Saying Yes To Kubrick’s “Lolita”

Cover of "Lolita"

Cover of Lolita

I have read only a chunk of Nabokov’s novel, Lolita, and thus cannot comment on it.  If it’s perverse, which I doubt, the 1962 Stanley Kubrick movie is not.  Sue Lyon‘s Lolita is fifteen or sixteen, not twelve, hence Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is not really a pedophile.  He is a debonair fool with whom we seldom sympathize, and it’s even slightly odd that he murders the abominable Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers).

The movie has nothing to say, whether the book does or not, although it is a human-condition tale.  And it holds our attention.  Sequences such as that in which Charlotte (Shelley Winters) perforce turns on Humbert are very sturdy.  Lolita is visually attractive and the acting is absorbing.  Mason, Winters and comically grotesque Sellers are genuine interpretive artists, and Sue Lyon is convincing as a rebellious lass willing to “love.”

Kubrick’s film is fine by me.


It's Do-Follow. Feel free to use your kewyword. If ya spam it. I'll probably can it. You dig?

Back in The Day
Welcome to my personal playground where I rant about, well, EVERYTHING. Feel free to connect with me on any of the major networking sites. I'm a friendly guy! Ya dig?
Tip Jar :)
Buy me a cup of coffee :)
Text Ad’s!