Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Sue Lyons LOLITA
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (118
lines) ------------------
> I don't want to get off-topic, but referring to the source material of
"Merchant and Ivory movies, Howards End chief among them" as
"better-than-average page-turners" is just a cheap way of dismissing
Forster, James, Ishiguro, et al. In fact, Merchant and Ivory have actually
fumbled some of those classics, like "Remains of the Day," a fact I seem to
be alone in noticing.
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > - - http://www.fulmerford.com
> >
> >
> > >>> chtodel@cox.net 08/09/03 3:54 PM >>>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (70
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Lyons didn't really have the spoiled brat aspect of Lolita that was
> > needed
> > > for the role, and while Dominique Swain did have this, she was way too
> > sexy.
> > > Same with Mason, he did a funnier (and perhaps more accurate) version
> > of
> > > Humbert, bu he lacked the creepiness of Irons and vise versa. Quilty
> > in
> > the
> > > 97 version looked a liitle better, but he totally missed Sellers'
> > > attitude.The problem with the two Lolita films is that both movies are
> > each
> > > missing something: Kubrick's had a certain comedic quality but the
> > sexual
> > > toning down was a little too obvious, resulting in a "dated"
> > film...meaning
> > > that a film made today would include all the sex. This of course is
> > exactly
> > > what we have in the Adrian Lyne version, but the comedy is lost. Were
> > the
> > > two films combined, Lolita be better portrayed on the big screen. Of
> > course,
> > > the beauty of Lolita is not found within its plot as much as in the
> > prose
> > > itself - something that can hardly be conveyed in a movie - and a film
> > will
> > > never do it justice. Both films were garbage compared to the book, but
> > as
> > a
> > > film in itself at least the Kubrick version was somewhat
> > funny/entertaining,
> > > while Lyne's was a lame sexual thriller (just like his other films).
> > >
> > > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > >Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > >Subject: Fw: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 10:36:06 -0700
> > > >
> > > >Re: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: Carolyn Kunin
> > > >To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > >Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 9:40 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I must disagree with Paul Howlett regarding Sue Lyons. I think she is
> > the
> > > >absolutely perfect American nymphet -- and post-nymphet. I had no
> > idea
> > > >Lolita was filmed in England! I can understand VN's objections to the
> > film,
> > > >but none of them are mine. I think it wonderful, probably Kubrick's
> > best.
> > > >The opening credits alone are worth the price of admission.
> > > >
> > > >Carolyn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Paul Howlett
> > > > > Tuesday August 5, 2003
> > > > > The Guardian
> > > > >
> > > > > Lolita
> > > > > (Stanley Kubrick, 1961)
> > > > > 9pm, TCM
> > > > >
> > > > > James Mason took the dodgy Humbert Humbert role after David Niven,
> > Rex
> > > > > Harrison, Noel Coward and all turned it down, no doubt blanching
> > at
> > the
> > > > > challenge of the arrogant paedophile from Nabokov's witty, wicked
> > novel.
> > > >Mason
> > > > > comes over as broadly sympathetic, if stuffy, while Sue Lyons
> > scoffs
> > her
> > > >way
> > > > > through as the knowing nymphet - whose age is nervously increased
> > to
> > 14
> > > >from
> > > > > the book's 12. Better are Shelley Winters as her frustrated mum
> > and
> > > >Peter
> > > > > Sellers as the menacing Quilty. It lacks Nabokov's acidity and is
> > > >hamstrung by
> > > > > being filmed in England - very obviously not its American mid-west
> > > >setting -
> > > > > but is a braver stab than Adrian Lyne's later version.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (118
lines) ------------------
> I don't want to get off-topic, but referring to the source material of
"Merchant and Ivory movies, Howards End chief among them" as
"better-than-average page-turners" is just a cheap way of dismissing
Forster, James, Ishiguro, et al. In fact, Merchant and Ivory have actually
fumbled some of those classics, like "Remains of the Day," a fact I seem to
be alone in noticing.
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > - - http://www.fulmerford.com
> >
> >
> > >>> chtodel@cox.net 08/09/03 3:54 PM >>>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (70
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Lyons didn't really have the spoiled brat aspect of Lolita that was
> > needed
> > > for the role, and while Dominique Swain did have this, she was way too
> > sexy.
> > > Same with Mason, he did a funnier (and perhaps more accurate) version
> > of
> > > Humbert, bu he lacked the creepiness of Irons and vise versa. Quilty
> > in
> > the
> > > 97 version looked a liitle better, but he totally missed Sellers'
> > > attitude.The problem with the two Lolita films is that both movies are
> > each
> > > missing something: Kubrick's had a certain comedic quality but the
> > sexual
> > > toning down was a little too obvious, resulting in a "dated"
> > film...meaning
> > > that a film made today would include all the sex. This of course is
> > exactly
> > > what we have in the Adrian Lyne version, but the comedy is lost. Were
> > the
> > > two films combined, Lolita be better portrayed on the big screen. Of
> > course,
> > > the beauty of Lolita is not found within its plot as much as in the
> > prose
> > > itself - something that can hardly be conveyed in a movie - and a film
> > will
> > > never do it justice. Both films were garbage compared to the book, but
> > as
> > a
> > > film in itself at least the Kubrick version was somewhat
> > funny/entertaining,
> > > while Lyne's was a lame sexual thriller (just like his other films).
> > >
> > > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > >Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > >Subject: Fw: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 10:36:06 -0700
> > > >
> > > >Re: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: Carolyn Kunin
> > > >To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > >Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 9:40 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: Sue Lyons LOLITA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I must disagree with Paul Howlett regarding Sue Lyons. I think she is
> > the
> > > >absolutely perfect American nymphet -- and post-nymphet. I had no
> > idea
> > > >Lolita was filmed in England! I can understand VN's objections to the
> > film,
> > > >but none of them are mine. I think it wonderful, probably Kubrick's
> > best.
> > > >The opening credits alone are worth the price of admission.
> > > >
> > > >Carolyn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Paul Howlett
> > > > > Tuesday August 5, 2003
> > > > > The Guardian
> > > > >
> > > > > Lolita
> > > > > (Stanley Kubrick, 1961)
> > > > > 9pm, TCM
> > > > >
> > > > > James Mason took the dodgy Humbert Humbert role after David Niven,
> > Rex
> > > > > Harrison, Noel Coward and all turned it down, no doubt blanching
> > at
> > the
> > > > > challenge of the arrogant paedophile from Nabokov's witty, wicked
> > novel.
> > > >Mason
> > > > > comes over as broadly sympathetic, if stuffy, while Sue Lyons
> > scoffs
> > her
> > > >way
> > > > > through as the knowing nymphet - whose age is nervously increased
> > to
> > 14
> > > >from
> > > > > the book's 12. Better are Shelley Winters as her frustrated mum
> > and
> > > >Peter
> > > > > Sellers as the menacing Quilty. It lacks Nabokov's acidity and is
> > > >hamstrung by
> > > > > being filmed in England - very obviously not its American mid-west
> > > >setting -
> > > > > but is a braver stab than Adrian Lyne's later version.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> >
> >