'Lolita' is a controversial Stanley Kubrick film based on an even more controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov. Nabokov himself co- wrote the screenplay for the film along with Kubrick. The plot follows a European professor named Humbert Humbert who relocates to an American suburb. He rents a room from a lonely window Charlotte and then comes across her young teenage daughter Lolita. He ends up feeling an instant attraction towards Lolita. Humbert ends up marrying Charlotte with the sole intention of being close to Lolita and pursuing her. This attraction towards Lolita slowly and gradually becomes an obsession which engulfs Humbert and pushes him over the edge and into a state of paranoia and constant jealousy.
The original novel which I have not read, was considered to be a hugely controversial piece of work as the disturbing nature of the storyline was taboo and far too risqué for the fifties. The film could have been even more controversial as this was the adaptation of the controversial story on the screen in the visual medium. But Kubrick used interesting and subtle ways to hint and imply certain things without actually being explicit about them. I think I noticed an underlying theme of two cultures coming into contact. There is Humbert who is the European who goes to America to find a home and work. He comes across an overly sexed up society of the upper-middle class, but he is only interested in the young Lolita. In a twisted way, Humbert's obsession for Lolita could have been used to symbolise the European immigrant's desperate attempt to own and be a part of America's future. The atmosphere and environment that surrounds the characters is messed up and filled with lust and greed and manipulation. Every character is pursuing someone else with a fair share of lust, but it is Humbert's pursuit of Lolita that gets the attention because of her age. A sex crazed and obnoxious society similar to this one was also present in 'A Clockwork Orange', another Kubrick film.
Having said all that, overall I don't think the film is supposed to be analysed and scrutinised so minutely. Kubrick treats Nabokov's story almost like a comedy. There are so many sexual innuendos and euphemisms which will remind you of sex comedies like 'American Pie' and 'Eurotrip', there is a significant amount of slapstick comedy, there are the antics of Peter Sellers,etc. All the aforementioned things makes me believe that this was meant to be a comedy even though it deals with pedophilia, a very sensitive and disturbing issue.
I think Kubrick's career as a filmmaker can be divided into 2 parts: the pre Dr. Strangelove era and the post Dr. Strangelove era. I think from Dr. Stangelove onwards, Kubrick managed to distinguish himself from the other filmmakers and created his signature Kubrick style. Along with Dr. Strangelove, all the subsequent films that he directed can be easily identified as Kubrick films just by looking at any random scene. 'Lolita' is a film from the pre Dr. Strangelove era of Kubrick's filmography and so it does not have that distinctive Kubrick touch and feel that all of us love. The only film that he made before Dr. Strangelove that I love is 'Paths of Glory'. 'Lolita' is a good film, but it didn't have that wow factor that you get from other Kubrick films. Kubrick tells the story well, but the style is very reminiscent of the other Hollywood films of the late 50s and early 60s. It didn't have a lasting impact on me. It's a very standard noir-ish film, the likes of which became very popular during that era of Hollywood filmmaking.
To finish, I will have to say that 'Lolita' is certainly not one of Kubrick's best films. It is technically well made, the plot moves briskly and the pacing is good as for a 2 hour 30 minutes long film, it didn't seem to overstay its welcome and it has a good performance from James Mason. However, it didn't overwhelm me and it didn't linger in my thoughts for too long. It's good, but not 'Kubrick good'.
The original novel which I have not read, was considered to be a hugely controversial piece of work as the disturbing nature of the storyline was taboo and far too risqué for the fifties. The film could have been even more controversial as this was the adaptation of the controversial story on the screen in the visual medium. But Kubrick used interesting and subtle ways to hint and imply certain things without actually being explicit about them. I think I noticed an underlying theme of two cultures coming into contact. There is Humbert who is the European who goes to America to find a home and work. He comes across an overly sexed up society of the upper-middle class, but he is only interested in the young Lolita. In a twisted way, Humbert's obsession for Lolita could have been used to symbolise the European immigrant's desperate attempt to own and be a part of America's future. The atmosphere and environment that surrounds the characters is messed up and filled with lust and greed and manipulation. Every character is pursuing someone else with a fair share of lust, but it is Humbert's pursuit of Lolita that gets the attention because of her age. A sex crazed and obnoxious society similar to this one was also present in 'A Clockwork Orange', another Kubrick film.
Having said all that, overall I don't think the film is supposed to be analysed and scrutinised so minutely. Kubrick treats Nabokov's story almost like a comedy. There are so many sexual innuendos and euphemisms which will remind you of sex comedies like 'American Pie' and 'Eurotrip', there is a significant amount of slapstick comedy, there are the antics of Peter Sellers,etc. All the aforementioned things makes me believe that this was meant to be a comedy even though it deals with pedophilia, a very sensitive and disturbing issue.
I think Kubrick's career as a filmmaker can be divided into 2 parts: the pre Dr. Strangelove era and the post Dr. Strangelove era. I think from Dr. Stangelove onwards, Kubrick managed to distinguish himself from the other filmmakers and created his signature Kubrick style. Along with Dr. Strangelove, all the subsequent films that he directed can be easily identified as Kubrick films just by looking at any random scene. 'Lolita' is a film from the pre Dr. Strangelove era of Kubrick's filmography and so it does not have that distinctive Kubrick touch and feel that all of us love. The only film that he made before Dr. Strangelove that I love is 'Paths of Glory'. 'Lolita' is a good film, but it didn't have that wow factor that you get from other Kubrick films. Kubrick tells the story well, but the style is very reminiscent of the other Hollywood films of the late 50s and early 60s. It didn't have a lasting impact on me. It's a very standard noir-ish film, the likes of which became very popular during that era of Hollywood filmmaking.
To finish, I will have to say that 'Lolita' is certainly not one of Kubrick's best films. It is technically well made, the plot moves briskly and the pacing is good as for a 2 hour 30 minutes long film, it didn't seem to overstay its welcome and it has a good performance from James Mason. However, it didn't overwhelm me and it didn't linger in my thoughts for too long. It's good, but not 'Kubrick good'.