Lolita (1962)

User Rating:

7.7/10   

Director:

Stanley Kubrick

Writers:

Vladimir Nabokov (novel)
Vladimir Nabokov (screenplay)

Release Date:

13 June 1962 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | Romance

Tagline:

How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?

Plot:

A middle-aged college professor becomes infatuated with a 14-year-old nymphet.

Plot Keywords:

Professor | Love | Landlady | Lolita | College

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar. Another 7 nominations

US TV Schedule:

Tue. July 14

3:30 PM

TCM

Cast

James Mason	...	Prof. Humbert Humbert
Shelley Winters	...	Charlotte Haze
Sue Lyon	...	Lolita
Gary Cockrell	...	Richard T. Schiller
Jerry Stovin	...	John Farlow
Diana Decker	...	Jean Farlow
Lois Maxwell	...	Nurse Mary Lore
Cec Linder	...	Dr. Keegee
Bill Greene	...	George Swine
Shirley Douglas	...	Mrs. Starch
Marianne Stone	...	Vivian Darkbloom
Marion Mathie	...	Miss Lebone
James Dyrenforth	...	Frederick Beale Sr.
Maxine Holden	...	Miss Fromkiss
John Harrison	...	Tom

Runtime:

152 min

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound Recording)

Certification:

USA:Approved (PCA #20000) | Canada:AA (Ontario) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:R (Manitoba/Nova Scotia) | Norway:16 | France:Unrated | Brazil:12 | Argentina:Atp (re-rating) | Argentina:16 | Australia:M | Finland:K-15 (re-rating) | Finland:K-16 (original rating) | Hong Kong:III | Ireland:15 | Italy:VM14 | Japan:R-15 | Singapore:PG | South Korea:18 | Spain:13 | Sweden:15 | UK:15 (video rating) (1999) | UK:X (original rating) | West Germany:12 | Portugal:M/12

Filming Locations:

Albany, New York, USA

Company:

A.A. Productions Ltd.

Trivia:

In the novel, Lolita is a brunette. In the film, she is a blonde.

Goofs:

Crew or equipment visible: Director Stanley Kubrick. walks through very first shot (center to right bottom) of Humbert in Quilty's house

Quotes:

Humbert Humbert: You know, I've missed you terribly.
Lolita Haze: I haven't missed you. In fact, I've been revoltingly unfaithful to you.
Humbert Humbert: Oh?
Lolita Haze: But it doesn't matter a bit, because you've stopped caring anyway.
Humbert Humbert: What makes you say I've stopped caring for you?
Lolita Haze: Well, you haven't even kissed me yet, have you?

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "What's My Line?: (1964-07-05)" (1964)

Soundtrack:

Theme from Lolita

Cynically romantic

Having read the Nabokov novel and the two well-known versions of the film, I believe the most accurate way of defining the relations is: Lyne´s film is more faithful to the literal reading of the story, Kubrick's one is far more faithful to its spirit and, what is even more important, it isn't drowned by comparisons with the book.

Probably what bothers most people who have seen both films and read the novel is that Kubrick gives ample space to cynicism, farce and mocking of all the main (and even secondary) characters: it ridicules both the cultured, refined and cosmopolitan Englishman and the pseudo-liberal and fairly tacky Americans (the cultural and behavioral differentiation reminding me of Henry James, just in reverse). The child temptress is here seen more realistically as a sexy however vacuous and irritating teenager and Humbert´s love of her as a noble and real but tremendously stupid infatuation (coming from a cold-headed intellectual like him). Also delightful the portrayal of alcoholic and neurotic Shelley Winters, and particularly of Peter Sellers as a mediocre tv writer enhanced by American middle-class culture. There is a lot of witty sociopolitical criticism here.

Adrian Lynne's version, being utterly romantic (and striving really too hard to be poetic) may seem more accurate on the love story but is really Nabokov's intention to tell a love story as such? I can't really appreciate how such wonderful novelist could be so obvious and open to his reader. Not forgetting the romanticism of Humbert's feelings of despair towards the girl, Kubrick doesn't indulge in a simple love story but explores all the most obscure consequences of irrationality and does so with irony and sarcasm (humour is everywhere) but also with a touch of compassionate dramatism when appropriate.

We have a classic here, both faithful to the novel and full of innovations. Lynne´s intent is merely a limp follower of its two (the literary and the filmic) predecessors.