James Mason - Lolita

[cinemagoer]

Hi all,
I saw it at The Stratford Picturehouse last night.
I have seen it out before and at home.

James Mason I thought was fantastic.

If it was made now I could not see any problems with the censor.
I wonder how they passed it back then even with many cuts?

Ian

[didi-5]

Yes, it is a very good film. Peter Sellers is excellent in it too. I know some people on this forum think James Mason always plays himself, despite the range of roles he appeared in over six decades, but he really invests the character of Humbert with so many contradictions he completely convinces.

[cinemagoer]

I thought that the controlling was very frightening.

[didi-5]

It's one of my favourite films. I don't know how it compares with the book, and Sue Lyon was of course too old for the role (by necessity), but I agree completely for a film made fifty years ago it was certainly pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable.

There's a bit about the production and its issues with censorship here, although the bulk of the article is about the book:

http://www.armand-colin.com/upload/I...ion_Lolita.pdf

[GRAEME]

It's one of my favourite films. I don't know how it compares with the book, and Sue Lyon was of course too old for the role (by necessity), but I agree completely for a film made fifty years ago it was certainly pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable.

There's a bit about the production and its issues with censorship here, although the bulk of the article is about the book:

http://www.armand-colin.com/upload/I...ion_Lolita.pdf

It is a fine film but it is in no way an adaptation of the book. That would have been impossible at the time (barely possible now!) so Kubrick filmed a completely different story.

Oddly, in so doing he made Humbert less of a criminal - and Lolita more culpable. So, it possible to see the film as more offensive!

[Windthrop]

Great performances and film (despite the obvious location filming in this country) and Mason totally overshadows Irons in the remake.

Bizarrely Noel Coward nearly got the part of Humbert.

[GRAEME]

Great performances and film (despite the obvious location filming in this country) and Mason totally overshadows Irons in the remake.

Bizarrely Noel Coward nearly got the part of Humbert.

It isn't a remake in any way shape or form!!!

It is a much more faithful adaptation of the book - although a bit dour for my taste, lacking Nabokov's mischievous wit.

Humbert is nowhere near as monstrous as in the book in either version...

[AdrianTurner]

I believe Stanley Kubrick originally thought of Hayley Mills for the role and that her father said a very firm 'No.' I also happen to regard the Adrian Lyne version to be a masterpiece and an absolutely wonderful adaptation of the novel.

[Moor Larkin]

It's one of my favourite films. I don't know how it compares with the book, and Sue Lyon was of course too old for the role (by necessity), but I agree completely for a film made fifty years ago it was certainly pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable.

I can recall it being on TV and passing with no great comment from either mum or dad, who wouldn't have watched it if they had imagined Lolita was 12. I cannot imagine Mason filming it with a 12 year-old in mind either. Maybe he wasn't as widely-read as John Mills so had no idea about the book in that way and so just played it as Mr. Sad Git.

My memory is exactly as Graeme describes; I felt vaguely sorry for Mason but couldn't imagine what he saw in the teenager in the first place. Many years ago now anyway.

[didi-5]

I always knew the girl was meant to be underage jailbait - it's pretty obvious. In Humbert's reaction to Quilty if nothing else. I don't see the character as 'sad git' at all, but nor is he a predatory monster.

[Moor Larkin]

I always knew the girl was meant to be underage jailbait - it's pretty obvious. In Humbert's reaction to Quilty if nothing else. I don't see the character as 'sad git' at all, but nor is he a predatory monster.

The context of Kubrick's version is crucial. It's in the Sixties and in the West, so a 16 year-old is of marraigable age. Around that time Jerry lee Lewis was banned from this country because he had a 13 year-old wife, so there is no way anyone back then in Britain was perceiving Kubrisk's Lolita as 12, imho. Maybe in the USA they might have felt differently given that Jerry Lee was street-legal over there. Lolita was far too young for someone like Mason's Humbert to be involving himself with, but he was not illegal or ciminally perverse, just sad and deluded and of course obsessed. I vaguely recall the mother was involved in using her daughter too, but admit to vagueness, but I think that element was crucial too.

I know nothing of Nabokov's book quite frankly, but I guess that if it was set in an age or place where women were *old* by 30, then 12 might have a different connotation to our well-nourished and enlightened modern times and place. Joan of Arc was only about 16 wasn't she? Context is everything in such a sensitive area.

[GRAEME]

I know nothing of Nabokov's book quite frankly, but I guess that if it was set in an age or place where women were *old* by 30, then 12 might have a different connotation to our well-nourished and enlightened modern times and place.

The book is set in mid 1950s America!!!!

I always knew the girl was meant to be underage jailbait - it's pretty obvious. In Humbert's reaction to Quilty if nothing else. I don't see the character as 'sad git' at all, but nor is he a predatory monster.

Lolita is no jail-bait. Humbert Humbert is a serial child abuser and he rapes Lolita repeatedly - he and Quilty between them destroy her. He isn't sad - he is a preening, arrogant, pretentious, self-deluding (possibly?) definitely self-justifying, criminal trying to work the system for an insanity plea to murder.

It is about as different from the film as you can get and still be telling the "same" story.

