a) A poster for this movie was difficult to find even though it shows absolutely nothing explicit
b) This film does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT glorify or condone paedophilia, unlike what so many critics and do-gooders said upon the film's release.
-Sigh-
I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but when Adrian Lyne's re-telling of Vladimir Nabokov's novel was released, Australia wanted absolutely nothing to do with it, saying that it was a love letter to kiddy fiddlers and sickos in general. When I finally got to watch this movie a whole two years after it's initial banning due to the critics loosening their arses a little, I gotta say... was I watching the same movie as those folks because I couldn't see anything like that.
While this movie looks and sounds stunning with gorgeous photography and realistic production values, boasting a great cast, many surprisingly comedic moments and a sublime score by Ennio Morricone, at it's core, this is an ugly tale of a grown man wanting to touch forbidden fruit in the form of a 14 year old girl, yet simultaneously, this was a movie about a 14 year old girl KNOWINGLY coercing the grown man into an affair that would destroy them both.
Lyne, mostly known for Fatal Attraction is no stranger when it comes to telling a story about what happens when human beings who are wrong for each other get involved only to have their worlds unravel and leaving them with no redemption due to their stubborness and pride. In Lolita the relationship between Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) and Dolores Haze (a then 15-year old Dominique Swain) is doomed before they even meet- see, Humbert lost his childhood sweetheart due to typhus and ever since then, he has searched for the same girl, finding himself attracted to minors who he affectionally calls 'nymphets'. It just so happens, Dolores Haze, a precocious and knowing woman-child looks exactly like Humbert's lost love and against his better judgement, forms a relationship with her. Now this is pretty bad, but what makes it worse is that Dolores is not as pure as she appears and quickly sinks her claws into Humbert, knowing that if she wants anything, he has no choice but to give it.
I guess it's needless to say that both Irons and Swain deliver stellar performances, Swain in particular- this movie for all intents and purposes was her debut and she had all of the right notes for the character- scatter-brained, gum-chewing and playful one moment, knowing and manipulative little bitch the next. It really is a shame she hasn't had a notable career save for being Travolta's wayward daughter in Face/Off. It's a pity she has now been regulated to B and C movie fare.
Irons meanwhile really fits this role it's both pathetic and charming. Given Irons's talent he brings a humanity to the role which is frightening- he knows what he is doing is very wrong, but he can't help himself. Given we are seeing the story through his eyes, we have no choice but to go along with them, despite being a monster and for that matter an unreliable narrator. I also think he looked exceptionally handsome because he supposedly worked out for the role and the man has biceps I never thought he had.
I've heard from many that Melanie Griffith's role as Lolita's mother had gained a lot of criticism, but I think she worked fine- we are not meant to like the mother because this story is told in first person by Humbert.
Boomkat favourite Frank Langella is but a shadow for most of the movie, but he plays a darker equivalent to Humbert and when he does show up to work his magic, you feel it. Even when he isn't there later on the movie, his presence is. There is a truly bizarre and whacky scene with him and Irons at the end, but I won't spoil it- all I can say is that Langella was fearless in this movie despite his limited screentime. What an actor.
Okay, I know what you are all asking- IS there any sex scenes between Swain and Irons? NO! Obviously the film, unlike Kubrick's 1967 rendition is a lot more liberal when it comes to the taboo sexuality of the movie, but trust me- in no way was Swain involved in the raunchier scenes, it was her body double or else very clever photography.
Do I have any glaring gripes? No, not really. It is understandable that, by first glance, this looks like a dreamy love story, but Lyne is a master at showing tragedy under a seemingly romantic exterior- in this case, the dangers of paedeophilia and not following common decency. I also have no issue with the comedy because Nabokov injected plenty of gallow humour into his story and it translates very well here- the movie is chock-a-block with double meanings, puns and subliminal sight gags that you need to watch it a few times to catch all of them. Trust me- despite the taboo factor, this movie also works as a darker than dark comedy.
My final verdict? Watch this movie, at least once, screw what the naysayers think and make up your own mind. What you see is what you see, but remember- Humbert's words are his, and it's up to you if you believe them or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment