Lolita - screenplay written by Vladimir Nabokov with contributors and directed by Stanley Kubrick

 Lolita - screenplay written by Vladimir Nabokov with contributors and directed by Stanley Kubrick

Another version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:

-              https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEVa4_CsRStSBBDo4uJWT8BSWtTTn0N1E  and   http://realini.blogspot.ro/

Lolita is a masterpiece.

A chef d'oeuvre that has been included among the best novels ever written.

The combination of two geniuses, Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick promised a feast.

And the fireworks were delivered.

Stanley Kubrick is one of the best film directors of all time, the same way as Vladimir Nabokov is one of the most acclaimed authors.

Some of his films are on the lists of best cinema creations:

- Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Shining, Paths of Glory, Spartacus...albeit the latter had a complicated history, with another director involved at the start.

Vladimir Nabokov was an intriguing man, about whom I have read in one book and heard in the program called Bouillon de Culture, created and presented by the brilliant Bernard Pivot.

The book is written by Robert Evans, who was the head of Paramount, the producer of films like The Godfather and Chinatown and the one who discovered Jack Nicholson among others.

In The Kid Stays in the Picture, Robert Evans writes about his encounter with the great author, when he was trying to buy the rights for one of his books and adapt it for the big screen.

The story with Bouillon de Culture is strange.

Vladimir Nabokov was invited on the show but he said he would only come if he brings along his written answers to the questions that he would know in advance.

And he did just that on the show.

Returning to Lolita, on which I have a previous note, posted after reading the original for the second time, I noticed a few major changes.

Instead of the background of Humbert Humbert, Paris and the introduction of the printed material, on the screen we have Humbert painting Lolita's toenails on the first scene.

After this, the audience is invited to have an ironic, jocular look at the confrontation between Humbert and Quilty.

They are played by James Mason and the brilliant Peter Sellers, the latter involved in creating multiple roles in this movie.

Quilty is faced by an angry, betrayed lover in his own home, when he just had a party.

Humbert is giving him to read the sentence and accusations.

-          Do you remember Dolores?

Quilty appears to have trouble recalling, but it is probably just and act.

He maintains a jocular manner when he starts playing table tennis with Humbert, who is obviously not interested in the game.

Readers of the book know that we have the end placed at the beginning and the film audience is to realize that within minutes.

Humbert is throwing the balls out of the table and then takes out a gun...

-          Oh, so you are a bad loser, Quilty is trying again to joke

But very soon, his tormented enemy is saying

-          You want to die standing or sitting?

And starts shooting, wounding the former rival.

No spoiler alert is needed, it all happens in the first ten minutes and I do not know -and this is probably the point -if there is a more serious wound, except for the one we see, injuring the leg of Quilty.

As for the rest, I recognized the themes from the book, even if given the medium, a lot of what is within the printed masterpiece had to go.

The film was nominated for important Academy and other awards and won recognition.

The tone of the movie is more ironic and jocular and the relationship between the adult and the teenager is more suggested than depicted.

At the time of filming, it seems that even with that precaution the film was rated Adults Only, or for over eighteen depending on various markets.

It is a powerful, meaningful narrative, that does not present the pedofile as a good man, indeed we see him for what he is :

A complex man, with intelligence, cultivated, smart and cunning, but still a kind of a monster, if sophisticated, pleasant and jovial at times.