all means post now.

In answer to Kong's question about starting a new thread: why don't we just post inside this one for now. I think after watching one of the movies suggested, it might bring up other ideas for new threads.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by r3port3r66
R66 apologizes to Kong for the wrong date information(I'm still writing 2002 on my checks!!).

As far as when we can start discussing this movie, I think anytime after today is good. Since the title is somewhat hard to find for some (I, myself, had to hunt for a copy)it might be better to add a day or two to the deadline. But, on the other hand, if you have watched it, and the criticisms or points are fresh in your mind, by all means post now.

In answer to Kong's question about starting a new thread: why don't we just post inside this one for now. I think after watching one of the movies suggested, it might bring up other ideas for new threads.
Kong has indeed already watched the film. Lucky for Kong one of the very best video stores on the east coast is but one block away from his abode so there is never trouble finding copies of films. Never-the-less Kong will wait for you to start us off, and try to read as much of the novel as he can before jumping in.



Hell......I dont have a thing to wear.........I gotta run out and buy something new......!!!!!

Sorry........im just hyper from eating too much chocolate.....!!!!!

__________________
~ Nikki ~

"I'm your hell, I'm your dream.......I'm nothing in between.......You know you wouldn't want it any other way".........

"Listen, when I slap you, you'll take it and like it"..........Humphrey Bogart..........Maltese Falcon.......

Graze on my lips and if those hills be dry, stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie...........William Shakespeare.......



My life isn't written very well.
" I just love the French tongue."
--Melanie Griffith, "Lolita"

Anyway, what did all of you think, other than it was a bit long. Sorry.
Any criticisms, good or bad?

I liked the film. The relationship between Humbert and Dolores made me squirm a little, especially during the steamy scenes. The actress that plays the 14 year old, actually looks 14. Watching her take that retainer in and out of her mouth was so very, very suggestive.

I'm convinced that she was no victim. No, she knew exactly what she was doing to him. I did think that Humbert was a monster, even though I felt a little sympathy for him. I wasn't sure of his motivation, was it love or infatuation. I always thought that perverts that liked young girls just lusted after them. Humbert seemed to fall in love with Lo.

The end confused me a little too. Why did he have to go back and kill Quilty?



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by r3port3r66
Anyway, what did all of you think, other than it was a bit long. Sorry.
Any criticisms, good or bad?
Kong has plenty of criticism.

Originally posted by r3port3r66
I'm convinced that she was no victim. No, she knew exactly what she was doing to him. I did think that Humbert was a monster, even though I felt a little sympathy for him. I wasn't sure of his motivation, was it love or infatuation. I always thought that perverts that liked young girls just lusted after them. Humbert seemed to fall in love with Lo.
Kong definitely sees Lolita as a victim. Yes, she was certainly bore some responsibility for her actions, but she is still a victim. Lolita is a young girl, 14, who has just discovered her sexuality. Lolita sees right from the start that Humbert is aroused by her every move, even those that weren't intended to be provacative. Having discovered her sexuality, and it's powers she begins to explore it with Humbert (it seems natural since he has shown himself as an easy target). Humbert eventually steals her innocence, and their affair eventually steals her childhood. How is Lolita not a victim? She was a child on the verge of womanhood; a curious girl, but not one who was ready for what Humbert plunged her into.

Kong enjoyed the movie, but was bothered by a few things that Lyne did. The end where Humbert laments that Lolita's voice was not among those of the chiildren at play seemed contrary to the visual style Lyne incorporated into the film. Lyne used a soft focus and golden hue which imbedded the film with a sentimental romanticism that worked against the film's deeper themes. Further more Lyne failed to portray Humbert as being as cunning, and conniving as he was in the novel. This aspect is fairly important because it illustrates the lengths to which Humbert is willing to go to relive the one former time of bliss he experienced before. Without this it is more difficult (although not impossible) to explain his motivation for the murder of Quilty.

Overall the film is quite good despite it's flaws and Kong is glad R66 chose this as Kong probably wouldn't have watched it otherwise.

*** of ****



Registered User
A 14 year old girl learning about her sexuality is a dangerous thing...thrust into womanhood with desires beyond your comprehension; the inclings of a new-found knowledge that you now have a certain power, one which you don't understand yet want to explore, an exploration that cannot be stopped once your hormones make known their existstence...ahhh, to be young and naive again - and completely invincible, what utter bliss...

The clumsiness of pubescent males is completely non-existent in their female counterparts who, seemingly overnight, have developed a sense of (misguided) understanding about existence - and their target: Men. Not boys their own age, who these girls consider immature and too easy a target, but men of authority - teachers, your older sisters boyfriend or your older brothers friends, and, in the case of Lolita, a man her mother was flirting with, later her stepfather. The desire of, and [mis]belief that the conquering of these men, brought about by their own forbidden lust, will elevate you to that all important goal: to prove you are at last a woman!

