Reading Books

Has anybody read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov?

No, just seen the movie adaptation...

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Cool! I never realised Lolita was a book (Run Lolita Run). I am told by a very good friend that it is a good movie, and that I'd like it, so I'm going to check it out. If you have to post what you thought of it. ^^

*alarmed* No! No!!

"Lolita" is totally different from the German film: "Run Lola Run"/ "Lola Rennt".

There are 2 versions of Lolita adapted from novel to film:
a)one by Stanley Kubrick in 1962 (this is the more "famous" version that most of us would know about) : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/
b)the other one is made in 1997, starring Jeremy Irons as the Professor: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/

Run Lola Run:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130827/

:) sorry, for a film buff like me, I just can’t resist correcting this.

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

b)the other one is made in 1997, starring Jeremy Irons as the Professor: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/

I don't know the Kubrick version. I only know the one with Irons. How's the Kubrick one like?

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

It is one of the very few black and white films that I can stand watching multiple times.

Mainly it has to do with the script (which is written by Nabokov himself), that condenses the book’s funniest moments and some good film editing. I think in terms of mood, this Kubrick one is that of a dark comedy (possibly to steer clear of the controversy such a film topic on nymphet-obsession can ensue), hence stands independent of the book. It is snappy and everyone gets good lines. Even some corny slapstick actions (if u ever watch it, my fav.one is at the hotel with the porter, Humbert and the unopenable foldable bed). However, if u r into accuracy, the updated Lolita (1997) is closer in spirit to the book (slanted towards Humbert’s descent) hence more disturbing, not funny (brooding, rather) and slower.

Being shallow, I naturally prefer the 1997 version of the more handsome Jeremy Irons as Humbert and the more leggy Dominique Swain as Lolita. But in Kubrick’s, Shelly Winters was just too good as Lolita’s needy mother and Peter Sellers is irreplaceable as the chamelon-like Quilty.

Moreover, one of the most sensual scenes (my guy frens call it erotic, oh well) I ever encountered on film is in the beginning sequence of Kubrick’s Lolita. Right at the start: after the trademark MGM lion roars, opening credits start to roll (the title, the director’s name bla bla bla), the screen stays static and just shows you the hands of a man and the foot of a girl. He’s holding her foot and starts to paint her toenails, one by one. In the background, the main theme of Lolita plays for a full 3 minutes +, while he slowly paints her toenails. There’s a strong sense of languid sensuality about that image, but I just can’t figure out why it works so well. Cos it is afterall shot in black and white and you don’t see the Humbert and Lolita, just his hands and her foot. Hmm, yeah, I’m still trying to figure it out :)

Whereas in the updated Lolita (1997), altho more accurate, I find this sort of sensuality strangely missing (despite having so many slow scenes!!) which is a pity, cos that's an essential part of the story.

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Yes, I have read Lolita.

I am curious as to how you would like to discuss this book :).

- do u want to compare Lolita to an arguably-similar-but-with-entirely-different-outcome book like: The Lover / Amant by Marguerite Duras
- Or do you prefer to talk abt Lolita in the “Great American Novel by Non-American” context (which I wouldn’t know enough to contribute cos I’ve only read 5 of Nabokov’s bks out of his entire body of work. So sorry!)
- Or of how Clare Quilty is perhaps Humbert’s alter ego
- Or on the idea of obsession or manipulation

Cos usually most people find it difficult to discuss Nabokov’s work, as there are many layers of complexity in his work. He’s rather fond of the parody device and literary allusions in writing and Lolita apparently alludes to more than 60 authors from English and French Literature (esp. since his protagonist, Humbert is a Prof in Lit). E.g. in Lolita, unless u r also a fan of Edgar Allen Poe and know that Poe in real life has a 12 yr old wife, you would not catch the drift why Humbert keeps referring to Poe throughout the book. And would probably miss the hint that Humbert was looking for a justification/ redemption (depending on perspective) for his actions, i.e. unlike the surface innocence of his narration, Humbert by quoting Poe (and a whole array of sublime literary precedents from the romantic tradition), he is in fact aware that he did a profane thing—he had robbed Lolita of her childhood. He knows that he is guiltier than Clare Quilty.

I found Alfred Appel Jr.’s “The Annotated Lolita” extremely useful in elucidating these “Nabokovian literature games” when I was reading Lolita. U might want to check it out :)

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.