Lolita

Plot synopsis:
Set in the 1950s, the film begins in medias res near the end of the story, with a confrontation between two men: one of them, Clare Quilty, drunk and incoherent, plays Chopin's Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No. 1 on the piano before being shot from behind a portrait painting of a young woman. The shooter is Humbert Humbert, a 40-something British professor of French literature.
The film then flashes back to events four years earlier. Humbert arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, intending to spend the summer before his professorship begins at Beardsley College, Ohio. He searches for a room to rent, and Charlotte Haze, a cloying, sexually frustrated widow, invites him to stay at her house. He declines until seeing her daughter, Dolores, affectionately called "Lolita". Lolita is a soda-pop drinking, gum-snapping, overtly flirtatious teenager, with whom Humbert becomes infatuated.
To be close to Lolita, Humbert accepts Charlotte's offer and becomes a lodger in the Haze household. But Charlotte wants all of "Hum's" time for herself and soon announces she will be sending Lolita to an all-girl sleepaway camp for the summer. After the Hazes depart for camp, the maid gives Humbert a letter from Charlotte, confessing her love for him and demanding he vacate at once unless he feels the same way. The letter says that if Humbert is still in the house when she returns, Charlotte will know her love is requited, and he must marry her. Though he roars with laughter while reading the sadly heartfelt yet characteristically overblown letter, Humbert marries Charlotte.
Things turn sour for the couple in the absence of the nymphet: glum Humbert becomes more withdrawn, and brassy Charlotte more whiny. Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary entries detailing his passion for Lolita and characterizing her as "the Haze woman, the cow, the obnoxious mama, the brainless baba". She has an hysterical outburst, runs outside, and is hit by a car, dying on impact.
Humbert drives to Camp Climax to pick up Lolita, who doesn't yet know her mother is dead. They stay the night in a hotel that is handling an overflow influx of police officers attending a convention. One of the guests, a pushy, abrasive stranger, insinuates himself upon Humbert and keeps steering the conversation to his "beautiful little daughter," who is asleep upstairs. The stranger implies that he too is a policeman and repeats, too often, that he thinks Humbert is "normal." Humbert escapes the man's advances, and, the next morning, Humbert and Lolita enter into a sexual relationship. The two commence an odyssey across the United States, traveling from hotel to motel. In public, they act as father and daughter. After several days, Humbert tells Lolita that her mother is not sick in a hospital, as he had previously told her, but dead. Grief-stricken, she stays with Humbert.
In the fall, Humbert reports to his position at Beardsley College, and enrolls Lolita in high school there. Before long, people begin to wonder about the relationship between father and his over-protected daughter. Humbert worries about her involvement with the school play and with male classmates. One night he returns home to find Dr. Zempf, a pushy, abrasive stranger, sitting in his darkened living room. Zempf, speaking with a thick German accent, claims to be from Lolita's school and wants to discuss her knowledge of "the facts of life." He convinces Humbert to allow Lolita to participate in the school play, for which she had been selected to play the leading role.
While attending a performance of the play, Humbert learns that Lolita has been lying about how she was spending her Saturday afternoons when she claimed to be at piano practice. They get into a row and Humbert decides to leave Beardsley College and take Lolita on the road again. Lolita objects at first but then suddenly changes her mind and seems very enthusiastic. Once on the road, Humbert soon realizes they are being followed by a mysterious car that never drops away but never quite catches up. When Lolita becomes sick, he takes her to the hospital. However, when he returns to pick her up, she is gone. The nurse there tells him she left with another man claiming to be her uncle and Humbert, devastated, is left without a single clue as to her disappearance or whereabouts.
