Lolita (1962)

I first saw Kubrick's version of Lolita a couple of years back. I'd not read the book and I thoroughly enjoyed it, or as much as you can enjoy a film about a paedophile and his infatuation with his step daughter. Recently though, upon the recommendation of a friend of mine I decided to read the book. The book is wonderful, it's creepy, the language used is wonderful, it's funny and it paints a vulgar yet endearing picture of poor old Humbert Humbert. So it was with my new found knowledge of the source material that I decided to set sail down the rivers of Lolita once more and see how the film rated now I could compare it to something other than the later (and in my opinion lesser) Jeremy Irons version.

In case you didn't know, as I found when telling people about the book, many people aren't familiar with the story, Lolita is the tale of a professor who has a predilection for young girls. When he moves into a family home lodging there whilst teaching and writing, he encounters young Lolita, just 14 years old (12 in the book), he then sets about fantasising about this 'nymphet' who has caught his attention so, he marries the mother and eventually embarks on a love affair with the young daughter. It's not particularly easy to tell people this without them looking at you like you're a deviant yourself. However, whilst he is a sympathetic character, he's never the hero.

What I found most interesting about watching this for a second time was the fact that it was only upon second viewing that I noticed that there is never any mention of paedophilia or any real firm mention that Lolita and Humbert are embarking on an affair, it is all told through suggestion and word play, the fact that I did not notice this is a testament to Kubrick's skill. Yet despite this it receives a 15 rating and caused a stir when it was released. Anyway, what does the film lack. The film misses out Humbert's back story, you don't need to know it, and with a 150 minute running time, adding it would be pointless. You also miss out a lot of the humour, this was the biggest shame I thought about the film. The book is darkly funny, and had me in fits of giggles whilst reading it (humour that is hard to translate out of context) and a bit more humour in the film could have been a welcome break from the melodrama.

The cast are perfect in their roles. James Mason as the slightly sweaty, always charming and always stressed Humbert is exactly as described in the novel. Lolita changes her hair colour, but Sue Lyon captures the essence of the role perfectly, both manipulative and innocent in equal measure. Elsewhere Shelley Winters as Lolita's infatuated mother plays the part with gusto and you really feel for her by the end of it. Peter Sellers I'm not 100% convinced about as Clare Quilty. I imaged he would be slightly more serious, but as an actor and a playboy Sellers does a fantastic job, and within the context of the film he works well.

The thing that comes across best in this film is Humbert's sense of despair, nothing ever really seems to go his way, you see his pain and you genuinely feel for him. It's an odd feeling, but this is a great film, and when you watch it you will understand his pain, as taken out of the creepy context of paedophilia it's his heart that ultimately gets broken. Highly recommended, but check out the book too, as it is truly wonderful.