Subject
Re: The LOLITA movie (fwd)
Date
Body
From: David Rhoden <drhoden@inch.com>
At least the new movie can only be better than one expects, where the
Kubrick version could only be worse. Of course there's no point to making
the movie again, but at least this version will be intended to shock. It's
nice, in a day of small, "gemlike" movies, to see someone emulating the
big, "shocking" pictures of yesterday. Taking the thing seriously. It's as
if those Fellini "directors", the ones with the Lear jets and the
sunglasses, still exist. And it makes it so much easier to dismiss. Funny
thing though: if I loved movies, and I loved Lolita, I think it's the last
picture I'd want to make. (Meaning I wouldn't want to make it at all.)
Why does he?
Perhaps this movie will add something to our understanding of what HH and
Dolores Haze might have looked like together; this Lyne is to my
recollection a ham-fist (actually I don't remember anything about his movie
but a boiled rabbit) but perhaps his plebeian direction will give the
unhappy couple a realistic banality they didn't have in a craftsman's black
and white creation. It might be some overwrought, beautifully lit
psychological trash (anybody see Jeremy Irons in the miserable movie of
Graham Swift's Waterland?). Or it might be believable. Maybe that's
what's making me so uncomfortable.
To address what Rodney Welch said, there are cinematic pleasures in Lolita,
but that leaves so much out. That's why I don't really want to see it
unless it includes the dentist's office scene with Uncle Ivor. P.S.: Peter
Sellers would be perfect for the part.
drhoden@inch.com
http://www.inch.com/~drhoden/regent
rhoden@manslife.com
http://www.manslife.com
At least the new movie can only be better than one expects, where the
Kubrick version could only be worse. Of course there's no point to making
the movie again, but at least this version will be intended to shock. It's
nice, in a day of small, "gemlike" movies, to see someone emulating the
big, "shocking" pictures of yesterday. Taking the thing seriously. It's as
if those Fellini "directors", the ones with the Lear jets and the
sunglasses, still exist. And it makes it so much easier to dismiss. Funny
thing though: if I loved movies, and I loved Lolita, I think it's the last
picture I'd want to make. (Meaning I wouldn't want to make it at all.)
Why does he?
Perhaps this movie will add something to our understanding of what HH and
Dolores Haze might have looked like together; this Lyne is to my
recollection a ham-fist (actually I don't remember anything about his movie
but a boiled rabbit) but perhaps his plebeian direction will give the
unhappy couple a realistic banality they didn't have in a craftsman's black
and white creation. It might be some overwrought, beautifully lit
psychological trash (anybody see Jeremy Irons in the miserable movie of
Graham Swift's Waterland?). Or it might be believable. Maybe that's
what's making me so uncomfortable.
To address what Rodney Welch said, there are cinematic pleasures in Lolita,
but that leaves so much out. That's why I don't really want to see it
unless it includes the dentist's office scene with Uncle Ivor. P.S.: Peter
Sellers would be perfect for the part.
drhoden@inch.com
http://www.inch.com/~drhoden/regent
rhoden@manslife.com
http://www.manslife.com