LOLITA

No, I am not talking about this film, I am talking about the reaction to this film and the cynical outpourings of the popular press and the mealy-mouthed complicity of film critics too cowardly or too bereft of any critical faculties to stand against the tide of reactionary and vacuous opposition to the very idea that people should even be allowed to discuss a difficult idea. Let’s face it, if this was the best film since Citizen Kane or Last Year in Marienbad or any of the other sacred cows of the cinema, no-one but no-one would dare to admit it for fear of being branded a child molester. How much nicer and safer it is to sweep it all under the table and pretend that Humbert Humbert is a vile fictional aberation who tells us nothing about the human condition and that, anyway, a jumped-up director of advertisements and soft porn could never do justice to Nabakov’s novel. Going to see this film is a political statement and I probably made a very bad mistake using my credit card to book the seats and even now MI5 is after me. (They already are but that’s a different story). Yes, my local multiplex really stuck its neck out by giving it one showing and I mean one. 7PM Wednesday night or not at all.

So, rants aside, what is this film like? Well it’s a million times better than Stanley Kubrick’s version which wouldn’t be difficult. I admit James Mason was good and so was Shelley Winters but you just can’t do an American road movie in Britain. Kubrick’s badly-judged, conservative and unfunny adaptation was frankly crap. Oops, rant mode approaching again. Let me try once more.

Adrian Lyne, formerly known for less than scintillating films such as Flashdance and Fatal Attraction, has done an excellent job of bringing Nabakov’s difficult and challenging novel to the screen. He has chosen to stick fairly closely to the original plot and he has managed to walk the difficult tightrope of balancing the story of Humbert Humbert’s obsession with the satire of American life observed. The production values are astonishingly high and would shame the sterile efforts of the average frock movie hack. I was utterly convinced that this was 1940’s America and the sets, the locations, the clothes, the props were all so believable I wanted to walk right into the film and live there. In fact this was probably also the film’s most vulnerable point – at times it looked so good that it could have been an advert.

The two leads are equally excellent. Jeremy Irons IS Humbert Humbert. James Mason was probably the right choice for the original film but in the late 90’s it is almost impossible to imagine anyone else in the part than Irons. He is the right age. He has the right air of naivete and doom and the gravity to deliver the lines required without sounding silly. In many ways it is the same character he played in "Damage" and indeed this has many resonances with "Damage". Dominque Swain is perfectly cast, having the look of a child and the look of a woman at the same time. Her acting is astonishingly good and she ought to go on to greater things if this film doesn’t ruin her like the first version ruined Sue Lyon’s career. And yes, she is incredibly sexy and yes, Adrian Lyne has gone out of his way to make her appear sexy often using low camera angles and lingering shots of her legs and shoulders and face and whatever else he could get away with to make the point. Why should this be a surprise? This is Humbert’s story and if the director can’t make us feel the passion that Humbert feels for Lolita then he wouldn’t be doing his job. Frank Langella must also get an honourable mention for his role as Quilty, a part badly misjudged by Kubrick when he cast Peter Sellers in the role.

The frightening thing about Humbert is not that he represents some mad perversion of the human soul but that he is a sympathetic representation of something that exists in all men. That is not to say that all men are mad rapists and maniacs but that to deny men ever have fantasies about younger women is to deny human nature. 99.99% of them will never try to act out their fantasies any more than 99.99% of us will ever act out our fantasy of assassinating Tony Blair. (Hello again MI5). The madness of this society is that it would rather sweep things under the carpet than discuss them in a calm manner. If you weren’t a child molester before you saw Lolita you won’t be one after you see it. Humbert Humbert is a sad lonely man who destroys what he most loves and this is clearly portrayed in the film.

If this film was not tangled up in the hysteria that passes for debate in modern society I have little doubt that Jeremy Irons and Dominque Swain should both be Oscar nominees. The film itself wouldn’t quite make it because it is a tad too perfect in places but it is still one of the best films of its year by a long long way.

As you know I don’t give badges like Mutt does but in this case I’ll make an exception. Lolita is a five star film. Go and see it.

Home | Reviews | Reputations | Contact the Lizard