Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Welcome
to BookAndReader!
We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences
along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site
is free and easy, just CLICK
HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
here.
Yes, you're right about Jeremy Irons although James Mason is certainly the most famous HH. Personally (and perhaps oddly), I find it hard to choose a favorite between the two movies -- they're both amazing and both add hugely to the complete Lolita experience.
An alt-rock band named Elefant recorded a song called... what else... Lolita. Here are the lyrics:
Can you tell me what you're thinking?
I just melt inside your eyes
Kiss me like they do in movies
Modern child of the night
I was watching you for hours
Standing there beside the pool
When you wear those pretty dresses
I forget the girl in you
Run away, run away
Lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
Lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
Am I wrong for loving lola?
Am I wrong for what I think?
she is such a wicked child
painted lips, dirty knee
Lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
Lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
I hear the devil calling
he's waiting for my move
I shout aloud Lolita
you are my heart and soul
My lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
Lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
My lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
My lola is on the floor
she's wanting more
she's wanting more
Not quite as flowery as Nabokov but I do like some of the verses, mainly "I hear the devil calling/he's waiting for my move" and "Modern child of the night".
I read Lolita many years ago. It was one of those books that I was told was "unsuitable" but that my dad had a copy on his bookshelf.
At the age of 14 I think I missed a lot of what was going on, but remember being very disappointed, in the same way that I was with Lady Chatterley's Lover!
I did enjoy it though, and think it will be worthy of a revisit at some point when I have the time!
Lots of people were disappointed when the book didn't live up to its scandalous reputation, but good for you for giving it a try at the tender young age of fourteen.
CBS just can't get enough of wannabe rockers these days. I'm hooked on Rockstar Supernova to see who will play in Tommy Lee's band. They really aren't "hard" but are too mellow and are playing it too safe IMHO. My favorite is Dana.
The eye is juxtaposed with a quote from "Nikolai Gogol," one of Nabokov's best-known works of literary criticism: "The difference between human vision and the image perceived by the faceted eye of an insect may be compared with the difference between a half-tone block made with the very finest screen and the corresponding picture as represented by the very coarse screening used in common newspaper pictorial reproduction. The same comparison holds good between the way Gogol saw things and the way average readers and average writers see things.
Yay! I just opened a package from my favourite DVD dealer, containing - among other things - BOTH movie versions of "Lolita". So the question is, nabokovians: which one should I watch first?
Yay! I just opened a package from my favourite DVD dealer, containing - among other things - BOTH movie versions of "Lolita". So the question is, nabokovians: which one should I watch first?
How many tvs do you have? If you have two-be a man and watch them both at the same time If you only have one..then do the only other good way to choose-have someone hold them both and you choose with your eyes closed Either way, you win!
Yay! I just opened a package from my favourite DVD dealer, containing - among other things - BOTH movie versions of "Lolita". So the question is, nabokovians: which one should I watch first?
Omigosh! I'm so excited for you! The way I did it was to watch the Kubric/Mason one first, but the Jeremy Irons one sticks much closer to the novel so I'd watch that one first and then have fun seeing what they do with the James Mason one, which is to have all kinds of fun with the novel (and is almost a kind of a send-up of sorts, or so I thought.) That's how I'd do it, but as abc says, you really can't lose.
Make sure you have plenty of popcorn and do be sureto take tne off the hook. And report back!
Let's see. I watched the 1997 Adrian Lyne version first and then the 1962 Stanley Kubrick version a couple of minutes ago. They're both really good movies, though they take very different approaches to adapting the book - and IMO, neither succeeds completely.
Taken completely on their own, I think I prefer Kubrick - the silly idea of putting Quilty's murder first and ending on that flashback notwithstanding. Lyne's version does stick much closer to the novel, and also has the definite advantage of being made in a time when it was possible (if not acceptable) to film the original story; it doesn't try to sanitize "Lolita" by making Lo older and removing any non-subtextual sexuality. I'm not sure exactly what Lyne is trying to do with the movie, though; it's either made to really subvert the viewer, force the viewer into Humbert's head and see Lo as he does, or a sign that Lyne hasn't bothered to delve past the first layer of the book. IMO, it manages to make Humbert a lot more sympathetic and than the book ever did. HH in the book is a complete asshole at times, but as great an actor as Jeremy Irons is, he simply seems like, well, generally a nice guy with an unfortunate pendant for underage girls. The movie is beautifully shot and acted, and even if it does leave out one or two crucial plot elements (the speech Quilty is forced to read) I really liked it - but it comes across more as a movie version of the book than a movie in its own right.
Kubrick's movie, on the other hand, stands better on its own. James Mason isn't as good an actor as Irons, but the script makes him a better HH: a paranoid, repressed, sad old man. The movie has more of a sense of humour - Sellers' endless riffing distracts a bit, but he is perfect for the Quilty role as it's written here, and Mason knows that HH is a pathetic creep. Kubrick tells the story straight, and the role of Lo herself is more understated, more realistic than Lyne's - the age problem aside. The movie is fun in a way that Lyne's version isn't, even if it's neutered by what it can show. (Oh, and the ridiculous idea of
having Lo survive at the end. WTF? That's the whole POINT! She dies! He ruined her life, and neither of them survived it!
)
The main problem, for both movies, is Clare Quilty. What to do with him. It's the same problem as with any time you try to film the unreliable narrator: once you show something on the screen, it has happened. In the book, he's a spectre; you can decide for yourself if he exists or not, but both Lyne and Kubrick seem to eventually decide (Kubrick a LOT sooner) that yes, Quilty exists. Kubrick has him pop up like a jack-in-a-box every 10 minutes, making him a completely unrealistic but amusing character, and the ending makes a lot more sense that way (even if he does put the ending first). Lyne, on the other hand, does a beautiful job of keeping him in the shadows... until that completely over-the-top execution scene. In that way, Kubrick seems more honest to his version, whereas Lyne can't seem to make up his mind. I would love to see "Lolita" filmed by... oh, Jarmusch or Cronenberg or anyone who really knows how to do the subjective-reality thing.
That said, I liked both versions. Not masterpieces, but as movie adaptations of an unfilmable book go, very good.
What a heartening thought, beer good -- folks are going to continue to try to translate this novel to film for eternity. Gives one continued reason to live, I say. Thanks for the excellent reviews.
May I ask why you couldn't get past the first five pages? Was it the language or the content? As a mom, the content of Lolita was tough to deal with emotionally, but I think it's a topic we must force ourselves to confront in order to better protect our children and those around us.
I'm interested too. Was it the writing or the subject matter that put you off after just five pages, Dork?
(Fortunately for all of us, abc, Humbert Humberts are not plentiful upon the ground -- although I have to agree with you that there are plenty of regular perverts to go around and that, at times, these appear to abound beyond a normal person's reasonable expectations.)
Welcome
to BookAndReader! 
