The Kubrick Series #7: Lolita

THE KUBRICK SERIES #7

LOLITA

The tagline for Lolita perfectly sums it up, frankly: how did they ever make a movie of Lolita? Or more appropriately, how did they ever make a movie of Lolita in the 1960s? Perhaps no other filmmaker would've dared attempt to tackle a cinematic adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial classic novel but Stanley Kubrick. Some have even come to regard Lolita as the first true Kubrick film, in the sense that no one else could've made Lolita but Stanley Kubrick and containing many of the trademarks one will find in his later films (dark and ironic humor, exploration of the human condition etc). I don't know if I agree with that statement a hundred percent, but it can't be denied how much Lolita truly feels like somebody's unique vision rather than someone who's a work for hire.

James Mason as Humbert and Sue Lyon as the titular Lolita.

Perhaps Lolita could be seen as Kubrick's response to his less-than-enjoyable experience working on the relatively safe yet successful studio picture Spartacus. Despite the success of said film, Kubrick felt disenchanted from Hollywood and was determined do make his own projects his own way with total creative control and seeked out material which could a complete 180-turn and tackle something completely different and risky. And what could be more risky than tackle a novel were hebephilia is THE central element in the story, whilst also containing references to rape and incest. Well that was Kubrick's intention when he read Nabokov's controversial yet successful novel. Kubrick and James B. Harris (his producing partner) bought the movie rights to Lolita, and commissioned Nabokov with writing the script. However, just like Dan Aykroyd when he wrote The Blues Brothers, Nabokov had no previous screenwriting experience, and as Harris put it so bluntly "you couldn't make it. You couldn't lift it!", which forced Kubrick and Harris to perform drastic rewrites of the film, although Nabokov would receive sole credit. Casting also proved difficult, probably because of the material, but eventually they got James Mason to play Humbert, and Kubrick found his Lolita in the form of Sue Lyon, who was 14 at the time of filming. With exception from a few shots, the majority of Lolita would be shot in England. This would mark a great change in pace in Kubrick's filmmaking, since he would make England his new home and shoot the majority of his subsequent films there.

Kubrick having some fun on the set of Lolita.

In case you don't know, the story of Lolita revolves around Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged English literature professor who moves to the United States to become a lecturer at a college. Before moving to the college, he decides to spend the summer in New Hampshire at the household of the recently widowed Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her teenage daughter Dorothy, also known by her nickname Lolita (Sue Lyon). Humbert becomes completely infatuated with Lolita, and does whatever it takes in order ot stay with her. After a series of events (none of which I'll spoil), Humbert ends up as Lolita's caretaker and it looks like he finally has her in his hands. However, also competing for Lolita's affections is famous tv-playwright Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers), who dons several disguises throughout the film in order to get closer to Lolita and separate her from Humbert.

If Kubrick's later work can be dismissed for focusing too much on machines or evil or intellect rather than real human beings, then Lolita can surely be seen as his most character-driven film. In fact, I'd say the real strenght of Lolita lies in its performances and the characters. Mason is quite excellent and, dare I say, perfect in the part of Humbert. He perfectly exhumes an exterior confidence and intellect that makes you trust and like him as a viewer, whilst also harboring great darkness, manipulation and awkwardness on the inside, all of which become displayed throughout the film. Sue Lyon is equally effective as Lolita, and is more than capable of holding her own against such heavy-hitters that are featured in the cast. She proves to be just as intelligent and manipulative as all the adults in the film and you're never in doubt of her talent. Shelley Winters is also remarkable as the lustful widower Charlotte Haze, who grows to be more nagging and more of a torment for Humbert as the story goes along. I suppose the real standout is Peter Sellers who plays playwright Clare Quilty, who dons a fascinating and distinct yet believable American accent (apparently modeled after Kubrick's own New York accent). He also dons several disguises throughout the film in order to win Lolita's heart, making him just as slimey as Humbert, and in a way, serves as Humbert's direct contrast as someone who has everything that Humbert doesn't.