Some years later, Humbert receives a letter from Mrs. Richard T. Schiller, Lolita's married name. She writes that she is now married to a man named Dick, and that she is pregnant and in desperate need of money. Humbert travels to their home and finds that she is now a roundly expectant woman in glasses leading a pleasant, humdrum life. Humbert demands that she tell him who kidnapped her three years earlier. She tells him it was Clare Quilty, the man that was following them, who is a famous playwright and with whom her mother had a fling in Ramsdale days. She states Quilty is also the one who disguised himself as Dr. Zempf, the pushy stranger who kept crossing their path. Lolita herself carried on an affair with him and left with him when he promised her glamour. However, he then demanded she join his depraved lifestyle, including acting in his "art" films, which she vehemently refused.
Humbert begs Lolita to leave her husband and come away with him, but she declines. Humbert gives Lolita $13,000, explaining it as her money from the sale of her mother's house, and leaves to shoot Quilty in his mansion, where the film began. The epilogue explains that Humbert died of coronary thrombosis awaiting trial for Quilty's murder.

Tags: comedy, murder, dramatic, cult, flashback, satire, romantic

Review:
Yet Kubrick captures the effect of it in camera angles and movements, in timing and point of view.The broadest layer of Nabokov's novel, the parable of the aging culture of Europe trying to revivify itself by debauching the seductive young culture of America, is really missing in the film.
All in all, I thought it was a very good movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys the work of Stanley Kubrick and/or Peter Sellers..
Lolita is also rich in Kubrik's trademark dark humour.The three central characters of the novel are all portrayed more than adequately in the film; James Mason as the smitten professor, Shelley Winters as the suburban widow with pretensions of culture and Sue Lyons as the young nymphet.
The said scene gives the film the same "circular structure" used by David Lean in "Brief Encounter".My favourite moments include; Quilty's re-introduction to the film at the school's summer ball as the camera pans across the dancefloor and subtly reveals a look of comic ambivalence on his face as he dances with his lover, Humbert awkwardly trying to book the only remaining hotel-room at the police convention and Humbert again trying to teach the cynical Lolita the joys of Edgar Allen Poe's poetry.I thoroughly recommend this film.
As Lolita, Sue Lyon is convincing although Kubrick makes her character a bit older (probably to satisfy the censors, which still slapped this with an X rating originally, much to my surprise).
There's this boppy little pop tune we never hear the end of - although most of the time we only hear it subliminally - for the first half of the movie, and it sounds like exactly the kind of tune that drove Humbert up the wall.Kubrick's cast is a strong one.
My sin, my soul.' Although i haven't seen the film in a long time, I think Jeremy Irons from the 1997 version is a much better actor for the role.Sue Lyon made a great Lolita, although she did tremble on the line between looking young enough for the role and looking too old for it.
Although Nabokov similarly leaves this to the reader's imagination, I thought a little more could have been done to stress the nature of Humbert and Lolita's relationship.Shelley Winters was brilliant, and her acting added so much to the character of Charlotte Haze.
I'm looking forward to seeing the 1997 version of the film again (I saw it once years ago!), as I think it is a movie that will benefit much more having been made in a time of a more permissive society, allowing more creative freedom in what can be shown..
An excellent film that has Kubrik's name stamped all over it.We see how the skillful Director is able to translate and adapt the book to reach a bigger audience and become a timeless Classic.Rather than worry about truly reflecting the book on the silver screen, Kubrik changes and experiments with the screenplay to obtain a refreshing, intellectual and fun version of the boring Nabokov's novel.The Master of Directors shows also great skill in his precise direction of the well selected star cast.Who would challenge that Sellers is precisely the hyperactive, witty character who could undoubtedly seduct a young teen.
Could there be a better fit to Lolita's mother than Shelley Winters, who conveys so well the impression of being the desperate, lonely widow?Even James Mason IS the perfect sexually repressed, intellectual pervert, who tries to hide so well his persistent, hypocritical thoughts and desires behind that mask of academic honorability.In conclusion, this is not a replacement for the book.
Sue Lyon played the coy Lolita so well, but when you read her biography and see that she had a series of short, failed marriages after this film was made, you have to wonder if her performance was so good because she was playing a character not far from herself.
