Lolita (1962)

Uncomfortable story

Great novel

Great performances

James Mason gives one of the best film performances of all time.

Most normal face, ever!

R3 great scene

The Pumpkin Eater with Anne Bancroft, Peter Finch, James Mason, Cedric Hardwicke AND the incomparable Eric Porter.

Those movies were too adult for me when I was a kid 😳

R6 Have you watched it recently?

R4 I love Kubrick and Sellers work together, but the casting in Lolita, could not have been better! Mason, was the most sympathetic villain (IMO), Winters was gifted at playing a bawdy, tactless woman you'd want to throttle with your own hands, even the swinger neighbors were perfect in this. Sue Lyon was also PERFECT as Lolita, from teen seductress to house frau, she was perfectly believable.

Loved that Masons infatuation, and life ended behind the Lolita archetype; the Marie Antoinette portrait. "And don't smudge your toenails!"

Saw it a long time ago and was disappointed. Loved the novel but the film was a cheesy 60s sex comedy.

@r7, No, by the time I was old enough to watch it I was too Gay to care 😏

R10 still a good movie

Shelley Winters was perfect as a brash American who you end up feeling sympathetic for. You understand her.

There was a photographer named Howard who lurked around our college campus, always trying to get the girls to pose for him. I still feel awestruck when I recall my friend calling him Howard Howard to his face.

You can see flashes of Kubrick's brilliance but it's not quite there yet. The opening scene drags on and on. Still, amazing that this was financed and released in the mid 1960s.

R14 Very true.

The last half change a lot from the book.

There’s a 10 part series on Spotify that discusses the novel, the real life kidnapping that inspired it, the film, the stage adaptations, etc. Very interesting.

[bold]Lolita Podcast

Sue Lyon was only 14 when she did that movie. She was impressive and totally ignored by The Academy Awards.

The Real Lolita: The Kidnapping of Sally Horner and the Novel That Scandalized the World by Sarah Weinman

——————

“The Real Lolita is a tour de force of literary detective work. Not only does it shed new light on the terrifying true saga that influenced Nabokov’s masterpiece, it restores the forgotten victim to our consciousness.” —David Grann, author of Killers of the Flower Moon

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is one of the most beloved and notorious novels of all time. And yet, very few of its readers know that the subject of the novel was inspired by a real-life case: the 1948 abduction of eleven-year-old Sally Horner.

Weaving together suspenseful crime narrative, cultural and social history, and literary investigation, The Real Lolita tells Sally Horner’s full story for the very first time. Drawing upon extensive investigations, legal documents, public records, and interviews with remaining relatives, Sarah Weinman uncovers how much Nabokov knew of the Sally Horner case and the efforts he took to disguise that knowledge during the process of writing and publishing Lolita.

Sally Horner’s story echoes the stories of countless girls and women who never had the chance to speak for themselves. By diving deeper in the publication history of Lolita and restoring Sally to her rightful place in the lore of the novel’s creation, The Real Lolita casts a new light on the dark inspiration for a modern classic.

————————

Why didn’t Lyon break out and become a star? She gave a great performance in this, and was a beautiful girl.

Peter Sellers was brilliant.

Sue Lyon wiki entry indicates a difficult life......

Kubrick said if he had known in advance how heavy Hollywood's censorship was he would have filmed it in London.

What do we think of the remake by Adrian Lyne? It caused a moral outrage and didn't get a theatrical release in the US. Beautiful cinematography shot on location around America, highlighting the road trip aspect of the story that Kubrick glossed over. And a lovely score by Ennio Morricone. Melanie Griffith is perfectly grating as Charlotte Haze. She's what I picture in my head when I hear the word Frau. Humbert seems like a hetero DLer. Dominique Swain took the Lolita character in a goofy, almost special-ed direction. The set decoration is impeccable. I found myself pausing the movie to look at all the little details. They found some interesting faces for the bit actors. There's a long faced general store clerk who looks like someone from a Norman Rockwell painting.

I think James Mason stole the movie.

Shelley Winters was a close second.

Sue Lyon was great as a selfish teen.

Peter Sellers was a little distracting.

Rust & Stardust is an excellent fictionalized account of the Sally Horner kidnapping.

I preferred Frank Langella's Quilty to Peter Sellers' Quilty.

I think Frank Langella is one of the most underrated actors ever. Check out The Box.

This thread is bonkers! Lolita to Langella?!?

What about Evelyn Nesbit!

