|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on May 31, 2011 0:23:03 GMT -5
Nabokov's Lolita (1955) is a classic, featuring beautiful prose and chilling characters. Two major films have been made based on this story -- one, in 1962, for which Nabokov wrote the original screenplay (and then watched it be bastardized and twisted into the comparably unrecognizable script of the movie that was made); and a second in 1997, simultaneously more true to the novel's plot and less true to its complexity, and starring Jeremy Irons (whose audiobook of Lolita is completely fantastic and should be listened to by everyone).
Anywho, I spent a bit too much time comparing these three tellings of the tale in my Lit and Film class last semester, wrote an essay on them, and still can't get the debate out of my head, so I'm eager to hear the Armadillos' opinions on any or all of the works.
|
|
casey
Armadillo Pup
Posts: 20
|
Post by casey on Jun 7, 2011 5:25:19 GMT -5
I haven't seen the 1997 version, but I have seen the 1962 version a few times. I thought it was an enjoyable enough film but you certainly have to consider the limitations of screen adaptations. Literature in the first person almost NEVER makes for an adequate screen version, in my opinion. I think was is so great about Lolita, one, is Nabokov's writing style, which obviously leaves no footprints on the film versions. Second, I think what makes the novel so harrowing and poignant is the way the first person "dear diary" pov and endearing prose style work together, leaving readers alone with morally ambiguous Humbert and only his tainted lense from which to view the world. None of these qualities can be served justice on the screen. I think with adaptations like this you just have to abandon your expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 7, 2011 17:35:09 GMT -5
I haven't seen the 1997 version, but I have seen the 1962 version a few times. I thought it was an enjoyable enough film but you certainly have to consider the limitations of screen adaptations. Literature in the first person almost NEVER makes for an adequate screen version, in my opinion. I think was is so great about Lolita, one, is Nabokov's writing style, which obviously leaves no footprints on the film versions. Second, I think what makes the novel so harrowing and poignant is the way the first person "dear diary" pov and endearing prose style work together, leaving readers alone with morally ambiguous Humbert and only his tainted lense from which to view the world. None of these qualities can be served justice on the screen. I think with adaptations like this you just have to abandon your expectations. I agree -- the writing (style and POV) are what distinguishes Lolita from the masses, and what makes it so impossible to perfectly adapt (except, as I mentioned, in the case of Jeremy Irons' audiobook, which I will continue promoting until I find someone else who's listened to it). Another limitation to consider is that of censorship: a movie portraying pedophilia is just as feared now as it was in the 60s, if not more so, and the 1997 film wasn't even shown in theatres in the States. Also, you might take a peek at Nabokov's original screenplay for the '62 version -- even this google books preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu1ys6nrv-EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lolita+screenplay&hl=en&ei=PaXuTfjYD-zp0QGmi9HeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) is enough to show that the changes made were so extensive as to be laughable, until you realize the raw potential of the script and how much better that movie would have been (despite, or perhaps because of, its being an entirely separate entity from the novel in terms of the scene-by-scene). |
|
casey
Armadillo Pup
Posts: 20
|
Post by casey on Jun 7, 2011 20:33:40 GMT -5
I definitely will look for that screenplay, I would love to see how he adapted it. Nabokov's style, in everything he writes, gives me SUCH JOY!!! Check out his Paris Review interview if you haven't. I just love the fact that English is like his fourth language and I love his international point of view. Also I've noticed throughout this forum that we have similar tastes. Keats, Tennyson, Nabokov. NUFF SAID  (minus the Potter thing but thats hardly something I would hold against anybody) |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 7, 2011 22:01:01 GMT -5
Also I've noticed throughout this forum that we have similar tastes. Keats, Tennyson, Nabokov. NUFF SAID (minus the Potter thing but thats hardly something I would hold against anybody) Yes! I have made so many new friends this way on the FYEMA forum, and it's only been around for about a week! RECORD-BREAKING. And this is not the place for this conversation, so maybe I will PM you with questions exploring further similarities? Organization for the win? |
|
|
|
Post by jessmist on Jun 13, 2011 8:50:16 GMT -5
I have seen the 1962 and 1997 versions, and I love the 1997 one. I honestly can hardly watch the 1962 one. Why did Nabokov make so many differences?!
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 1:14:43 GMT -5
I have seen the 1962 and 1997 versions, and I love the 1997 one. I honestly can hardly watch the 1962 one. Why did Nabokov make so many differences?! Well, his original screenplay was completely ass-raped by the director. Nabokov's script is completely unrecognizable as being the basis for the '62 film. It makes for much sadness -- wish someone would make the movie he intended. |
|
(minus the Potter thing but thats hardly something I would hold against anybody)