At least Lolita's character doesn't.Humbert was a handsome man, a gentleman of Old Good Times in the book.
Where some critics have said Sellers' Quilty is over-used, I would say quite the opposite; he could have been used even more, although the irregularity and unpredictability of his appearances is tangibly effective.Mason is dependable as Humbert, and this mere "dependability" proves perhaps insufficient in a film dominated by one of the finest performances.
It misses, or rather skirts around, the point of "Lolita" somewhat.For all the film's faults, it's an entertaining, provocative (more in the sense of Humbert's guilt than in his desires) drama with an irreverent, thoughtful edge provided by the frighteningly good Sellers.
This was supposed to be so sexual and so controversial, and I can see why the "controversy" with an older man getting sexually attracted and involved with a teenager but there is very sexuality in this movie....just implied, and very little of anything happens in this film.Sue Lyon, in her first shot, is very alluring lying on her side in a bikini but after that she has the appearance of any other good-looking teen and nothing extraordinary....so if men are looking to be titillated by this film, go elsewhere.In fact, an annoying and shrill Shelly Winters is seen quite a bit, too much so rather than Lyon.
From what I've heard the original novel is much better and a lot are omitted here which makes this looks like more sided with the character of Humbert but the way I see it Kubrick have made the audience uneasy and to an extent made them despise themselves for sympathising with these characters by the end of the film.
In fact, if one hadn't possessed any knowledge of the novel before seeing this film, there's a possibility that they wouldn't even obtain the notion that "Professor Humbert" feels deep affection for Lolita, romantically.
You're adapting a book, which means that you should follow the original material, and usually, most people overwhelmingly groan about a film's lack of loyalty to its source, but here- because Kubrick is such a god and he never makes any mistakes- everyone is suddenly praising a work that suffers from a great deal of disloyalty.
Marred by censorship limitations of its time, provocative in both tone n content & marking Stanley Kubrick's first attempt at black comedy, Lolita is an intimately crafted, ingeniously narrated & wonderfully acted satire on lust, obsession & frustration that is now counted amongst the finest & most controversial examples of its genre.Based on Vladimir Nabokov's novel of the same name, Lolita tells the story of a middle-aged college professor who travels to a small American town for a teaching position & while looking for a place to rent, decides to become a lodger at a cloying widow's house once he meets her 14-year old daughter & becomes instantly infatuated with the nymphet.Brilliantly directed by Stanley Kubrick, Lolita opens & ends with the same sequence thus bringing the story full circle & while that method takes away the conclusion, it keeps the mystery alive for the rest of its runtime.
Script edits out many of the novel's eroticism but then it also makes the characters all the more interesting by presenting a deeper look at their complexities.Coming to the technical aspects, Cinematography makes excellent use of greyscale photography, editing steadily paces its narrative, humour is exquisitely timed & music gives it a light-hearted touch & the performance by its cast is no slouch for James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon shine in their given roles while Peter Sellers steals every scene he is in with effortless finesse.On an overall scale, Lolita is another designated masterpiece from the legendary filmmaker who made an entire career out of delivering one influential film after another without ever repeating himself.
To hold such a view however does not make you an abuser, a point lost on some of his critics.Both Nabokov's book and Kubrick's film have a view of the relationship between American and European culture rather like that of Henry James  America is young, juvenile in fact, optimistic, uncomplicated and naïve.
Her problem here is that she is so physically mature that the idea of her going to bed with Humbert is not particularly disturbing, apart from the fact that he is/was her stepfather.Kubrick, by 1961 self-exiled from the US, shot most of the film in England and this rather compromises the road movie element (the Haze house and garden, ostensibly in New Hampshire, looks to be just down the road from Elstree studios).
His character, Hubert Humbert is a sexual predator in the original novel, but both James Mason and Stanley Kubrick re-imagines the character as somewhat likable fellow who "just loved Lolita".
