What a difference 35 years makes.......the time elapsed between Stanley Kubrick's version of the incendiary Vladimir Nabakov novel and Adrian Lyne's version.
There's no contest between which film sticks forever in the memories of cinema archivists and which one's long forgotten, barely remembered by anyone.
Kubrick's version, infused with cold, cruel satire and the comedy stylings of Peter Sellers, stood the test of time.
Lyne's film stayed as close to the novel in ways Kubrick couldn't dare to. It fully envisioned the story as the saddest, most perverse romance ever told, coated in lush, sun-dappled cinematography and topped off with an aching, mournful Ennio Morricone score.
And hardly anyone saw it when it arrived in the U.S. and hardly anyone remembers it today. While it lacked that cutting edge brilliance and diamond hard ironic aloofness we'd come to expect from Stanley Kubrick, Lyne's traditional, earnest view of the material came with stunning, underappreciated performances by his film's two leads.
While only at the dawn of the 1960's era of increasing permissiveness, Kubrick could do little or nothing to translate the book's twisted eroticism without danger of being arrested. But you could sense that part of "Lolita" held little interest for him anyway. Humbert Humbert's destruction of himself and Lolita became rendered as an expansive cosmic joke, one long American road trip to hell. You can almost hear Kubrick softly snickering at it under his breath.
It certainly bore little resemblance to the novel, but Kubrick knew how to make the story's dark, ultra provocative premise digestible and entertaining to a mainstream audience. (Not to mention keep himself and everybody involved in the film out of jail.......)
Decades later, Adrian Lyne (of "Fatal Attraction", "Indecent Exposure" and "Flashdance") free of restraints affecting Kubrick, could do the unimaginable - graphically depict the tragic annihilation of Lolita's childhood at the hands of the obsessed, pathetic Humbert (as superbly played by Jeremy Irons.)
Furthermore, the director could render Lolita as fully realized character. 15 year old Dominque Swain more than matched Jeremy Irons with her own nuanced performance, constantly mood swinging from teasing seductress to volatile, impulsive adolescent. Through it all she never lets you forget for one second that Lolita's the most victimized child ever created for literature and films.
To watch both films back to back (as we did) provides amazing comparisons......to the times in which they were made and to the styles and intentions of the directors who made them.....
Very different experiences........as if viewing two films produced on different planets......but we found each of them a worthy 4 star (****) experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment