JAMES CAMERON There is no way that I can express to you what I’m feeling right now, my heart is full to bursting, except to say I’m the king of the world! Woooh!

     CHRIS WALLACE But on this night of big winners, we want to focus on some losers and we don’t mean people in the audience who didn’t get their names called. No, we mean the people who have made a film of Vladimir Nabokov’s classic, “Lolita”, the story of a man’s sexual obsession with a 12—year—old girl. The movie was completed a year ago. It stars Jeremy Irons and cost more than $50 million to make. But one major distributor after another has refused to release it and there’s a chance now it may not be shown in this country. Hollywood isn’t known for its good taste. They produce movies about anything they think will make money. In fact in 1962 they made an earlier version of “Lolita”. So why now is this subject over the line? In a few moments, we’ll talk with Jeremy Irons. But first, more about the movie you may never see from Nightline’s John Donvan.

     JOHN DONVAN, ABC NEWS (VO) Search the shelves of any good bookstore these days for the novel “Lolita” and sometimes you’ll still find copies emblazoned with a boast, “soon to be a major motion picture”. Well, the motion picture did get made. The project was completely in 1997. But is it major? (Clip from “Lolita”)

     4TH ACTRESS These are my lilies.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) Can you call a film major when long after they’ve put the trailer together the number of theaters that have shown it in the United States is exactly zero. (Clip from “Lolita”)

     NARRATOR From Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial masterpiece.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) Is it major when a film that cost $50 million to make has sold not a single ticket in the United States or when a major star like Jeremy Irons, who won a best actor Oscar for Reversal Of Fortune, teams up with a major director like Adrian Lyne, who made himself famous and lots of people rich directing films like “Flashdance” and “Fatal Attraction” and “Nine and A Half Weeks,” and yet you may not even have heard that Irons and Lyne had made a new “Lolita”. You might conclude that this must be one bad movie. But among the critics who have reviewed it, no one’s using that word. Far from it.

     RICHARD SHICKEL, “TIME” MAGAZINE It’s an eminently releasable movie. The young woman playing “Lolita”
     I think really does a fantastic piece of acting.

     CARYN JAMES, “THE NEW YORK TIMES” This film looks fantastic on screen. I think this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year.

     JOHN DONVAN Well, if the acting is to fantastic and if the production looks so good, then what is it about this movie? Why isn’t it playing right now at a multiplex near you or at the very least why isn’t it showing at an art house in the nearest big city? Could it be something about the story? (VO) When “Lolita” the novel was published in the mid—1950s, its author, the Russian born master of English, Vladimir Nabokov, was said by fellow writer Graham Greene to have written one of the most important books of the 20th century. It is still taught today in college literature courses. Except there was a problem getting it published.

     CHRIS MOTT, UCLA PROFESSOR OF LITERATURE Nabokov sent the manuscript around to four different publishing houses in the United States, all of whom refused to publish the text.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) The problem, or at least a problem, wrote Nabokov, was that “Lolita” takes its readers into the mind of a middle aged man named Humbert Humbert, played by Irons in the new film, who becomes sexually obsessed with a 12—year—old girl named “Lolita” and eventually has sex with her. It is the language of “Lolita” the novel that marked it as a masterpiece. The film is quite faithful to Nabokov’s text. (Clip from “Lolita”)

     JEREMY IRONS My sin, my soul.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) But language or no language, the story was considered so controversial that Nabokov had to send the manuscript to Paris to get it published. When he did find an American publisher in 1958, it was still considered scandalous. In 1962, director Stanley Kubrick helped bring “Lolita” into the popular mainstream with a film version and that story. (Clip from “Lolita”)

     ACTRESS Voila, my yellow roses, my, my daughter.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) But Kubrick, in fact, toned it all down. In his version, Humbert and “Lolita” never kiss. But he was faithful to Nabokov’s ending—everyone dies. Which is why Nabokov’s son Demitri argues that “Lolita” in no way justifies what Humbert Humbert did with “Lolita”, not in the book, not in the movie.

     DEMITRI NABOKOV, AUTHOR’S SON Lolita in itself has nothing pornographic about it. It is an eminently moral movie in which the two villains get their just and strong comeuppance in the end.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) But when Entertainment Weekly dismisses the new “Lolita” as “borderline pervy”, when the British columnist William Otty (ph) scorns the film by calling the “Lolita” story a “dreary and poisonous tract for our misbegotten times”, when protesters picket the film’s premier in Germany because they say it tries to legitimize sex with children, some people suspect that the story is why the film has been shunned by Hollywood’s distributors.

     JACK SHEA, DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA When somebody uses the word pedophilia or child abuse, I think people get very, very nervous. (Promo for “Lolita”)

     NARRATOR The welcome for “Lolita”, the film the whole town’s talking about.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) An interesting paradox. In the supposedly more repressed 1950s, Nabokov’s “Lolita” can be published. In the 60s, Kubrick’s “Lolita” can be released. In the 70s, movies can be made that featured child prostitutes. There was “Pretty Baby”. (Clip from “Pretty Baby”)

     5TH ACTRESS Do you more like it like this?

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) There was Taxi Driver. (on camera) But in the 90s, the new “Lolita” cannot get a screening. Now is that because after all these years and all the real life stories we’ve heard about child abuse that Hollywood has finally become sensitive to the issue, too sensitive for the makers of “Lolita”? (VO) Nonsense, says film critic Michael Medved. This isn’t about morality, it’s about money.

     MICHAEL MEDVED, FILM CRITIC Look, Hollywood is scared off about the sexuality in this film only in one sense. They’re not worried about protests. They’re worried about failure. Every cutting edge film recently that has tried to be cutting edge about sexuality has been a big flop.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) In fact, some critics believe the real problem with this “Lolita” is not that it’s over sexed, it’s that the sex is not explicit enough to sell tickets.

     RICHARD SHICKEL It is an art movie. I mean it’s shot that way, it looks that way. This is a very earnest, sober adaptation of what is, after all, one of the great classics of modernist literature.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) Lyne’s “Lolita”, in other words, may be too respectable to make a lot of money, certainly not as much as some of his other films.

     CARYN JAMES And I think going in everyone expected Adrian Lyne to do Nine And A Half Weeks with a 12—year—old and that’s not what it is. And that’s what makes it an ambitious film and that’s what makes it a marketing nightmare.

     JOHN DONVAN (VO) And a financial one as well. At a cost of $50 million to produce, this film probably will never turn a profit, despite healthy runs in Italy, France, Germany and this week Russia. In some of those places, there have been calls for banning the new “Lolita”. In this country, no one’s had to. This is John Donvan for Nightline.

     CHRIS WALLACE And when we come back, a conversation we had earlier today with the star of “Lolita”, Jeremy Irons and its director, Adrian Lyne.


     (Commercial Break)


     CHRIS WALLACE Oscar winning actor Jeremy Irons is on movie screens all over America these days in The Man In the Iron Mask. But you may never see him as Humbert Humbert in the new version of “Lolita”. He’s with us from Santa Monica, California. As is the director of “Lolita”, Adrian Lyne, who was nominated for an Oscar for Fatal Attraction. His credits also included Flashdance, Nine And A Half Weeks, and Indecent Proposal. Mr Irons, Hollywood releases movies about all kinds of distasteful subjects including cannibalism and necrophilia. Given that, why do you think they won’t touch “Lolita”?

     JEREMY IRONS, ACTOR (Santa Monica, California) I think it’s the political climate in this country at the moment, sadly. There seems to be a certain part of the community who have almost become more puritanical than they were 20 years ago and I think the studios are nervous of upsetting them, too. In other words, I think they’re being bullied by a minority, which is sad.

