Saturday, March 9, 2013

Lolita (1962)

Lolita. (Kubrick) Pros - James Mason, Peter Sellers Cons-Everything else.

Plot and Story Kubrick's "Lolita" is a perfect example of a great novel making a poor movie. What makes "Lolita" a great novel, ( the use of an unreliable narrator, the beauty of the language, Nabakov's puns, jokes and literary allusions, our seeing Lolita as fantasy of Humbert's mind , etc.) can't be translated to the screen. The story - by itself -isn't particularly interesting. And the characters, shown externally & in a straightforward manner, are somewhat unpleasant and boring. Kubrick's adds some "black comedy" but not enough.

Direction: Lolita has few of the dazzling visuals you'd expect from Kubrick. The movie was shot cheaply in England in B&W - with a few 2nd unit shots from the East Coast. A lot of back projection.  The pace is slow and at 152 minutes its way too long. 

Acting Mason is excellent.  But I found Sue Lyons too old. Shelly Winters is Shelly Winters. And we get a LOT of shelly winters. She pretty much dominates the film for about 45 minutes. 

Peter Sellers:  Hit and miss.  Sellers has a ten minute (mostly dull) opening scene and at least 10 more minutes later in the film. While one scene is my favorite, too often Sellers over-acts and his scenes (adlibbed?) go on far too long. 

Best Scene:  Sellers as "Clare Quilty" questions Mason about his relationship with Lyons "“It’s good for us normal guys to get together and talk about normal things.  One normal guy to another". 

Overall: Controversial and "edgy" in 1962, I found the movie tedious. Rating **

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.