And Sue Lyon scores well as the beautiful, but extremely shallow juvenile that James Mason flips over.Rounding out the principals of the cast are Shelley Winters as Lyons obsessively romantic mother and Peter Sellers who gets to do several characters of his own creation as Clare Quilty, the man who ultimately brings James Mason's world crashing around him.Lolita does hold up well today though a newer version made in 1997 was far more explicit.
But in looking at Peter Sellers in his multiple roles via the curious, insanely oddball Quilty, and Shelley Winters as Lolita's mother, they are simply flat-out brilliant (I would choose a better word if I could, believe me).
Winters, on the other hand, finds that balance with Mrs. Hayes as a lonely middle-aged woman looking for companionship, though unable to shake her over-protective tendencies.As for Mason and Lyon, their scenes together are at the least a little overtly melodramatic (which might have been the idea, it may take another few viewings to really grasp the weight of their performances) and at best helps define what the film is about.
The reader of "Lolita" knows nothing of the real Lolita.Making a movie of the book requires the director to make a fantasy into a filmable person; this destroys the Nabokov's story and creates another man's(Kubrick) fantasy.Just another book to film disappointment I think.Good I did not pay to see this!.
Lolita and Humbert couldn't kiss, couldn't really show their sexuality, couldn't show Quilty being killed, etc.Sue Lyon, who played Lolita, was actually sixteen, although she always looked like a thirty year old hooker.
Shelley Winters was too-on the mark, Sue Lyon looked right, and throw in the psychotic great actor Peter Sellers as Quilty, regenerating every scene he was in.
Stanley Kubrick made a a movie in 1962 about a controversial topic.Lolita tells about Humbert Humbert (James Mason), who's a British professor of French literature.He travels to an American small town for a teaching position.There he falls madly in love with a 14-year old Dolores Haze (Sue Lyon).He marries her mother Charlotte (Shelley Winters) in order to stay close to the daughter.Kubrick's movie of the novel was disapproved by many.Luckily it was made because it turned out to be a brilliant movie.The acting work is superb.James Mason's role work is something to remember.Peter Sellers brings some comedy to the movie as Clare Quilty.He was one of the best.And so was Shelley Winters, who sadly passed away yesterday at the age of 85.She shone in every role she played and she will be greatly missed.In Lolita everything works perfectly.It's a true classic.Lolita is a highly recommendable movie for all..
I find Lolita the most disturbing character in the film for many reasons - she is directly responsible for the ultimate fates of her mother, Humbert and Quilty (although all contribute in some way to their own destruction).
Keep in mind it was made in 1962, and the mere fact that the film was made was a miracle, so there's no nudity or sex scenes that would be necessary for modern audiences.I like James Mason very much, and it's only because of my fondness for him that Lolita didn't ruin my opinion of him.
'Lolita' is a controversial Stanley Kubrick film based on an even more controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov.
Kubrick was forced to tone down the sexuality somewhat, and Lolita's age is bumped up from 12 to 16 at the story's start, but the movie still feels shocking, and it's no wonder that it was greeted with a storm of controversy upon its release.The acting is nearly flawless, and it feels remarkably naturalistic for a movie from this time period.
Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Vladimir Nabakov's novel, Lolita tells the story of Humbert Humbert, how's that for a name, (James Mason) a middle aged sod, who falls madly in love with the teenage daughter, Lolita (Sue Lyon) of a woman he meets (Shelly Winters).
Perhaps the film should have been shortened to a screentime closer to 2 hours and a bit, but I think that the main problem lies in the screenplay which has presented all the right elements and knows where its heading, only does not seem to do so in a cohesive, well-paced and fulfilling matter.Still a good pic and a good pick, but Kubrick will do even better in the future and will become Great and larger-than-life like his movies..
James Mason, Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon all turn out wonderful performances that give Nabokov's characters new life.
