Urban Cinefile
"Clark Gable was coming out of the MGM gate with his arms full of stuff from his dressing room and only the cop at the gate said goodbye "  -Rod Taylor on his early days in Hollywood
 The World of Film in Australia - on the Internet Updated Tuesday December 3, 2019 

Search SEARCH FOR A FEATURE
Our Review Policy OUR REVIEW POLICY
Printable page PRINTABLE PAGE

Help/Contact

LOLITA

WITHOUT A GENDER AGENDA ?
The Office of Film & Literature Classification is this week pondering what to do with Lolita: but in the meantime, the film is also being questioned over its perceived political incorrectness from a feminist point of view, to ANDREW L. URBAN’S dismay.

When Jeremy Irons attended a Q &A after a media screening of Lolita in Sydney (Feb 18, 1999) at Planet Hollywood, most of the 20 minutes was taken up by an exchange between one female journalist and Irons. She was questioning the film’s feminist credentials with reference to its point of view, to its visual style (too romantic and lyrical), to its portrayal of the women as suffering no pain - and the male protagonist portrayed in a way to seek our sympathy, etc.

"The two male figures... are not great male role models"

Irons answered her questions with well mannered and well articulated, thoughtful responses. He pointed out that the story was seen from Humbert’s point of view, of course, because it was written in the first person in Nabokov’s novel. But Irons disagreed that only Humbert felt pain: his actions ruined both the lives of the central characters. (As well as the mother’s and Quilty’s, of course.)

Had there been time I would have been tempted to ask why we had to endure (yet another) a film in which men are the ones made to look like bastards. Glad I didn’t, because it would have been a facetious remark, rather than a genuine question; but if I had, I would have pointed out that the two male figures – Humbert and Quilty – are not great male role models, after all. Humbert is an emotionally crippled middle aged man who has sexual relations with a minor. Quilty is an amoral and pitiful sexual eccentric.

I deduce from Irons’ remarks that he, like myself, regard women as equal. Women do not have an exclusive claim to impeccable morals, or indeed pain. Women, too, can be sinners. I suspect it is Lolita’s self-serving complicity in the affair that triggers such a negative reaction (perhaps subconsciously).

"A beautifully made portrait of an impossible love"

Maybe the said female journalist could take a moment to catch up with illustrious writer Erica Jong’s review in the New York Observer: "A brilliant, politically incorrect movie. A beautifully made portrait of an impossible love. . . It shows the stark contrast between obsession and love. . . Lolita is an elegy to lost love, not an exploitation movie. . . Mr Lyne has come smack up against the same misunderstandings that bedeviled Nabokov in the 50s."

In 1988, Jong recounted the book’s difficult passage to publishing fame in the New York Times. Nabokov began writing what was to become Lolita in 1939, as a novella in Russian, titled Volshebnik - The Enchanter. The following year he and his wife Vera and son Dimitri, migrated to America. He didn’t finish the novel until 1954, when the MSS was rejected by four of the major publishing houses. It was a French publisher* Olympia Press, who gave it a run (a cautious 5,000 copies or so) – in English. The novel was debated in the British Cabinet but publication proceeded without legal impediment. But a New Zealand ban came later.

In 1955, Graham Greene, writing in The Times, pronounced it one of the three best novels of the year, effectively ensuring its ultimate success, with publication in Britain, US and Canada. The book made it to No 1 on the New York Times best-seller lists in January 1959, six months after it US publication.

"is not a film that will corrupt its viewers"

Lolita – talking about the film now – is not a film that will corrupt its viewers; if anything, it serves as a warning to anyone who contemplates embarking on an affair with a minor. Lyne’s film deserves at least to be seen - and preferably with no gender agenda.

Email this article

See Andrew L. Urban's interview with director
ADRIAN LYNE







© Urban Cinefile 1997 - 2019