Subject
Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from hailstonedawson@yahoo.com -----
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kellie Dawson <hailstonedawson@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: kr46@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
For what it's worth, I too think Andrew is right. In fact, I do a bit of
speculating on this point in my diss -- I also add the angle that in addition
to making Humbert "attractive," neither Kubrick's nor Lyne's Humbert can be
accused of generalized pedophilia.
Kubrick's Humbert seems to develop a crush on his landlady's daughter out of
nowhere. And Lyne (unfortunately) seems to accept the Freudian "excuse"
Humbert offers in the novel -- i.e. "due to a childhood trauma I am stuck
loving children." But it's not just ANY children. Lyne's Humbert goes
straight from loving Annabelle to loving Lolita -- with no little girls in
between. This makes it seem as though he's not a pedophile, he's an
Anabellaphile.
Lyne goes even further to offer a Freudian "excuse" for Lolita's interest in
Humbert as well. With the juxtaposition of the bride picture pinned up over
her bed right next to the picture of the "daddy" figure carrying the "daughter"
figure away from the "mommy" in the deep background, Lyne implies that Lolita
has fit Humbert into her family romance.
Although I like Lyne's film all-in-all, I've always felt that another faithful
adaptation can be made of Lolita w/o really stepping on Lyne's nor Kubrick's
toes. As Andrew points out, there is MUCH in the novel that has been left
untapped by film makers.
I missed the first part of the thread of this discussion -- so please forgive me
if I'm repeating someone else's points.
All best,
Kellie
"Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
ED NOTE. I suspect Andrew's line of thought is right. It might have made an
interesting difference if one of the films had included the institutional
backstory. Nobody (film or lit crit) seem to have taken much interest in this
angle. Seems important to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded message from as-brown@comcast.net -----
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:55:47 -0400
From: Andrew Brown
Reply-To: Andrew Brown
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum This is an interesting point. The omission of
HH's spells in sanatoriums does, I think, tend to make him seem more "normal"
to viewers. The omission of such scenes, though, was probably more in response
to the limitations on the amount of "backstory" the film medium allows its
characters.
One requirement was to make HH superficially attractive to women, which James
Mason and Jeremy Irons do well. The second was to show that he is selfish,
perverted and obsessed. If the filmmaker portrays the dark aspects too well, it
makes it very difficult to put across the first. Both films fall short by
giving almost no indication that what HH has done, and is doing, is a terrible
crime.
One could have made a very different, but equally faithful film of Lolita if one
showed HH's European efforts to obtain child prostitutes; HH's marriage to
Valeria, and his brutal thoughts toward her; HH writing ads for his uncle's
perfume business; HH obtaining sleeping pills from doctors; his plans to drown
Charlotte; the system of threats and bribes by which he forces his captive to
do his will; and the tears that Lolita sheds every single night. But all this
would make an almost unbearably dark film.
As it is, a person unfamiliar with the novel could watch either film and suspect
-- with the exception of a very few brief scenes in Lyne's interpretation --
that HH is doing nothing more than taking his legitimate step-daughter on a
driving trip across the U.S.
Since neither director chose the dark path, I think the omissions they made were
more about getting an amazingly rich story down to the 90 to 120 minutes of film
time that the commercial movie world allows.
Andrew Brown
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald B. Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:00:25 EDT
From: STADLEN@aol.com
Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
To:
In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time,
chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
> Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.
Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita"
mentions HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of
psychiatric history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more
"normal", more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his
perversion
(unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled 'Lolita'")
not quite so perverse?
(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He
himself sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even
if,
as
VN suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be
paroled once a year.)
Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time, chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu
writes:
Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.
Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita"
mentions HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of
psychiatric history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more
"normal", more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his
perversion (unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled
'Lolita'") not quite so perverse?
(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He
himself sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even if,
as VN suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be
paroled once a year.)
Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----
This is an interesting point. The omission of HH's spells in sanatoriums does, I
think, tend to make him seem more "normal" to viewers. The omission of such
scenes, though, was probably more in response to the limitations on the amount
of "backstory" the film medium allows its characters.
One requirement was to make HH superficially attractive to women, which James
Mason and Jeremy Irons do well. The second was to show that he is selfish,
perverted and obsessed. If the filmmaker portrays the dark aspects too well, it
makes it very difficult to put across the first. Both films fall short by
giving almost no indication that what HH has done, and is doing, is a terrible
crime.
One could have made a very different, but equally faithful film of Lolita if one
showed HH's European efforts to obtain child prostitutes; HH's marriage to
Valeria, and his brutal thoughts toward her; HH writing ads for his uncle's
perfume business; HH obtaining sleeping pills from doctors; his plans to drown
Charlotte; the system of threats and bribes by which he forces his captive to
do his will; and the tears that Lolita sheds every single night. But all this
would make an almost unbearably dark film.
As it is, a person unfamiliar with the novel could watch either film and suspect
-- with the exception of a very few brief scenes in Lyne's interpretation --
that HH is doing nothing more than taking his legitimate step-daughter on a
driving trip across the U.S.
Since neither director chose the dark path, I think the omissions they made were
more about getting an amazingly rich story down to the 90 to 120 minutes of film
time that the commercial movie world allows.
Andrew Brown
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald B. Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:00:25 EDT
From: STADLEN@aol.com
Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: pedagogia/douglas harper online dictionary/pederosis
To:
In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time,
chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
> Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.
Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita"
mentions HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of
psychiatric history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more
"normal", more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his
perversion
(unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled 'Lolita'")
not quite so perverse?
(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He
himself sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even if,
as
VN suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be
paroled once a year.)
Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----
---------------------------------
In a message dated 25/04/2005 13:03:08 GMT Standard Time, chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu
writes:
Pedophilia is the more common word for H.H.'s malaise.
Speaking of HH's "malaise", is it not odd that neither film of "Lolita" mentions
HH's spells in sanatoria? In the novel, he clearly has some kind of psychiatric
history. Is this censored out of the films to make him appear more "normal",
more someone the viewer can accept and identify with, and his perversion
(unequivocally described as such by Nabokov in "On a book entitled 'Lolita'")
not quite so perverse?
(I am not suggesting that HH should be treated as a "mental patient". He himself
sees through all that quite well. Jail seems quite appropriate even if, as VN
suggests in the Preface to "Despair", he should, unlike Hermann, be paroled
once a year.)
Anthony Stadlen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----