The 1996 Lolita had an impact on the Lolita aesthetic described in the podcast R16 linked, which is an excellent look at the impact and cultural significance of Lolita. It’s a beautifully shot movie and well-cast, as R23 says, and worth watching. However, it doesn't capture the central horror of the novel: Lolita, in the book, was twelve. Domonique Swain was in her mid-teens, post pubescent. I’m not suggesting they should have filmed the movie with a younger child, only that it doesn’t do anything different from the Kubrick version when it comes to putting Lolita onscreen. That makes Humbert come across as a *little* less of a monster than intended in the novel, although he is still fairly monstrous in the movie. One problem was that several movies around that time featured sexual or sexualized relationships between grown men and teenage girls (Natural Born Killers, The Professional, Wild Things, etc.) so the inappropriate nature of the relationship felt blunted. A younger audience, less exposed to such things in mainstream media, might not react the same way.

The movie succeeds in being beautiful and repellent, which is to say it succeeds in capturing the same general intentions as the novel. It also felt like a horror story, although the same can be said for Kubrick’s version.

Few things in this world are funnier than Clare Quilty dancing with Vivian Darkbloom (with Charlotte Haze cutting in).

R30 Really? Few things are funnier than that?

It's criminal that Sue Lyon didn't get an Academy Award nom for this.

R23 This is the only "Lolila" film I've seen so far. I forgot most of the plot but it was atmospheric, Also: Jeremy Irons is hot.

R29 I agree.

However, by the end of the novel you feel for Humbert. You find him kind, handsome, cultured, sophisticated, and better than anyone else in the novel. Yet, he is a sick man who is into sick things.

That is the beauty of Nabokov's writing, even the most reprehensible character comes off as sympathetic.

[quote]R35 by the end of the novel you feel for Humbert. You find him kind, handsome, cultured, sophisticated, and better than anyone else in the novel.

Mmmmmm… well, aside from the fact he’s a child molester, maybe. Humbert is the definition of an unreliable narrator. IS he truly kind? When he settles down with Dolores in the town of Beardsley, he describes her repeatedly crying herself to sleep, and his having to pay her every time they have sex. Does it sound like the girl is in a relationship with a “kind, handsome, cultured, sophisticated” person who’s “better than anyone else in the novel”? She’s saving up the money to run away from him.

When I first read LOLITA as a teen I was seduced by the language, and kind of saw it as a doomed love story. When I reread it in college I had more appreciation for the humor. Now, as a true adult, I see the horror in the story. All 3 things do exist in the novel, but it’s very hard to get past the abuse Humbert visits on a 12-YEAR-OLD!

The film soft pedals all this because 1.) they up Dolores’ age, and 2.) James Mason plays tragic grandeur fantastically.

The novel was great, one of the true 20th century classics. The film didn’t live up to the book and I’m not sure why it was necessary. Not all great books need to be made into movies.

R36 I do agree with you.

R30 What are the few things that are funnier?

I like the remake better. Irons and Langella were great and Melanie Griffith reminded us that she an excellent actress with the right material.

Such a creepy story

Ignore the soiled sock.

Almost wrecked by an excess of Peter Sellers' schtick.

Mason and Winters are perfect.

The book is brilliant, incredible writing, especially for an author to whom English was a second language.

No, the movie isn’t the book, it’s its own thing, brilliant and very adult for when it was filmed and released. Peter Sellars is the perfect embodiment of Quilty, but there’s entirely too much of him. Still it captures his schtick just when he was becoming a big deal. Mason, Lyons and Winters (whom I often find hard to take ) are terrific.

There’s nothing actressy or fake about Sue Lyon’s performance, I love the fetishistic way she’s filmed in her stiff crinolines and high heels, a touching attempt to look womanly when she ‘s really still a vulnerable little girl.

Apparently while traveling and publicizing the film, the 16-year old Lyon and the handsome 30-something producer James Harris had an affair which Lyons repudiated near the end of her life, saying it effectively destroyed her life. Certainly her marital and personal history was a train wreck post-“Lolita” and she often seemed crazy and miserable. So life sadly imitated art in her case.

If the film has a flaw, it’s that rural and suburban England does not for a moment suggest America, and part of the pleasure of the book was Nabokov’s satirical take on American middle class life and leisure habits after WWII. But the location displacement and the dry, cold tone give the movie a moody spaciness that is weirdly just right.