But the screenplay that Nabokov wrote was a lot more accesible and could therefore reach a bigger audience.The controversial novel was talked about a lot in its time and i think Stanley Kubrick, always controversial and provocative, was the perfect director to make a film out of it.
Upon having just viewed "Lolita" several times in a row after hearing so much about it (and admittedly knowing NOTHING of Kubrick's work, except that he did "2001"), I must say I was thoroughly delighted and amused at what I thought would be a darkly sinister motion picture.Nabokov, the screenplay, and all controversy aside, I was immediately shocked, in the same way I am shocked by seeing any older film or TV re-run and hearing a dirty word or insinuation, by the opening title page of the man's hand delicately applying nail polish to a female foot.
Mason, Sellars, Winters and Sue Lyon have never been better and Lolita is one of the rare Kubrick films that deals with people rather than institutions or war.
Then too, the novel was too racy for the censors so Stanley Kubrick made a whole bunch of changes which manage to turn the film into a semi-successful black comedy with good performances from Mason, Winters and PETER SELLERS (as Clare Quilty).But overall, it's got a lot of dull stretches before it reaches the point where the obsessive Mason (as Prof.
In reality, there is nothing further from the truth: Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's novel is one of the most gripping depictions of love and its tragic consequences.That the story is tragic is evident from the prologue, where an Englishman (James Mason) coldly executes the whimsical Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) after asking him if he remembers a certain Dolores "Lolita" Haze and what he did to her.
While looking for a house, he met a widow named Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her daughter, the 14-year old Lolita (Sue Lyon).
Lyon does a good job too, transforming from promiscuous sex-kitten to loving stepdaughter with a conviction that is rarely seen in such a young actress, making the passage look natural and unforced.In the end, as always with Kubrick, his films demand viewing after viewing as there is constantly something new that we didn't notice the first time.
Strong acting from both Peter Sellers, James Mason, and Sue Lyon, it has yet to be topped in any sequel or related movie based on the same plot..
Her line to Sellers about "Lolita" sums up the story in a nutshell: "Wednesday she's going to have a cavity filled by your Uncle Ivar." ********* Lolita (6/12/62) Stanley Kubrick ~ James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon, Peter Sellers.
Loosely based on the novel of the sane name, Kubrick turns the tale into a very dark comedy about a middle aged man (James Mason) who's deeply in love with a nubile adolescent girl (Sue Lyon).
James Mason lands a tour de force role as Humbert, the English pro- fessor who marries Charlotte (Shelly Winters) just to get close to her budding fox of a daughter named Lolita (Sue Lyon).
To me, the real question is, "Why did they ever make a movie of 'Lolita'?"  This is the only film I have seen by Stanley Kubrick that I would rate as sub-quality.
The casting, from the improbable choice of Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty, to the exactly right choice of Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze, to the beautiful Sue Lyon as Lolita, to the "old world" James Mason as Humbert Humbert, was inspired.
The witty and intensely focused interpretation of Nabokov's black comedic novel was probably as true to Vladimir's spirit as the silver screen could hope to come, and yet the film was clearly and exactly a Stanley Kubrick work of art.The scene (apparently a Kubrick witticism) in which the dead Charlotte's friends find Humbert in the tub with a scotch and a hand gun, and mistakenly think he is about to blow his brains out from grief when in fact he is in jubilant celebration, is a wonderful variation on Nabokov's text, as is the use of Peter Sellers disguised as a Freudian shrink at the girl's school.
Like the book, the film is strongest in the beginning, as Humbert Humbert (James Mason) takes a room with a widow (Shelley Winters), only after spotting her teenage daughter (Sue Lyon) lounging around in a bikini.
The hand belongs to 40-something professor Humbert Humbert (James Mason, note that some of the odd names in the film are due to the narrative structure of the source novel), the foot to Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon), a precocious 14-year old with whom he is obsessed.
In the book Lolita is only twelve when Humbert first meets her; in the film her age is never given, although she appears to be about sixteen.