Well sorry for the lack of posts this month, holidays and all if that's a viable excuse. My 90s research has come to something of a complete halt while I play catch up with 2010 releases. I've seen quite a bit this year, and anticipate that I may in fact get a top ten list done before the year ends, so go ahead an pat me on the back, but I understand if you would rather wait until you can see it. I didn't think the decade lists would take anywhere near as long as they did, and will take longer still. Unfortunately the more films I see from a decade the more I have to revisit to "double check" and well it just makes it more complicated. So continuing on, here's another Kubrick review to tide you over for the holidays, and perhaps this time next week I'll have my top 10 of 2010 ready to go.
Lolita (1962)
Well now controversy is something that has floated around Stanley Kubrick throughout his career. The fiasco of Spartacus was bad enough, having most of his film brutally cut to appease censors and virtually deny the very essence of the work. Following it up, Kubrick however chose to tackle the era's most popular, and by far most controversial book, Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Nabokov's book was remarkably successful, but the common perception was that it was completely unfilmable. At this point in time the production code was still in effect (it would be another few years before the GMRX system was put in place), and how on earth could you make a movie about a middle aged man's love affair with a "nymphet" as Nabokov named them? The answer seemed to be impossible, and many critics of the time held that opinion when they saw the final product. Nabokov, despite being the only credited screenwriter was likewise disappointed with the resulting film, and accused Kubrick of running rampant with his original idea.
The truth is, the film is largely faithful to the book. Most of the plot points are there, albeit some things were trimmed for length (the film is already a whopping 153 minutes). However there weren't any particularly large changes, with one exception. Naturally the film had to use some clever cuts and trimmings to make it street legal, but one rule of the old code was sinners needed to be punished, and particularly a murder in cold blood had to somehow be avenged, an unofficial “eye for an eye” rule if you will. In this regard I almost cringed at the end when the epilogue states (in titles) that Humbert Humbert died of a coronary while awaiting trial. How else would he have been narrating this? I also might have to fault Kubrick (or Nabokov) for the sporadic use of narration. The book was written entirely in a first person tone, and although all the scenes in this film take place from Humbert's viewpoint, his commentary and narration are extremely sparse. Also the mingled language of French verses periodically thrown in is completely excised from the film, a change that I don't particularly object to.
The casting is absolutely perfect. Shelly Winters shines extremely well as the vulgar, boisterous, and criminally unrefined Charlotte Haze. True to her character, Kubrick sets her up early as she butchers the pronunciations of all the artists recreations she has in her bedroom. James Mason typically delivered stellar performances, but aside from perhaps Bigger Than Life he has never had a better opportunity to shine than he does here. This is the first time Kubrick worked with Peter Sellers, and like their future collaboration in Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick is giving Sellers free reign to create as many interesting and quirky characters as he can. Nearly every time Quilty is on camera he is under a different guise and using a different voice. Aside from that I think Sellers completely captures the character as he was in the book, and the same can be said for the rest of the cast.
Kubrick's scale was remarkably smaller on this film after the mega-budgeted Spartacus, and I always chuckle in the beginning when Quilty refers to himself as "I am Spartacus, come to free the slaves". I'm not sure who the credit for this line can be given, but it certainly deserves a nice chuckle. This inside joke is one that permeates the film and its numerous references to Hollywood (which were included in the book as well). Ironic then that this being the only film of Kubrick's to directly mention Hollywood was the first film he made outside of the US. Lolita began Kubrick's British exile, where he would remain making films for the rest of his extremely brilliant career. The nature of the story however, allows Kubrick to take quite a scenic road trip, as the film bounces all over the place.
Kubrick's style that began being cultivated from his first feature is even more accomplished here. The Haze household is first shown in an Ophuls like tracking shot that obliterates walls and defies ordinary perception. Perhaps it calls attention to the house being a set, and therefore artificial, but it makes for an impressive introduction. Kubrick was already getting to be well known for his tracking shots, and this film supplies quite a few of them, setting up one of the modern trends in film making to open with a long shot. The economics of it are there, but Kubrick never being a director to call attention to economics, sets the shot up more as a breakdown of the geography of the house itself. True to form, his style of shooting, was one already evident in many director’s work, making it yet another playfully self aware reference when Lolita complains about European films.
One of the things that I felt was easier to grasp here in the movie rather than the book was the similarities between Charlotte and Lolita. Humbert makes a reference to how Charlotte resembled Lolita at that age in the book, but here acting takes over. The tantrums of Lolita's are done almost exactly like Charlotte's outbursts. The two lose their temper consistently and when they do you can almost sense that they are the same woman just at different ages. This is due to fantastic work from both Winters and Lyon. I must also commend Mason for his complete naiveté during the early scenes when Charlotte is trying to seduce him. He plays it so clueless and "European" that you have to laugh. I wasn't sure exactly how to take his blatant chuckling at Charlotte's "Confession". Sure the letter was ridiculous, but perhaps his contempt for her was being made overly clear, and the loud laughing was a touch overdoing it.
The film is a disintegration, just like that of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. The film progresses and Humbert gradually loses grip on everything. At first he is well responsible and marries into the family still very much in control. Despite Charlotte's domineering personality, he very clearly is able to dictate how things should be in the house. However when he becomes under Lolita's spell he is hopeless. He gives into every one of her whims and charms, and of course his jealousy is his natural downfall. It is steady however, and his casual loss of control isn't completely culminated. In the novel it is after Quilty is murdered that he drives his car off the road and is found by the police. Kubrick ends the film before this, allowing him to be slightly redemptive in his murder. It is clear though when he begs Lolita to come back with him and starts crying when she says no that he has reached the end of his rope. As if to throw one more character trait in, I laugh as Lolita shouts out "Let's keep in touch huh?" after getting the money from Humbert. Lolita is a film that could have very well been one of the all time greats, but unfortunately suffers only slightly by the constraints of the time, and what I feel is a miscommunication between the director and writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment