Subject
Kubrick's Lo(w) (fwd)
Date
Body
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Admin Frick S -- MGM/UA Inc - Santa Monica <africkxs@counsel.com>
To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
In our collective anticipation of the release of Lyne's "Lolita"
there has been a resurfacing of anti-Kubrick rhetoric. Kubrick's
film in this forum has been treated like a harlot dismissed for
her faithlessness. Although it certainly does not represent a
strict interpretation of the novel, I don't understand the
hostility toward the film. I think it is a great film, with a
perfectly pitched dark humor reflecting Nabokov's own comic tone.
Are we sympathizing with VN's frustration at not achieving his
vision of a filmed "Lolita," dismissing the adaptation which is,
ultimately, Kubrick's and not our hero's? Or is there a solid
case for viewing it as a defective film?
Stephen Frick
sfrick@mgm.com
From: Admin Frick S -- MGM/UA Inc - Santa Monica <africkxs@counsel.com>
To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
In our collective anticipation of the release of Lyne's "Lolita"
there has been a resurfacing of anti-Kubrick rhetoric. Kubrick's
film in this forum has been treated like a harlot dismissed for
her faithlessness. Although it certainly does not represent a
strict interpretation of the novel, I don't understand the
hostility toward the film. I think it is a great film, with a
perfectly pitched dark humor reflecting Nabokov's own comic tone.
Are we sympathizing with VN's frustration at not achieving his
vision of a filmed "Lolita," dismissing the adaptation which is,
ultimately, Kubrick's and not our hero's? Or is there a solid
case for viewing it as a defective film?
Stephen Frick
sfrick@mgm.com