     CHRIS WALLACE Mr Lyne, you have said that the Hollywood studios are not showing moral courage in rejecting this film. How so?

     ADRIAN LYNE, DIRECTOR (Santa Monica, California) I think a lot has changed in the last five or six years. I think this movie would have come out in the 80s. I know it would have come out in the 70s. As somebody said earlier on, I think maybe Martin Scorsese would have great trouble making Taxi Driver now. I think a lot has changed.

     CHRIS WALLACE But Mr Lyne, one of the other things that’s changed is things like the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, the pedophile child murders in Belgium.

     ADRIAN LYNE Yes.

     CHRIS WALLACE Is it a wave of puritanicalism or is it, in fact, that people are more sensitive to what, in fact, is criminal behavior?

     ADRIAN LYNE Well, I think, you know, we’re making a movie of a classic novel, a novel that is taught in schools and universities all over the world. It obviously involves pedophilia but this novel is so much more. It’s, you read it and you’re appalled by what happens but it’s hilariously funny. It’s, and it’s ultimately a love story and the idea that I wouldn’t be able to touch this subject or shouldn’t touch this subject and have to sweep it under the carpet seems kind of sinister. I think that only good can come out of airing a problem and so plays and movies that involve contentious subjects should be able to be made. It’s outrageous that they can’t.

     CHRIS WALLACE But let me ask you about that, Mr Lyne. You say only good can come of it. One of the problems may be for some people that you are such a good filmmaker, you make such wonderful images. One of the first times in the movie, I believe it’s the first time that Mr Irons’ character, Humbert Humbert, sees “Lolita”, she’s reading, lying on the grass with a sprinkler matting down her and drenching her dress. I mean, aren’t you, in fact, making a little girl an object of sexual desire just by the images on the film?

     ADRIAN LYNE Well, I mean the truth is that Humbert Humbert in the normal is attracted to what Nabokov calls nymphets. I mean, this is true and somebody said to me are you going to make the sexuality in the movie erotic. And it was a really good question, I think. And I thought a long while about it and I understood that I had to because the movie is being seen through Humbert Humbert’s eyes. So I had to.

     CHRIS WALLACE But Mr Lyne, don’t changing times force changing images? In the 1930s, blacks were being portrayed as step and fetch it, which obviously was offensive and absolutely unacceptable years later. Can it be that changing times have forced us to look differently at the idea of nymphets?

     ADRIAN LYNE I think we’re living in a dream world if we don’t believe that young children, children growing up, children in their teens are not attractive things. They are. I think as parents we know that our children go through a wonderful blooming. That is how they are. We have laid down a society whereby it is illegal to have sexual relations with a child below a certain age. That age is different in different countries and different states within America and that is absolutely right. Children must be guarded. Their childhood must be protected. We must wait until they are emotionally old enough to have physical relations. That, I think, is, doesn’t need saying. I think any sane, mature person will believe that. However, I think one of the objects of drama or of stories, film, novels, whatever, is to show people what can happen if you go wrong. A great play the Greeks wrote called Oedipus, where a man makes love to his mother unknowingly has always been a great piece of work. Titus Andronicus of Shakespeare, a man eats his mother. Now we aren’t saying that this is how we should behave, we’re saying this is what can happen in life. This is the seed of drama. And Nabokov is writing a tragic love affair, a story where those people who go wrong, who go over the limits of what is acceptable in society, get their comeuppance. It’s a fable and it’s a tragic tale and I believe therefore very moral. And if we are to understand each other as human beings, we surely must be able to see behavior or read about behavior where people take the wrong steps, go the wrong way in life and see what the outcome is. That is part of what storytelling surely in our society should do.

     CHRIS WALLACE Gentlemen, we have to pause here but when we return, I want to ask you both about money, which is always a big part of the equation in Hollywood. And we’ll be back in a moment.


