Lolita (1997)

Although tonally Stanley Kubrick’s black-and-white adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s famous 1960 novel 'Lolita' about a university professor’s infatuation with a 12-year old “nymphet” is truer to the original text, Adrian Lyne’s version is the better film.

Both directors had the problem of how to deal with the unabashed paedophila of Nabokov's text and both respond in a similar fashion – by making Lo a little older – 15 in Kubrick’s case, 14 in Lyne’s.  But whilst Kubrick was restrained by late 1950s morality Lyne takes full advantage of changed values to give full rein to the story’s erotic, scopophilic potential even to the point that one feels more than a tad uneasy .

Whereas Sue Lyon has been the weakest aspect of ’62 version. Dominique Swain (who was 15 at the time) does a very good, even at times remarkable, job of representing Humbert’s fantasy. Irons has made a career playing dignified Englishmen but whilst as Humbert his reserve is undone catastrophically he is not as good a fit for the part as was James Mason who seems to be born for the role.  Even more disappointing, a miscast Melanie Griffith doesn’t hold a candle to Shelley Winters’ “the Haze woman”. On the other hand Frank Langella is a more effective Quilty than was Sellers, giving the character a more suitable sleazy quality.

Much of what works comes down to the directing and overall Lyne’s is impressive with the ocassional bravura touch whilst the cinematography, production design and Ennio Morricone’s resonant score all combine into a stylish, provocative  package.
.
Whilst neither film captures Nabokov’s intricate word-smithing, which one prefers as a screen adaptation is down to personal preference. One thing for sure, however, it is not a film one that could be made these days.  

 

Want something different?