Lolita was the last major work by director Stanley Kubrick that I hadn't seen. So, when the day finally came to watch it, I was quite excited for two reasons. One, I would be able to claim that I had seen all of Kubrick's movies. Two, I would get to see one last great film by one of the undisputed grandmasters of the cinema. And having sat through Lolita, I can say that the film doesn't disappoint. From my own personal experience, it seems like everybody considers Lolita to be one of Kubrick's minor works; a kind of stepping stone in between immaculate masterpieces. I think I know why, too. With each of his great masterpieces, there was a piercing sense that Kubrick had something he desperately wanted to share with the audience: a worldview, a political statement, or even a simple observation on human nature. Lolita lacks such a conviction. The entire film feels like an adaptation of the classic Vladimir Nabokov novel that just happened to have been directed by Kubrick. All of the trademarks are there: the immaculate shot compositions and photography, the deeply ingrained sense of cynicism, and the flawless acting no doubt borne of countless retakes. It is very obvious that Kubrick struggled to adapt the highly controversial novel, a story of an older man named Humbert Humbert who falls in love and starts a sexual relationship with his 12-year old stepdaughter, as accurately as possible. However, the Powers That Be forced him to make so many changes and cuts to the original story that afterward Kubrick mentioned that if he had known how much trouble adapting the novel would have been beforehand, he wouldn't had done it. But as it stands, Lolita is still a worthy member of Kubrick's cinematic canon.
8/10
0 Comments