Shhh... You've found us.
Welcome to The Auteurs.
Your online cinema. Anytime, anywhere.

Lolita

United Kingdom

1962

152 Min
  • Currently 3.9/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

   |   

DIR Stanley Kubrick

PROD James B. Harris

SCR Stanley Kubrick, Vladimir Nabokov

DP Oswald Morris

CAST James Mason, Sue Lyon, Shelley Winters, Peter Sellers

Synopsis

“How did they make a movie out of Lolita?” teased the print ads of this Stanley Kubrick production. The answer: by adding three years to the title character’s age. The original Vladimir Nabokov novel caused no end of scandal by detailing the romance between a middle-aged intellectual and a 12-year-old nymphet. The affair is “cleansed” ever so slightly in the film by making Lolita a 15-year-old (portrayed by 16-year-old Sue Lyon). In adapting his novel to film, Nabokov downplayed the wicked satire and sensuality of the material, concentrating instead on the story’s farcical aspects. James Mason plays professor Humbert Humbert, who while waiting to begin a teaching post in the United States rents a room from blowzy Shelley Winters. Winters immediately falls for the worldly Humbert, but he only has eyes for his landlady’s nubile daughter Lolita. The professor goes so far as to marry Winters so that he can remain near to the object of his ardor. Turning up like a bad penny at every opportunity is smarmy TV writer Quilty (Peter Sellers), who seems inordinately interested in Humbert’s behavior. When Winters happens to read Humbert’s diary, she is so revolted by his lustful thoughts that she runs blindly into the street, where she is struck and killed by a car. Without telling Lolita that her mother is dead, Humbert packs her into the car and goes on a cross-country trip, dogged every inch of the way by a mysterious pursuer. Once she gets over the shock of her mother’s death, Lolita is agreeable to inaugurating an affair with her stepfather (this is handled very, very discreetly, despite the slavering critical assessments of 1962). But when the girl begins discovering boys her own age, she drifts away from Humbert. One day, she leaves without warning. This is humiliation enough for Humbert; but when he discovers who her secret lover really is, the results are fatal. We are prepared for the ending because the film has been framed as a flashback; what we are not prepared for is Stanley Kubrick’s adroit manipulation of our sympathies and expectations. An incredibly long film considering its subject matter, Lolita is never dull, nor does it ever stoop to the sensationalism prevalent in the film’s ad campaign.

( From http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:29846 )

Director

Stanley_kubrick

Stanley Kubrick

As one of the most universally acclaimed and influential directors of the postwar era, Stanley Kubrick enjoyed a reputation and a standing unique among the filmmakers of his day. A perennial outsider, he worked far beyond the confines of Hollywood, maintaining complete artistic control and making movies according to the whims and time constraints of no one but himself, but with the rare advantage of studio financial support for all of his endeavors. Working in a vast range of styles and genres spanning from black comedy to horror to crime drama, Kubrick was an enigma, living and creating in almost total seclusion, far away from the watchful eye of the media. His films were a reflection of his obsessive nature, perfectionist masterpieces which remain among the most provocative and visionary motion pictures ever made.

Born July 26, 1928 in New York City, Kubrick initially earned renown as a photographer, selling his first free-lance pictures to Look magazine while still in high… read more

Wall

Displaying 4 of 10 wall posts.
Picture of Keely

Keely

7Jan10

I'm so iffy on this movie. Kubrick is a genius of a director, and usually I try to judge adaptations on their own merits but when you're working with a book like 'Lolita' you must take into account the original work. As A+ as the film is, it absolutely gutted the novel by aging up Lolita (thus changing the very nature of their relationship) and showing us Quilty at the beginning (eliminating a huge mystery source).  

Marcus Hart

5Dec09

On the same level as the novel, no, but its still a well crafted and surprisingly entertaining film in spite of its length  
Picture of Jans de Jager

Jans de Jager

28Nov09

man this movie spoiled my happy memories of reading the book... more than once  

gino

22Aug09

One thing I've always loved about Kubrick is how he divides his Films in half. There's the first half; the set up, and usually the lighter part of the movie. Then, there's the second half, which is usually better than the first half and much more intense. This was a great movie, and probably one of Kubrick's best, but I just felt like it lasted a little too long.  

Related Films

Fans

Displaying 5 of 1524 fans.

Articles

Our roundup of essays and articles on this film.
030809kubricklyon184

The Auteurs Daily: Bright Lights

By David Hudson on August 3, 2009
[Update: The full news feed is now going on @theauteursdaily (RSS feed); major stories (a few a day) and The Auteurs-specific announcements, etc, will still be happening @theauteurs (RSS) - in short
read article

Lists

Displaying 5 of 37 lists.

Reviews

Displaying 1 of 1

Untitled

The movie is just wrong! The book is focusing on Humberts deep feelings, moral strugle with his whishes and temptations… It’s a incredibly great study of good and evil/wrong and the human character…  read review

Forum

Displaying 1 discussion topic.

Lolita

20 posts by 10 people 2 months ago