Lolita Review
by Luis Canau (Luis DOT Canau AT mail DOT EUnot DOT pt)November 19th, 1997
Lolita
Directed by Adrian Lyne
USA/France, 1997
C - 137 min.
Cast: Jeremy Irons, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella, Dominique Swain, Suzanne Shepherd, Keith Reddin, Erin J. Dean, Kathryn Peterson, Muse Watson
Humbert Humbert (Irons) is a British teacher coming to the US. When he visits the house of Charlotte Haze (Griffith), when considering to rent a room, he only decides to stay after seeing her young daughter, Dolores, better known as Lolita (Swain), for whom he his immediately attracted. The 12-year-old girl - who will prove to know much more than what is normal for her age, in what concerns the ways of the world - not only seems to correspond, but she encourages that feeling. Humbert does everything to be close to the nymphet, even pretending to like her mother, whom he, in fact, detests. The man and the precocious little girl go on a sinful journey across the United States, followed by someone, whom we know from the beginning to be Clare Quilty (Langella). Lolita becomes an obsession for Humbert, and she takes advantage of it in the pursuing of her interests.
Much ado about nothing. It's predictable that, when the movie will be released in the US or in the UK (if...?), there will be a general feeling of deception. The movie is bad, and all this expectations, created around it, this senseless polemic, only make things worse for a viewer seeing the movie after hearing too much about it. Ironically, the story is about a precocious girl who dominates completely an older man. It is not about a man taking advantage of the "innocence" or the "inexperience" of his stepdaughter. Technically, of course, it is child abuse, but nothing prevents a movie with this subject to be good ("Lolita", 1962). The exaggerated morality behind the problems the movies has to find distributors, should also be reflected in other subjects. Murder, for instance. Distributors should also avoid movies with people being killed. Homicide is a crime and morally reprehensible world-wide.
The recent American "Child Pornography Act", similar, in its intentions, to a law already existing in the UK, forces cuts in mere representations of sexual acts with the participation of minors. This means that body-doubles can't be used, not even by digitally superimposing the head of a child in the body of a full grown and responsible woman, paid only to expose her body (which is, undoubtedly, a very amusing idea).
This "Lolita" isn't subtle like Kubrick's. The sinful actions are called by their names, and in spite of being said that this (European) version was re-cut according to the aforementioned law, there are, in fact, sex sequences, even if very innocently shot (from the neck up, for instance), and there are others with sexual provocation from the naughty minor. Besides that, there are still some shots with nudity, using a body-double, filmed in a very frenetically way, to avoid showing her face. We can rest assured that Dominique Swain's constitutional and legal rights were fully respected, and, even a bad screening (film not properly covered on the projector) proves it, when she takes off her blouse remaining "protected".
In the US, the MPAA rated the movie R for "aberrant sexuality, a strong scene of violence, nudity and some language". Fair enough. The strong scene of violence and the nudity must be related with Frank Langella running naked.
The movie is one of the greatest sleeping pills recently shown. About two hours and fifteen minutes of suffering, from a movie that seems to try to be as pretentious and kitsch as it can. Irons voice off doesn't help in telling the story, or in drawing the characters contours. Only tries to give some irritating "poetic" sentences. Even if it is more faithful to the original Vladimir Nabukov novel - as his son, Dmitri, also admitted - the narrative doesn't flow naturally. It isn't always important, or enough, to "respect" a book. Kubrick's movie had the script signed by Nabokov, but Kubrick used his personal vision (as always) to put it on the screen.
Adrian Lyne takes care of Melanie Griffith ASAP. This is probably the most unbearable part of her career. The characters lack some shades of grey. They are very direct, and don't seem to hide any bit of their personalities, which, in the case of Lolita, would be important. Irons is, again, the tortured, suffering man, feeling a love beyond his control, that he used us in one too many films, as "Damage", "M. Butterfly", or even, in a way, "Dead Ringers". Swain doesn't seem to know what she is really doing, or the ambiguity her role should have. But, well, she's a minor, and can't be responsible.
The director tries to show some of the sensuality that turns Humbert's head around, which is something not quite necessary, since we understand he's totally caught by her, since he first sees her. Still, Lyne uses, ad nauseam, shots of Dominique Swain with her legs above something (normally a table), to show her panties (who knows if the wrong projection helped on this?) He also gives a 'thriller treatment' to some sequences, like when filming near the floor, following characters ankles while they're running (they seem to run from a psychopath), or in a nightmarish scene, with distorted image (but with a nice sound design). This might look better in "Fatal Attraction" or something, but seems artificial in this movie.
In spite of not intended to, "Lolita" provides some good laughs. The sequence of the revenge against Quilty is one good example.
* 1/2
(out of 5)
Try a Portuguese version of this text, better written (hopefully), on http://home.eunet.pt/id005098/cinedie/lolita.htm
______
© 1997
Luis Canau___________________________________________________________ <[email protected]>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (in Portuguese) P r o - w i d e s c r e e n _____________________________________________________________________
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