From top to bottom: James Mason, Sue Lyon, Shelley Winters and Peter Sellers.

Because of the Hays Code, a form of censorship based on Christian morals which started in the 1930s, Kubrick and Harris were forced to make drastic changes in their adaptation of the book. For instance, Lolita is described as being 12 in the book, whilst Lyon was 14 when filming started, yet her exact age is never stated in the film. By making her character older and more sexually mature, one could see it as an effort on Kubrick's and Harris' part to make Humbert's obsession over Lolita more "acceptable", which still seems futile when telling the story of a man falling in love with a teenage girl (but I suspect it was mostly done to please the Hays Office). But the chore relationship between Humbert and Lolita is never explicitly stated as it is in the book and is instead done through suggestive imagery and innuendos. Another key element was to remove any references to Humbert's previous obsession over teenage girls from the book, and also removes any references to rape and incest which can be found in the book as well. They also greatly expanded Quilty's role from the book, but I'm honestly not complaining, and I don't think the film would be the same without Peter Sellers' performance.

By the way, did I mention this movie is also a comedy? Doing a comedy about pedophilia (although technically it's hebephilia) is quite odd, and perhaps that's why one could call Lolita Kubrick's first post-modern film. But the film itself is very funny, with most of the comedy coming from Mason's and Sellers' performances and the films multitude of innuendos, ranging from quite subtle to the most obvious. Here are some of my favorite moments in the film:

 Humbert is playing chess with Charlotte, and as Lolita kisses him goodnight, he says "I'll take your queen".

When at the party, a married couple approach Charlotte since they're old friends, and whilst the husband John is dancing with Charlotte, his wife Jean suggests to Humbert that they "switch partners". Mason's reaction to this line is priceless.

Probably the least-subtle, yet still very funny, name of Lolita's summer camp.

The film does feature some of Kubrick's trademark cinematography, with the movement of the actors acting in choreaography with the camera moves, often in long and unbroken takes, although the majority of the camerawork feels very relaxed and laidback in order to give more space for the characters. There's also some symbolic imagery (besides from aforementioned innuendos), with the big one (at least for me) being the opening credits, which is done to a shot of a female foot being painted by a male hand, which rather tastefully suggests the erotic nature of the film right from the get-go. There's also the image of the painting getting shot by Humbert. I think I understand the symbolism behind the shot (no pun intended). Humbert is shooting at Quilty for taking Lolita away from him, who tries to hide behind the painting of a young woman. Humbert fires, and in doing so perhaps he signals that he has given up on Lolita and other "nymphetes" as he refers them to, and needs to kill Quilty in order to get rid of this obsession.

The opening credits of Lolita.

The shot painting.

Despite all the controversy surrounding the book and the film, the film was a big success at the box office, probably boosted by the controversy and the popularity of the book. The critical reception was mixed to positive, and over the years it has grown in stature, like most of Kubrick's films. Kubrick himself however later assessed that if he had realized how severe and tough the censorship was going to be on the film, he probably wouldn't have made the film in the first place. Having never read Lolita myself I can't comment, but I can imagine that's why Adrian Lyne attempted a remake in 1997 with Jeremy Irons as Humbert, since quite a lot had changed in terms of movie censorship. But I haven't seen the remake, so I can't really tell weather or not it did a more successful job at adapting the book. One can always ask the question if one could ever properly adapt Lolita, but that's a question I leave for people who have actually read the book.

Lolita is not my personal favorite Kubrick film (sorry David Lynch), although I know it has many admirers. But I certainly don't think it's a bad, in fact I'd say it's a great film, just not up to the standard of his later films. And I still like the characters, the comedy of which there is plenty, and the story is certainly interesting. But I feel like this was the movie that Kubrick needed to do after Spartacus, and if the price to pay for the rest of Kubrick's rich filmography is one that doesn't quite meet the standard of his later work, then I'm glad Lolita exists.

To be continued with: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)