Subject
Fwd: Nabokov's son defends Lyne's 'Lolita' ...
From
Date
Body
-
[1]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838957/CM/CoverQuicklinks/CE/3/HL/letters/[2]
Reader:
Below is a selection of e-mail comments weve received in recent days
to stories by our writers. Several have been edited for length.
Letters to MSNBCFrom our mailbag MSNBCUpdated: 4:47 p.m. ET Aug. 24,
2004
NABOKOV\\'S SON DEFENDS LYNE\\'S \\'LOLITA\\'[3]
To the Entertainment editor:
Michael Ventre has lurched into the media in a woefully underinformed
state ("Heartbreakingly bad remakes," June 16, 2004). With regard to
the two film versions of my father's book Lolita, Mr.Ventre affirrms
that Adrian Lyne "ignored Kubrick's adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's
novel and made his sexy-sleazy, witless stinker with none of the
satirical brilliance of the 1962 original that featured James Mason
and Peter Sellers."
First of all, the facts. I do not dispute Kubrick's talent as a
director, but it was not he who adapted Nabokov's novel. As
stipulated in the film agreement, Nabokov wrote a script based on his
own novel. Kubrick asked him to reduce its 403 pages to a more
manageable length. Nabokov did so, and Kubrick happily accepted it,
only to closet himself at length with his associates and
substantially alter the screenplay. My father nevertheless was
awarded an Oscar nomination for the script, but probably, had he won
the Oscar itself, would not have accepted it. The reason? While
generously praising the film, the director, and the actors, he
declared that the movie bore no resemblance to his work. I could be
very specific here, but that would turn this letter into a longish
article. Nabokov's Lolita: a Screenplay was subsequently published,
translated, and performed with stunning success as a play under the
direction of Luca Ronconi at Milan's princ ipal theatre.
As for Adrian Lyne, he was working from a script closely based on the
book, and was far more faithful than Kubrick. One might say that he
introduced the color, figuratively and literally, that Kubrick's work
lacked. Lolita should be sexy. However, to say that Lyne's work, and
that of his talented actors Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, was
"sleazy" is very much a personal judgement. Frank Langella's Quilty
has the required secretive, ominous ambiguity in place of the
disproportionate clowning and the ubiquitous, summarily disguised
presence for which Kubrick gave the brilliant Peter Sellers carte
blanche. I do not overlook the superb work of the late James Mason as
Humbert in the first film. He was not only a hugely gifted actor but
also a personal friend. In comparing his interpretation with that of
Irons, it comes down to one's choice between two virtuoso
performances. As for the role of Lolita, I'd say, without belittling
the talent and humor of Sue Lyons, that Dominique Swain in Lyne's
version is closer to Nabokov's nymphet.
It is not entirely clear why Kubrick chose to face the countless
complexities of shooting a quintessentially American "road movie" in
England. Even if the cars are made to drive on the right, the
observant eye is not fooled, and much of the book's "satirical
brilliance" is lost along with the genuinely American setting
reinstated in Adrian Lyne's film.
In short, only a "witless stinker" of a reviewer could so
contemptuously dismiss a wonderful film, even if its success was
trammeled by the moralizing of the constipated nineties.
Yours,
Dmitri Nabokov ================================================== [4]
Heartbreakingly bad remakesWhy would anyone want to ruin memories of
great movies past? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5226834/[5]COMMENTARYBy
Michael VentreMSNBC contributorUpdated: 6:34 p.m. ET June 22, 2004
Lolita
Here we go again. Its hard to believe that anyone would watch a
Stanley Kubrick picture and think, I can do better than that (aside
from Eyes Wide Shut, that is). But apparently thats what Adrian
Lyne, king of the contemporary erotic melodrama, was thinking when he
ignored Kubricks adaptation of the Vladimir Nabokov novel and made
his sexy-sleazy, witless stinker in 1997 with none of the satirical
brilliance of the 1962 original that featured James Mason and Peter
Sellers.