Dolores (who by the end of the movie was known solely as Lolita (evidence of Humbert's lack of a grip on reality) is far from being a victim. Lacking the love and security a father figure can instill, and hating her mother who treated her like a child, a mother she would see flirting with men constantly, was searching for the one thing all us mere mortals crave - love. Uneducated and unnurtered [sp?], Lolita simply uses the only too available to her, sex

Humbert considers himself an artist, a lover of beautiful things who doesn't need to be tied down by society's rules. He tells us (while telling himself) that ordinary men cannot see this beauty. He KNEW it was wrong: he ate a piece of paper with Lolita's gum on it so that Charlotte would not know Lolita had been in his room; he narrated to his "beloved jury"; he justified his behaviour by a manner of things, one of which was his lost love of years ago. All this to convince himself, to aide him in not losing his mind - which of course was inevitable. Secretly giving Charlotte sleeping pills so that he would not have to perform his "matrimonial duties" was a means to an end...Lolita. When Charlotte died, he probably felt that all his Christmases had come at once, he probably told himself that it was fate, convinving himself further that Lolita was meant to be his. He conveniently did not tell Lolita of her mother's passing until AFTER he had slept with her (noting that she was by no means a virgin).

Lolita, of course, whether she had been playing cruel games or not, was now completely alone and stuck. Humbert was the only human being who could take her in. So she manipulated the situation to suit her. She stayed with him, performing sexual pleasures which meant nothing to her, flirted with any man she could find searching for a replacement, and receiving gifts and her own way in return. Humbert was in a self proclaimed "paradise" - all because he was simply getting his rocks off.

This is a movie of manipulation, the frailty of the human mind, female opportunism and the penis!!

My bottom line....Humbert was a sick bastard who tried nought to refrain himself, the pleasures of the flesh paramount in his mind. He was mad to start with and his guilt drove him over the edge. Lolita, poor white trash, using her sexuality to gain any advantage.

For me, the most oustanding performance was by far Frank Langella's (Clare Quilty)...after having been shot twice, he stumbles, bloodied and confused, saying ever so poliety to his killer "You should not continue in this fasion, really".

(I don't play with 5 stars, not enought of them for my liking. All through the movie I was thinking 4/10 at best, but I loved the ending, which shot it up to 6.5/10)

Originally posted by r3port3r66
The end confused me a little too. Why did he have to go back and kill Quilty?
Quilty took his passion away and forced him to face his guilt and insanity...but like any self-respecting insane person () he prefered to blame Quilty rayther than himself

and yes R66...great choice...thanks buddy



I tend to agree with Kong on the guilt part. Lolita was the victim, even though the movie didn't think this way.

The movie definitely sympathizes with Humpert. The movie's makers tried very hard to present Lolita as an evil force that controls and manipulates Humbert. It is possible that they did this to show us the stroy from Humbert's point of view, but I doubt it.
This is most visible in the scene where she raises her legs and makes some kind of a seductive dance. Hubert is obviously trying to resist his sexual desires, but fails. It is difficult not to see Hubert as a victim here. He is presented as a poor creature who trys to pick a juicy fruit, but gets caught in Lolita's spider-web on the way.

When the viewer asks, "So what has gone wrong, then?" the movie makers choose to portray the whole affair as a pandora box. Innocent Humbert opened the box because he was weak, and the rest just happend. Lolita was evil. Quilty was evil. Humbert was just weak.

In fact, I'm surprised they didn't call the movie "Humbert." I think they kept the name just because that's how the book and original movie were called.



I found this whole thing quite repulsive. As Kong explained, Lolita was just exploring her sexuality. Can you honestly say that girls such as Lolita are rare? If Lolita didn't exist, wouldn't Humbert find someone else?
This wasn't about Lolita. It was about Humbert, a person with a highly flawed mind.



My life isn't written very well.
I'm glad you guys watched the film. You guys write so well!

Kong, I could buy your theory that Lo was not the victim, but remember when her mother found Humbert's journal and went insane with jealousy? I just remember thinking while I watched that, that her mother had some inkling that her daughter might be a tramp. And Lo did make the first move on Humbert. She may have been only 14, but when she was sitting next to him on the porch swing and touching him flirtatiously, I thought she may have been a victim once, but not then. I felt maybe she had been abused earlier, before Humbert. Although after Humbert picked Lo up at camp he said in narration that someone else had taken her virginity; some other camper.

