Subject
Re: Irons-Mason LOLITA: Audio book- clarification (fwd)
Date
Body
>
> Audio book: clarification 5/2/97
>
> "Thomas E. Braun" <cawriter@sprynet.com> wrote that
> > An earlier blurb in this forum advertised the complete reading
> > of "Lolita" by Irons, available as an audio book.
>
> Just as a clarification, my note mentioning this product was *not* an
> endorsement nor an ad of any kind. I was trying to point out that I found it
> humorous that Random House found it expedient to use the word "uncensored" in
> their publicity (as if one could normally find only "censored" versions in
> bookstores or libraries). Also, I was chagrined to see that they quoted a
> Chicago newspaper review that referred to the "perfection" of the Kubrick
> 1962 film version of LOLITA, since there is a broad consensus that that film
> was not perfect.
>
> Andy Shaindlin
> shain@umich.edu
Hi Andy,
You are right, I should not have used the word "advertised." It implies
a commercial interest. I should have said that members of this forum
were informed of the Irons recording's existence, and where to get it.
As for Kubrick, I have had mixed feelings about him for 40 years. This
goes far beyond "Lolita." Kubrick has adapted many great books as films.
Emphasis should be put on the word "adapted." Kubrick takes great
liberties, in effect presenting a film that tells the original book's
story as if he had been the actual author. This would not annoy so many,
were he not adapting classic books. However, I concede that Kubrick is
one of those rare artists gifted enough to almost get away with this. As
with Kubrick's 1980 film "The Shining," his 1962 "Lolita" is a
first-rate and exquisite film IF you have not read the book. The most
glaring Kubrickism that always disturbed me in "Lolita" was that the
whole story of Annabel was left out of the film. By putting Annabel into
the novel, Humbert gives the reader the option of letting him off the
hook by sympathizing with his adolescent loss. In the film, there seems
to be no other reason for Humbert's interest in Dolores Haze than that
he is a run-of-the-mill pervert.
Cheers,
Tom Braun
cawriter@sprynet.com
> Audio book: clarification 5/2/97
>
> "Thomas E. Braun" <cawriter@sprynet.com> wrote that
> > An earlier blurb in this forum advertised the complete reading
> > of "Lolita" by Irons, available as an audio book.
>
> Just as a clarification, my note mentioning this product was *not* an
> endorsement nor an ad of any kind. I was trying to point out that I found it
> humorous that Random House found it expedient to use the word "uncensored" in
> their publicity (as if one could normally find only "censored" versions in
> bookstores or libraries). Also, I was chagrined to see that they quoted a
> Chicago newspaper review that referred to the "perfection" of the Kubrick
> 1962 film version of LOLITA, since there is a broad consensus that that film
> was not perfect.
>
> Andy Shaindlin
> shain@umich.edu
Hi Andy,
You are right, I should not have used the word "advertised." It implies
a commercial interest. I should have said that members of this forum
were informed of the Irons recording's existence, and where to get it.
As for Kubrick, I have had mixed feelings about him for 40 years. This
goes far beyond "Lolita." Kubrick has adapted many great books as films.
Emphasis should be put on the word "adapted." Kubrick takes great
liberties, in effect presenting a film that tells the original book's
story as if he had been the actual author. This would not annoy so many,
were he not adapting classic books. However, I concede that Kubrick is
one of those rare artists gifted enough to almost get away with this. As
with Kubrick's 1980 film "The Shining," his 1962 "Lolita" is a
first-rate and exquisite film IF you have not read the book. The most
glaring Kubrickism that always disturbed me in "Lolita" was that the
whole story of Annabel was left out of the film. By putting Annabel into
the novel, Humbert gives the reader the option of letting him off the
hook by sympathizing with his adolescent loss. In the film, there seems
to be no other reason for Humbert's interest in Dolores Haze than that
he is a run-of-the-mill pervert.
Cheers,
Tom Braun
cawriter@sprynet.com