Subject
Re: Kubrick's LO. Thoughts from Diment & Nicol
Date
Body
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
This message was originally submitted by galya@U.WASHINGTON.EDU to the NABOKV-L
list at UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a
mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or
consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be
distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed
automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into
a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should
be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply"
function of your mail program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhileI am not a great fan of Kubrick's LOLITA, I would take exception to
the statement that he is "a vastly overrated director, with limited
talents." His CLOCKWORK ORANGE will always remain a classic, it seems to
me, especially if one takes into consideration how precocious this movie
was in terms of its "aestheticization" of violence. It's very well made.
And while LOLITA is much more uneven, there are moments in it that are
quite superb. (And, yes, I have seen the movie recently -- last year on
AMC, I believe.)
Galya Diment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From EJNICOL@root.indstate.edu Mon Feb 10 20:55:46 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:39:45 GMT-5
From: Charles Nicol <EJNICOL@root.indstate.edu>
To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: Kubrick's Lo(w) (fwd)
I'll get my two licks in. Kubrick is not an overrated director; he's
a great one. Or at least a formerly great one. From the WWI movie
through Strangelove and Clockwork Orange he was brilliant. The only
thing that doesn't hold up on a tiny TV screen is Space Odyssey, but
that was designed for super-duper-wrap-around giant screens, and was
the biggest theater trip of all time. Is our correspondent saying
that all these are bad films? Or just Lolita? I agree with whoever
said that the casting was brilliant: Charlotte, Quilty, Humbert--all
terrific. (James Mason even looks like the guy in the dressing gown
in the ad reproduced in the Annotated Lolita!) And one more nice
thing about Kubrick: he was (is?) addicted to speed chess.
--C. Nicol
This message was originally submitted by galya@U.WASHINGTON.EDU to the NABOKV-L
list at UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a
mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or
consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be
distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed
automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into
a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should
be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply"
function of your mail program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhileI am not a great fan of Kubrick's LOLITA, I would take exception to
the statement that he is "a vastly overrated director, with limited
talents." His CLOCKWORK ORANGE will always remain a classic, it seems to
me, especially if one takes into consideration how precocious this movie
was in terms of its "aestheticization" of violence. It's very well made.
And while LOLITA is much more uneven, there are moments in it that are
quite superb. (And, yes, I have seen the movie recently -- last year on
AMC, I believe.)
Galya Diment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From EJNICOL@root.indstate.edu Mon Feb 10 20:55:46 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:39:45 GMT-5
From: Charles Nicol <EJNICOL@root.indstate.edu>
To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: Kubrick's Lo(w) (fwd)
I'll get my two licks in. Kubrick is not an overrated director; he's
a great one. Or at least a formerly great one. From the WWI movie
through Strangelove and Clockwork Orange he was brilliant. The only
thing that doesn't hold up on a tiny TV screen is Space Odyssey, but
that was designed for super-duper-wrap-around giant screens, and was
the biggest theater trip of all time. Is our correspondent saying
that all these are bad films? Or just Lolita? I agree with whoever
said that the casting was brilliant: Charlotte, Quilty, Humbert--all
terrific. (James Mason even looks like the guy in the dressing gown
in the ad reproduced in the Annotated Lolita!) And one more nice
thing about Kubrick: he was (is?) addicted to speed chess.
--C. Nicol