     (Commercial Break)


     CHRIS WALLACE And we’re back again with actor Jeremy Irons and the director of “Lolita”, Adrian Lyne. Mr Lyne, some people in Hollywood say that one of the problems is that you made an art house movie with a very limited audience on a major motion picture budget of $50 million. From a financial point of view, did this movie ever make sense?

     ADRIAN LYNE Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think it’s of interest that when I showed the movie last week at the DGA, the Directors Guild, my union, when in fact Richard Shickel saw the movie, over 500 people were turned away and that hasn’t happened to me on any other movie that I’ve done. I think there’s huge interest in this piece.

     CHRIS WALLACE Mr Irons, I understand that for a long time you turned down this project. How come?

     JEREMY IRONS I did but I’d like just to answer your last question and remind you that you say $50 million is a huge budget, the average cost of a studio movie these days is $58 million. So we are below average and it’s not that expensive. Yes, to go back to your question, I thought long and hard about playing Humbert Humbert because I felt I had played many characters who explored extremes of behavior which were socially unacceptable and purely for my career I thought maybe I’ll steer away from that for a little while. But then three things persuaded me. First of all, it is the classic novel of this century. It’s a very complicated character, complex character with a director who was passionate to make it and those are three things that make an actor want to do something.

     ADRIAN LYNE I would like to add one thing if I may. I think one of the things that people find troubling about the movie is that Jeremy’s performance is really in shades of gray. They would be much happier, much more comfortable, I think, if they could just hate this man, just see him in black and white terms. And, you know, what’s extraordinary, I think, about Jeremy’s performance is that we understand what he’s doing is hateful, we are appalled by what he’s doing but then in the next breath we are amused by the man and we feel sorry for the man and at the end of this movie when Humbert sees “Lolita” pregnant and polluted, as Nabokov says, with another man’s child, we understand that he really does love her. And in the end, and I think this is very important, and Nabokov meant us to understand this, in the end I think that Jeremy Irons’ character, Humbert Humbert, has a certain redemption. You understand that if “Lolita” had wanted him at the end, he would have stayed with her. He would not have chased around after nymphets of 12 and I think he would have stayed with her even though she is now no longer what he adored, which was a nymphet.

     CHRIS WALLACE Mr Lyne, we talked about changing times, one of the problems that you faced is something called the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act ...

     ADRIAN LYNE Yes.

     CHRIS WALLACE—which not only makes it a crime to depict minors, but even to appear to depict minors, children, in sexually explicit conduct. Did you have a lawyer on the set with you so you could work your way through those shoals?

     ADRIAN LYNE Well, I sat for six weeks with an attorney in the cutting room because essentially I could not use any of the shots that I had done with the body double because you weren’t allowed, an adult wasn’t allowed to imitate or pretend to be a minor. And this was actually aimed at the internet. It was aimed at computers, really, where I think people were putting children’s heads on mature bodies. And it spilled over into films and plays and ...

     JEREMY IRONS Isn’t the important thing, if I can cut in to say why is a piece of work being done? Why is it being made? Did Nabokov write “Lolita”
     in order to encourage people to have sex with underage children? Did Adrian Lyne make the film in order to encourage people to do that? Or was there another motive?

     CHRIS WALLACE Mr Irons, knowing all the problems that this film has had, if you had it to do all over again, would you?

     JEREMY IRONS I think it’s the duty of artists, of writers, of actors to face difficult issues, to face taboos. If I was involved in an industry which was turning out purely feel good fantasy movies that just made everybody feel lovely and gave them a nice time, I don’t think I could stay in the business. I think it’s, I think we should address thorny problems and we should try to broaden people’s perceptions of the human condition.

     CHRIS WALLACE Gentlemen, we’re going to have to leave it there. Adrian Lyne, Jeremy Irons, we want to thank you both very much for joining us tonight.

     JEREMY IRONS A pleasure.

     ADRIAN LYNE A pleasure.
    

Copyright ABCNews. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form. Transcripts produced by Federal Document Clearing House