Lolita (1962)

I finally read Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita in February so I thought I'd watch this film too. I had really high hopes for this, not only because I loved the novel, but because Stanley Kubrick directed it and Nabokov himself worked on the screenplay. What could possibly go wrong? Many things, as it turned out.

Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is a middle-aged, divorced European professor of French literature who moves to the US for a job at Beardsley College, Ohio. Before he begins his post, he decides to spend the summer in Ramsdale, New Hampshire and rents a room in the house of a widowed woman, Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters), after he meets and falls for her teen daughter, Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon).

I think the main problem with Kubrick's Lolita is that it was made in a time where one could not make a movie about paedophilia. And that's a huge problem since Lolita is a novel about paedophilia. Because of the censors --I don't want to blame Kubrick nor Nabokov-- the plot is boring and unfocused and instead of focusing on the main plot, the love affair between Humpert and Lolita, the film focuses on all the other less interesting subplots. Had I not read the novel or never heard of Lolita, I would have never guessed the kind of relationship that develops between the old man and the young girl.

The plot isn't the only problem. The characters didn't translate well either. Actually, Humbert's character was completely lost in translation. I'm not going to complain about the fact that instead of being a French with a (beautiful) French accents, he is a European with a British accent. In the novel,  though he is a pervert, sexual predator, a paedophile, Humbert is a man so fascinating that he manages to make us care about him. He convinces us that he is more than a child abuser. As suggested by his name, Humbert Humbert, he is a man with two different natures and they are well delivered in the book. In the film, he comes off as an old man who is not in love but obsessed with a young girl. His backstory, his complexity, it's all gone.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

As for the character of Lolita, she comes across as a spoiled brat seducing Humbert on purpose. She is annoying and obnoxious almost as much as her mother, Charlotte. And she is older. While in the novel she has barely entered puberty, in the film she is 14-years-old. The innocent child of the book is nowhere to be found. There's nothing for Humbert to destroy, she is already broken. And where's the character development? Two and a half hours should be a decent amount of time to do that.

The performances aren't that good either. Actually, most of them are bland and uninspired. There are only two exceptions. The first is Shelley Winters who gives a very good performance as Charlotte Haze, Lolita's lonely and desperate mother. The other is Peter Sellers who gives a very good, hilarious and yet strange performance as Clare Quilty, a hyperactive, witty man, and easily steals the show.

Kubrick's Lolita works definitely better on the technical aspects. The cinematography by Oswald Morris is atmospheric and its use of greyscale is excellent. The editing and pace are rapid and effective, and Kubrick delivers one of the greatest opening scenes ever.