Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: Sue Lyons LOLITA
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Martinez" <jmmartin@mail.ucf.edu>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (126
lines) ------------------
> Could the problem with both versions be that it's far easier to make an
> exceptional movie out of an unexceptional novel than viceversa? Kubrick
> did far better with _Barry Lyndon_ & _The Shining_ than he did with
> _Lolita_, and the source material for those two is middling.
>
> I'm also thinking of _Jaws_, _Election_, Jackson's the _Lord of the
> Rings_, a lot of the Merchant and Ivory movies, _Howards End_ chief
> among them, plus quite a few more -- in all cases the print incarnation
> is thinnish but compelling -- these are all better-than-average
> page-turners, but decidedly slighter fare than the best literature,
> which seems to be treated with too much reverence when adapted, and
> hence comes out to the theaters far too starched and stodgy.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Juan
>
> - - http://www.fulmerford.com
>
>
> >>> chtodel@cox.net 08/09/03 3:54 PM >>>
> ----- 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: "Juan Martinez" <jmmartin@mail.ucf.edu>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (126
lines) ------------------
> Could the problem with both versions be that it's far easier to make an
> exceptional movie out of an unexceptional novel than viceversa? Kubrick
> did far better with _Barry Lyndon_ & _The Shining_ than he did with
> _Lolita_, and the source material for those two is middling.
>
> I'm also thinking of _Jaws_, _Election_, Jackson's the _Lord of the
> Rings_, a lot of the Merchant and Ivory movies, _Howards End_ chief
> among them, plus quite a few more -- in all cases the print incarnation
> is thinnish but compelling -- these are all better-than-average
> page-turners, but decidedly slighter fare than the best literature,
> which seems to be treated with too much reverence when adapted, and
> hence comes out to the theaters far too starched and stodgy.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Juan
>
> - - http://www.fulmerford.com
>
>
> >>> chtodel@cox.net 08/09/03 3:54 PM >>>
> ----- 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
> >
> >
>