Monday Feb 06, 2006

0
LOLITA

I just came across an old journal entry about my reactions to starting the book, Lolita. I had already seen the '97 movie, which I loved and loved and loved, and I was anxious to see if the book digested as easily as the film.

"I imagine myself calling this my new favorite writer - though I have only read one passage of his work - and I may only love him for this beautiful affliction of a book. A nervous and slender grove of trees! The most sensual movie I have ever seen came from the most sumptuous book whose cover I have ever creased. Upon finishing these opening chapters, I immediately had to make creamy hot chocolate just to feel it smooth across my tongue and down my throat..."

In answer to my expectations: deliriously empassioned prose.
VIEW 12 of 12 COMMENTS
afterbirth:
Well, I think if you're not used to the sort of theatricality and rather stagey sort of acting that old movies have I wouldn't expect you to relate as well to Kubrik's version at all. The '97 one stars Jeromy Irons, right? I think he's a GREAT actor ( see "reversal of Forune"!), but I liked James Mason in the role better. It's true the Kubrik version is less sensual, and I like it as it is, but there were restrictions at the time it was filmed - in fact what little was there was considered quite scandalous. But that doesn't mean you should like it better.
I guess whichever you see first probably has a lot to do with it as well, so I'm not offended. I like disagreeing with people, especially if we get to discuss it. Next time I come across the '97 version I might watch it again and with a less critical eye.
But really, you shloud try watching old movies more - you're missing out on so much!
Thanks for being honest (and for giving Mr. Petty the respect he's due -
after Phish?)!
afterbirth:
Oh, and yes, Sue Lyon is "flat", but to me that hightened the irony of her and Humbert's relationship. But hey, that's me!

More Blogs