Metamorphoses of Lolita
Actually,
Pontalba, SFG, et al
I logged on because I just finished reading the article that
SFG75 mentioned some time back, with title approximately as given above, and thought I'd post while my thoughts are still freshly scrambled, and before they sort themselves out and get lost.
First of all, it is a fascinating article because it methodically provides detailed critiques and comparisons of all four of
Enchanter, Lolita, Kubrik's
Lolita and Lyne's
Lolita films. It is definitely a must read for anyone wanting to learn and appreciate more than what they can see with their own two eyes.
In addition to all that, the article has an extended historical analysis of the way society's view of the simple idea of "childhood" has evolved. For example, there once was no separate category called childhood. [!] And, coupled with that, the author discusses the different ways that society has connected, or not connected, the ideas of sexuality and children. The changes have been remarkable is the only summary statement I can make, except that you all should read it.
Finally the author exapnds on that theme to provide a historical overview of entertainment figures and how they have connected with the audience's continuing interest in youth and sexuality, from today's Japanese Manga comic figures, way back to actors and actresses whom only some of us barely remember.
Along the way the author mentions Kate Moss, who became the face of Calvin Klein in ads, and "sold clothing without clothing."
But I was especially glad to see, for the first time in print (to my eyes), a discussion of Shirley Temple's enormous popular appeal, and the role that barely hidden sexuality played in her popularity. I may have the title slightly wrong but in one of her movies, for example, as an approximate 8-yr-old she sang a coquettish song to a grown man called "I Want to Make Love to You" (And my ears definitely remember that the next line was "To you, and nobody else but you").
The author also mentions that every one of her movies included an obligatory scene where she scrambles up onto the lap of the gruff and crusty old man and completely melts his heart and his resistance (Sound familiar?). So lolitas go back a way, long before VN coined the term, and the author discusses how society has viewed that. The Appendices provide very nice pictures to illustrate all those who are mentioned in the text. For anyone interested in movies and other media this is a must read.
And, now, to tie it back explicitly to Lolita, the author describes each of the films and the acting in them and says that IHO each of them missed the mark of really capturing
Lolita the book, and that the outstanding Lolita film yet remains to be made. And, incidentally, he mentions some possible director's names. This part definitely for movie lovers.
He says the appeal of Lolita is
not captured by accurate fidelity to the book's word-for-word dialogue and scenes. The author maintains that the book's tremensous appeal is in its literary aesthetics (to maybe coin a poor phrase). In fact, the author distinguishes two types of readers: those who are atttracted by story, and those who are attracted by literary aspects of the writing. S/he further maintains that the former are the readers who are put off by the subject matter and have trouble finishing the book, while the latter can see beyond the subject matter to enjoy the book much more. That's just a difference
not a value judgement IMO!!!
So, all on all, it is a very enjoyble read, but not one that can be all absorbed in one sitting. Rereading is obviously a must. What else?
That was a great find
SFG!
Peder
