Lolita (62, Stanley Kubrick)

Whether it be Kubrick's virtuoso direction or Nabokov's involvement with the script, the fact remains that this edition of Lolita is almost pitch perfect as a filmic adaptation, at least as far as film in '62 is concerned. I maintain the idea that Lolita is a story that's only told properly as a novel, but as an adaptation (and in the mindset that holds Humbert's word as somewhat truth), you could do a lot worse. Then again, so much is lost with the shift in narration because the fun of the novel is how much Humbert screws with your head as the thing goes on and on, and a certain quality of that has to be lost with a filmic adaptation that takes a certain angle on the story (that Lolita's a nymphet brat that we shouldn't feel too sorry for). Those who complain about James Mason's age or something along those lines should bear in mind that so much is being altered that other elements being changed shouldn't really be hung upon. If nothing else, what Kubrick really nails is how hilarious the whole novel is. What he really misses is how damned creepy it is at the same time. Without that narration, you really miss moments like Humbert describing an obscene fantasy of impregnating Lolita in order to raise himself another nymphet and then continuing to do so for generations. The film ends up being a bit whimsy, which I guess explains the deletion of 3/4 of the second part of the novel. When you lose that, you also lose Nabokov's structural genius that starts the narrative as a build-up to the sex and then grinds down into a malaise as Humbert and Lolita tour the U.S. This means that although Kubrick really really nails their reunion perfectly, it's a moot point because the emotion's lost in the hustle of meeting standard feature pacing. I personally wished that the direction had been a bit more adventurous, but then again, for this interpretation of the novel, I think you'd have to look far and wide for a better adaptation. **** out've *****