Lolita (1962)

Review:

Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita seems to me a work in progress. I may also be biased because I am such a fan of Nabokov’s novel. His book swirls with passion and whimsy and darkness; it’s a lyrical novel whose controversial material would make it hard for anyone to translate into a visual medium. With this in mind, Kubrick’s Lolita is a strong attempt at forging film history, but Kubrick had not yet perfected the poetical cinematography of his later films.

The story of Lolita is widely known and ultimately simple. A European scholar, Humbert Humbert (played by the stoic yet vulnerable James Mason) takes up residence in the house of a widow and her teenage daughter, Lolita. While living there, Humbert becomes obsessed with Lolita (Sue Lyon). For lack of a better word, he falls in love with the young girl, who is aware of his infatuation and even takes advantage of it. In one revealing scene Lolita asks Humbert to eat a piece of scrambled egg from her hand. Hesitantly, this college professor bends to her will, eating the egg from her hand like a dog.

Eventually, by unlikely circumstances I will not go into, Lolita and Humbert become lovers and end up traveling the country together. The brilliance of the story resides not in the actual events, which sometimes have the tendency to become melodramatic, but in the relationship of Humbert and Lolita. Kubrick and Nabakov (who wrote the screenplay) concisely convey the conflict in becoming both father and lover to the same person.

But the film does not move with ease. Kubrick or his editor find it necessary to fade to black after nearly every scene. These fades make the movie seem to be linked as vignettes, not a flowing whole. It feels jumpy. This is troublesome when compared with the concise poetic rhythm of Nabakov’s prose in the original novel. I know it is not right to compare a film to a book as they should be judged by different criteria. But the reason Lolita the novel succeeds is that the language allows you to understand how a scholar like Humbert could slide so far and so easily into a pedophilic relationship; the poetry disguises the crime, and that’s precisely the point; its what makes Humbert understandable. Kubrick and Nabakov, in this film, do not capture that same poetry that can render Humbert sympathetic to the audience. Humbert’s love seems abrupt and his jealousy seems even more so. If Kubrick had already possessed the fluid grace, and poetry of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lolita may have been a great film. As it stands, it is a very good film, but not one to change the course of history.


Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Gangs of New York" (2002)

Rationalization:

"Lolita" is a valid attempt at capturing a notion of good and evil that floats adrift in space. Although it is mere speculation, I believe if Kubrick had made "Lolita" at the heigh of his career, it could have been an absolute masterpiece. I believe this for two reasons - 1) In 1962, Kubrick was approaching but had not hit his artistic stride. With his next film, "Doctor Strangelove," he would find a voice full and confident and never look back. Unfortunately "Lolita" missed this train. 2) The early 60's was not a good time for films with the potential to scandalize. If "Lolita" had been made in the 1970s or 80s Kubrick would have been able to be more explicit about the sexual relationship between Humbert and Lolita and the film would have triumphed.