Links:
------
[1] http://msnbc.msn.com/
[2]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838957/CM/CoverQuicklinks/CE/3/HL/letters/
[3] HTTP://MSNBC.MSN.COM/ID/5226834/
[4] http://msnbc.msn.com/
[5] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5226834/
----- End forwarded message -----
[1]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838957/CM/CoverQuicklinks/CE/3/HL/letters/[2]
Reader:
Below is a selection of e-mail comments weve received in recent days
to stories by our writers. Several have been edited for length.
Letters to MSNBCFrom our mailbag MSNBCUpdated: 4:47 p.m. ET Aug. 24,
2004
NABOKOV\\'S SON DEFENDS LYNE\\'S \\'LOLITA\\'[3]
To the Entertainment editor:
Michael Ventre has lurched into the media in a woefully underinformed
state ("Heartbreakingly bad remakes," June 16, 2004). With regard to
the two film versions of my father's book Lolita, Mr.Ventre affirrms
that Adrian Lyne "ignored Kubrick's adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's
novel and made his sexy-sleazy, witless stinker with none of the
satirical brilliance of the 1962 original that featured James Mason
and Peter Sellers."
First of all, the facts. I do not dispute Kubrick's talent as a
director, but it was not he who adapted Nabokov's novel. As
stipulated in the film agreement, Nabokov wrote a script based on his
own novel. Kubrick asked him to reduce its 403 pages to a more
manageable length. Nabokov did so, and Kubrick happily accepted it,
only to closet himself at length with his associates and
substantially alter the screenplay. My father nevertheless was
awarded an Oscar nomination for the script, but probably, had he won
the Oscar itself, would not have accepted it. The reason? While
generously praising the film, the director, and the actors, he
declared that the movie bore no resemblance to his work. I could be
very specific here, but that would turn this letter into a longish
article. Nabokov's Lolita: a Screenplay was subsequently published,
translated, and performed with stunning success as a play under the
direction of Luca Ronconi at Milan's princ ipal theatre.
As for Adrian Lyne, he was working from a script closely based on the
book, and was far more faithful than Kubrick. One might say that he
introduced the color, figuratively and literally, that Kubrick's work
lacked. Lolita should be sexy. However, to say that Lyne's work, and
that of his talented actors Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, was
"sleazy" is very much a personal judgement. Frank Langella's Quilty
has the required secretive, ominous ambiguity in place of the
disproportionate clowning and the ubiquitous, summarily disguised
presence for which Kubrick gave the brilliant Peter Sellers carte
blanche. I do not overlook the superb work of the late James Mason as
Humbert in the first film. He was not only a hugely gifted actor but
also a personal friend. In comparing his interpretation with that of
Irons, it comes down to one's choice between two virtuoso
performances. As for the role of Lolita, I'd say, without belittling
the talent and humor of Sue Lyons, that Dominique Swain in Lyne's
version is closer to Nabokov's nymphet.
It is not entirely clear why Kubrick chose to face the countless
complexities of shooting a quintessentially American "road movie" in
England. Even if the cars are made to drive on the right, the
observant eye is not fooled, and much of the book's "satirical
brilliance" is lost along with the genuinely American setting
reinstated in Adrian Lyne's film.
In short, only a "witless stinker" of a reviewer could so
contemptuously dismiss a wonderful film, even if its success was
trammeled by the moralizing of the constipated nineties.
Yours,
Dmitri Nabokov ================================================== [4]
Heartbreakingly bad remakesWhy would anyone want to ruin memories of
great movies past? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5226834/[5]COMMENTARYBy
Michael VentreMSNBC contributorUpdated: 6:34 p.m. ET June 22, 2004
Lolita
Here we go again. Its hard to believe that anyone would watch a
Stanley Kubrick picture and think, I can do better than that (aside
from Eyes Wide Shut, that is). But apparently thats what Adrian
Lyne, king of the contemporary erotic melodrama, was thinking when he
ignored Kubricks adaptation of the Vladimir Nabokov novel and made
his sexy-sleazy, witless stinker in 1997 with none of the satirical
brilliance of the 1962 original that featured James Mason and Peter
Sellers.
Links:
------
[1] http://msnbc.msn.com/
[2]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4838957/CM/CoverQuicklinks/CE/3/HL/letters/
[3] HTTP://MSNBC.MSN.COM/ID/5226834/
[4] http://msnbc.msn.com/
[5] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5226834/
----- End forwarded message -----