Subject
Fw: Fw: Sue Lyons LOLITA
From
Date
Body
----- 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: "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
>
>