And why do you think she chose Quilty over Humbert? I know she had said that he had promised her things, but when Humbert goes to giver her money 3 years later, she says she wasn't into doing the things Quilty had planned. Making me think that she was smart enough to know that Quilty was even worse than Humbert. But yet she remained there instead of with her dad.

And what do you guys think the letters that Los's mother had clenched in her fist said? And why were there 3? I noticed that they were addressed to Lo at camp.


I get the connection that Quilty was a symbol of Humbert's guilt. Quilty--Guilty, I see that. But to me when Humbert shoots him and says "She was my daughter!" instead of something like "She was my lover!" You have to wonder for what reason he's murdering him. Was he killing him because he was disgusted at what Quilty did to his daughter(Irony), or was he killing him because he stole away his lover?

BTW, verbal you're next to choose. I'm not sure if everyone that signed on will participate in this, so when you're ready make your selection. And Kong, you're next after verbal if nobody else gives input. Then n7of9, Okay?



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by r3port3r66
Kong, I could buy your theory that Lo was the victim, but remember when her mother found Humbert's journal and went insane with jealousy? I just remember thinking while I watched that, that her mother had some inkling that her daughter might be a tramp.
Kong felt she was insane with disgust.

Originally posted by r3port3r66
And Lo did make the first move on Humbert. She may have been only 14, but when she was sitting next to him on the porch swing and touching him flirtatiously, I thought she may have been a victim once, but not then. I felt maybe she had been abused earlier, before Humbert. Although after Humbert picked Lo up at camp he said in narration that someone else had taken her virginity; some other camper.
Lo could tell from the start that Humbert was entranced with her. This was before she even began flirting. She is discovering her sexuality and it's powers; Humbert is obviously affected, and he is the only guy around so humbert took advantage of a girl in a complex transitional state of life whose mother was so ditsy that she couldn't properly guide her daughter. In the end Lo's childhood is stolen from her. Kong isn't suggesting that she is completely guilt free, but she is a child under dramatic change without the ability to foresee the possible consequences of her actions.

After Humbert picks her up from the camp she tells him that she had sex with a boy there. Kong feels that she did this assuming that Humbert would think of her as more of an adult, and this could open the oppurtunity of a sexual affair. After Humbert and Lo have sex she tells him that he was actually her first. One could try to pin the blame on Lolita here and she certainly has some responsibility for lying, but Humbert was supposed to be the mature and rational adult in the situation.

Originally posted by r3port3r66
And why do you think she chose Quilty over Humbert? I know she had said that he had promised her things, but when Humbert goes to giver her money 3 years later, she says she wasn't into doing the things Quilty had planned. Making me think that she was smart enough to know that Quilty was even worse than Humbert. But yet she remained there instead of with her dad.
She doesn't choose Quilty over Humbert as a lover (afterall Quilty couldn't get it up remember?), she chooses Quilty as a rescuer. Quilty happens to be as sick as Humbert, and therefore willing to follow them around the country in order to free her from him. Basically she used him.

Originally posted by r3port3r66
And what do you guys think the letters that Los's mother had clenched in her fist said? And why were there 3? I noticed that they were addressed to Lo at camp.
Probably that Humbert was a pervert, and she should stay away from him.

Originally posted by r3port3r66
I get the connection that Quilty was a symbol of Humbert's guilt. Quilty--Guilty, I see that. But to me when Humbert shoots him and says "She was my daughter!" instead of something like "She was my lover!" You have to wonder for what reason he's murdering him. Was he killing him because he was disgusted at what Quilty did to his daughter(Irony), or was he killing him because he stole away his lover?
Quilty stole the "light of my life, fire of my loins, my sin, my soul".



Originally posted by verbal penguin The movie definitely sympathizes with Humpert. The movie's makers tried very hard to present Lolita as an evil force that controls and manipulates Humbert. It is possible that they did this to show us the stroy from Humbert's point of view, but I doubt it.
This is one of the hardest parts about analyzing the film. The film tries to be a close adaptation of the book. The book was written in first person by Humbert, and had very little dialogue. One has to realize when watching the film that this is Humbert's story of his affair with Lolita complete with all of his rationalizing, and all of his bias. In analyzing the film one cannot simply accept everything in the exact way it was presented. Humbert sees Lolita as a "nymphette" (in the book he says nymphettes are not even humans, but rather they are demoniac), and in telling us his story he will of course portray her as such. It's the viewers job to try and discern the opinions of an ill man from the facts, and it's tough, often uncertain, work.



I am having a nervous breakdance
I'm sorry but I haven't had the opportunity to watch the damned thing. Which sucks since this discussion is class A stuff. I'll do better with the next film, I promise!
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.