That's why the film is more offensive - it actually cleans up Humbert and makes Lolita more to blame! She's the knowing temptress who steers him off the straight and narrow.

Nabokov's Humbert is indeed a "predatory monster". Albeit one who can quote esoteric literature in five languages...

[TimR]

The book is set in mid 1950s America!!!!




Lolita is no jail-bait. Humbert Humbert is a serial child abuser and he rapes Lolita repeatedly - he and Quilty between them destroy her. He isn't sad - he is a preening, arrogant, pretentious, self-deluding (possibly?) definitely self-justifying, criminal trying to work the system for an insanity plea to murder.

It is about as different from the film as you can get and still be telling the "same" story.

That's why the film is more offensive - it actually cleans up Humbert and makes Lolita more to blame! She's the knowing temptress who steers him off the straight and narrow.

Nabokov's Humbert is indeed a "predatory monster". Albeit one who can quote esoteric literature in five languages...

Excellent, apt summation - I am in full agreement. Introducing any blame at all on the part of the girl is deeply offensive and immoral, and that is suggested in the film. Humbert is indeed a destroyer - and that is mostly lost in the film.

[Moor Larkin]

It is about as different from the film as you can get and still be telling the "same" story.

That's why the film is more offensive - it actually cleans up Humbert and makes Lolita more to blame! She's the knowing temptress who steers him off the straight and narrow.

Well, given that the film clearly tells a different story than the book, I suppose it's only offence really is to generate sales of the book, which seems to be well-regarded in literary circles for whatever reasons (doesn't appeal to me). I gather it was banned in Britain for a couple of years.

There were a quite few other movies along this storyline of young girls "leading on older men". I recall a Rod Steiger film, where a young female hitch-hiker destroys the life of an "ordinary couple". Claire Bloom was the wife I remember. This film also seemed to revolve around older men being unable to resist the lure of young females - nothing too earth-shattering about that. But the idea that James Mason was portraying a child abuser seems wide of the mark to me.

[Moor Larkin]

Having read some news reports of the time, I can only add that I am completely wrong.....

Mason unequivocally accedes that whilst the girl will be played ay a 15 or 16 year old for practical reasons, the theme that she starts out as 12 is accepted. He is also asked if his daughter Portland will play the role and is said to have replied, "Of course not. What utter nonsense!" I'm not really sure what I make of it all now. I think perhaps the film failed by not genuinely using a 12 year-old, because back in the day, we were too innocent to have guessed how old Lolita starts out as in the storyline, or just too dumb to notice. It certainly lacks the bite of Chinatown.

[Sgt Sunshine]

Having read some news reports of the time, I can only add that I am completely wrong.....

Mason unequivocally accedes that whilst the girl will be played ay a 15 or 16 year old for practical reasons, the theme that she starts out as 12 is accepted. He is also asked if his daughter Portland will play the role and is said to have replied, "Of course not. What utter nonsense!" I'm not really sure what I make of it all now. I think perhaps the film failed by not genuinely using a 12 year-old, because back in the day, we were too innocent to have guessed how old Lolita starts out as in the storyline, or just too dumb to notice. It certainly lacks the bite of Chinatown.

Sue was 15 during filming of "Lolita". According to Wiki she was 14 when cast in the role and 16 when the film premiered in Sept '62.....



I don't think its been shown on the telly for many a long year & my memories of it are now rather vague......I've yet to see the Jeremy Irons re-make......One day poss....
Cheers
Sgt S

[GRAEME]

g[/IMG]

.I've yet to see the Jeremy Irons re-make......One day poss....
Cheers
Sgt S

It is in no way a remake of the Kubrick film!

[Sgt Sunshine]

It is in no way a remake of the Kubrick film!

I have yet to see it.......or read the book actually.
I wonder what his other books were like....?
Cheers
Sgt S

[Rick C]

Well, given that the film clearly tells a different story than the book, I suppose it's only offence really is to generate sales of the book, which seems to be well-regarded in literary circles for whatever reasons (doesn't appeal to me). I gather it was banned in Britain for a couple of years.

There were a quite few other movies along this storyline of young girls "leading on older men". I recall a Rod Steiger film, where a young female hitch-hiker destroys the life of an "ordinary couple". Claire Bloom was the wife I remember. This film also seemed to revolve around older men being unable to resist the lure of young females - nothing too earth-shattering about that. But the idea that James Mason was portraying a child abuser seems wide of the mark to me.

"Three into Two Won't Go" was the title of the Rod Steiger film. Adverts from my archive I can post later if anyone requests it. Also around the same time as Three into Two is the Charles Bronson/Susan George older man/schoolgirl? cinematic masterpiece "Twinky", discussed only very recently on the website. (I can see a 'Dirty Old Man' thread coming up soon on Britmovie.......)

[will.15]

Old girl/young man movies are as old as the hills, not twelve, but certainly underage. Susan Slept Here certainly cuts it close back in 1954. And there's Daddy Long Legs and Gigi. Leslie Caron had a career there for a while playing suitable jail bait (even if she was too old for the part). Comedies get away with it more than drama. Eliza Doolittle was 19 so it is okay. But before the transformation she acted like she was 12.