It’s a miscarriage of movie justice that Mason, Winters and Lyon seem never to have been serious contenders for Oscar nominations. But the Academy shunned controversy then, and the book had been the most controversial novel of the mid-‘50s. Yet the advertising tagline, “How Did They Ever Make A Movie Of Lolita?” was more leering and sexual than the movie managed to be. And it wasn’t a Hollywood picture so no studio had a rooting interest in promoting it.

The novel is astounding—but I had to stop reading it due to being triggered (former molested child.). The 1960’s film version is better than the 90’s version, imo.

Miss Dorothy...

I never understood how it could be heralded as some great film when the subject matter is disgusting. A man tricks a woman and seduces her child and then goes mad with obsession.

Central theme is straight mans stop at nothing to get sex from young women, in this a child! Fuck the Harvey Weinsteins that produced this under the guise of it being art. It's just masturbation fodder for all those perv men that are sex deviants.

The film is toned down compared to the book. James Mason is almost likeable by the end.

Can't stand Peter Sellars in this. But Mason and Lyon are amazing.

I still don't get what the "few things in this world are funnier" in R30

"Central theme is straight mans stop at nothing to get sex from young women, in this a child! "

Ok R47 I'll bite. Yep, that is the central drive for the main character. The story asks, what then? How does a society face this fact? Epstein et al just show that the story was precient. If we only had stories about noble characters then we miss out on a lot of interesting work.

No R51 it's about them getting their jollies and preying on innocent's. That's why they have casting calls and want women to show skin and take their clothes off.

The only what then answer is to blow their balls off with a shotgun. Not accept it as a fact of life. Despicable.

The first film makes it seem like Humpbert isn’t necessarily a pedophile—it was just Lolita. When he goes back to see her and she’s an adult (and a pregnant frau) he is still completely in love with her. The book makes it very clear that he is a pedophile. I agree that James Mason is fantastic and heartbreaking in the film.

Shelley Winters’ best performance.

I think James Mason’s nomination for Georgy Girl in a somewhat similar role may have been in part belated recognition for how good he is here—though he is excellent there, too. It sometimes just takes a while for the Academy voters to catch on.

Sue Lyon was so gorgeous. I just found out that the producer of Lolita developed an obsession with her during filming and they had an affair 😳

[quote]though he is excellent there, too.

He was a suicidal drunk.

I didn't know Sue Lyon was dead.

Sue Lyons would've been better off ... ok, probably... not having starred in it

I think as a young teen when I saw this, I was so taken with Shelly Winters...that when her storyline ended, the movie ended.

To this day, I react the same way.

I always associated Lyon with Jean Seberg. Two beautiful blondes who probably would have been happier never stepping foot in front of a camera.

True. But one was destroyed by early fame and her own demons and the other by the FBI

This has all taken a rather dark turn.

Sue Lyon is so fucking underrated in this.

This film has very little to do with the book. If you want a more faithful adaption, watch the 1997 film. It's very good. Despite that, I prefer this version. Putting one of the darkest most controversial subjects possible through a sinister black comedic lense in (1962 for christ's sake!) is so gutsy you HAVE to love it. The fact that the characters are throwing around words like "Camp Climax" and quite overtly proposition swinging and so many other perversities in such a quaint little town during such a quaint era just makes it deliciously transgresive. How did they ever make a movie like "Lolita" indeed!

Is it excuse the soiled sock or ignore the soiled sock

[quote]r61 = and the other by the FBI

Which they wouldn't have if she'd not stepped in front of a camera.

"The Frigid Queen" was also a hilarious name for the ice cream place Lo would hang out in. How did they get away with this shit, lol.

This is one of my all time favorite movies. I’m not quite sure why. It could be that each character is so extreme. And I absolutely love the soundtrack. The whole thing is on my playlist.

What’s her face would have been perfect for this movie- if not for the fact that she hadn’t been born yet-

Brook Shields

Brooke had her own Lolita, r69.

R70- I know

and her mother basically pimped her out to appear in a movie like that

R65 You’re right—it is “excuse,” not “ignore.”

Shelley Winters had big bosoms

DL fav Betty Bacall had an affair with Shelley Winters husband. Once Betty called the house and Shelley asked her why she would do that. Betty replied back with "if your husband doesn't respect your marriage, why should I?"

"Vivian Darkbloom" is my absolute favorite anagram of all time. In 1962, played by Marianne Stone (who racked up 271 credits, according to IMDB).

[quote]Shelley Winters had big bosoms

Not really, r73.