Subject
Re: American Beauty and Lolita (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Juan Martinez <jmm80625@mail.ucf.edu>
I mostly agree -- AB for various reasons was simply a far better, much
more enjoyable movie than Lyne's Lo. (And AB was only (in my mind) the
third in a trio of recent movies that dealt superbly with desire, the
others being Election and Rushmore -- terrific, although not particularly
Nabokovian.)
But that Lo is Lo has to factor in: Lolita still carries quite a bit of
the unsavory reputation it originated at first, but mostly (I would
hope) in the minds of those who haven't read it. Lolita for the world at
large is probably http://www.lolita-porn.com, Ms Amy "Long Island
Lo" Fisher or whatever, the idea of Lolita as a work once-banned and
probably full of sex scenes, and mostly Lolita as a stand-in, a convenient
projection, a ready-made taboo. So if someone decides to make a movie of
Lolita, it's much easier to be shocked by and to mount an offensive
against the idea (in much the same way The Last Temptation of Christ drew
indigination mostly from people who had not seen -- and felt they did not
really need to see -- the movie) -- AB did not carry Lo's cultural
baggage, and could not really generate a lot of outrage.
The people who had a problem with Lyne's Lolita did not really have a
problem with Nabokov's Lolita but with the culture-at-large's Lolita, a
different (and much less interesting) creature.
(By the way, the McSweeneys (Issue 4) booklet on Nabokov's paperback
covers is remarkable, and accompanied with some illustrations of truly bad
Lo's (the best is a striking but significantly postpubescent blonde
(!) sucking on the ubiquitous lollipop, in an Italian edition), along with
a few very graceful ones, and also some very charming Pnins. The magazine
itself is terrific and very funny, and ordering information can be found
at http://www.mcsweeneys.net/subscribe/)
Cheers,
Juan
-- http://pigbodine.tripod.com
>>> galya@u.washington.edu 03/29/00 06:58PM >>>
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Re the success of AB and the lack of such for Lyne's Lolita:
1. AB is a much better movie -- I know not all subscribers agree on that
point, but to me it's obvious. I rarely agree with Oscar selections --
but this time I truly did. I actually wish Sam Mendes could try making
Lolita...
2. What's more important, of course, is that AB is much less
"uncomfortable" than Lolita. Here the teenage girl is not only quite a bit
older but while she is lusted after she is not "violated." The
realization that despite talking and acting "dirty" Angela Hayes is still
a virgin makes Lester switch at the last moment from a passionate lover
mode to a paternalistic mode. Unlike HH, who is trying to be both, a
father figure and a lover, Lester appears to know that the two are not
compatible. I am sure many in the audiences sigh with relief at that point
and are quite grateful to him for drawing this particular distinction.
Galya Diment
I mostly agree -- AB for various reasons was simply a far better, much
more enjoyable movie than Lyne's Lo. (And AB was only (in my mind) the
third in a trio of recent movies that dealt superbly with desire, the
others being Election and Rushmore -- terrific, although not particularly
Nabokovian.)
But that Lo is Lo has to factor in: Lolita still carries quite a bit of
the unsavory reputation it originated at first, but mostly (I would
hope) in the minds of those who haven't read it. Lolita for the world at
large is probably http://www.lolita-porn.com, Ms Amy "Long Island
Lo" Fisher or whatever, the idea of Lolita as a work once-banned and
probably full of sex scenes, and mostly Lolita as a stand-in, a convenient
projection, a ready-made taboo. So if someone decides to make a movie of
Lolita, it's much easier to be shocked by and to mount an offensive
against the idea (in much the same way The Last Temptation of Christ drew
indigination mostly from people who had not seen -- and felt they did not
really need to see -- the movie) -- AB did not carry Lo's cultural
baggage, and could not really generate a lot of outrage.
The people who had a problem with Lyne's Lolita did not really have a
problem with Nabokov's Lolita but with the culture-at-large's Lolita, a
different (and much less interesting) creature.
(By the way, the McSweeneys (Issue 4) booklet on Nabokov's paperback
covers is remarkable, and accompanied with some illustrations of truly bad
Lo's (the best is a striking but significantly postpubescent blonde
(!) sucking on the ubiquitous lollipop, in an Italian edition), along with
a few very graceful ones, and also some very charming Pnins. The magazine
itself is terrific and very funny, and ordering information can be found
at http://www.mcsweeneys.net/subscribe/)
Cheers,
Juan
-- http://pigbodine.tripod.com
>>> galya@u.washington.edu 03/29/00 06:58PM >>>
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Re the success of AB and the lack of such for Lyne's Lolita:
1. AB is a much better movie -- I know not all subscribers agree on that
point, but to me it's obvious. I rarely agree with Oscar selections --
but this time I truly did. I actually wish Sam Mendes could try making
Lolita...
2. What's more important, of course, is that AB is much less
"uncomfortable" than Lolita. Here the teenage girl is not only quite a bit
older but while she is lusted after she is not "violated." The
realization that despite talking and acting "dirty" Angela Hayes is still
a virgin makes Lester switch at the last moment from a passionate lover
mode to a paternalistic mode. Unlike HH, who is trying to be both, a
father figure and a lover, Lester appears to know that the two are not
compatible. I am sure many in the audiences sigh with relief at that point
and are quite grateful to him for drawing this particular distinction.
Galya Diment