Subject
Re: Kubrick's LO & MLA Toronto - 1997
Date
Body
EDITORIAL NOTE. The discussion of Kubrick's LOLITA is becoming a bit
over-personal (although this is certainly not so in Brian Gross's posting
below). I would like to thank the contributors for their worthwhile
observations on the film's virtues and deficiencies, it is perhaps time to
move on to greener pastures.
I would like to reiterate Ellen Pifer's suggestion of this A.M.:
"Those particularly interested in the topic should note the recent
announcement by the VN Society in the Spring 1997 MLA *Newsletter.* Under
Calls for Papers for the 1997 Toronto Convention, see listings (p. 26)
under
"International Nabokov Society," which read as follows:
INTERNATIONAL VLADIMIR NABOKOV SOCIETY:
1)*Lolita* in Context. Issues, controversies, English and Russian texts,
film adaptations, intertextuality. Papers or proposals by 1 Mar.; Ellen
Pifer.
2) Open Topic. Papers or proposals by 1 Mar.; D. Barton Johnson.
Ellen Pifer, VP IVNS
English Department
127 Memorial Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Tel: 302-831-6965
Fax: 302-831-1586
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Gross <briang@dingo.sr.hp.com>
I cannot jump into the fray (much as I'd like to!) and add my own critique
of Kubrick's "Lolita" as I've not seen the film in several years. It's
time for a re-run!
I must, however, question a statement made by
Mr. Morris <mmorris@riscy.forsyth.tec.nc.us>:
>
> Incidentally, I think it is important to remember that Nabokov had a
> contractual obligation never to say anthing bad about Kubrick's version of
> his film. To me, his praises have always been models of polite
> disingenuousness.
>
Perhaps his praises were indeed "models of polite disingenuousness" but I
would have thought that any such contract (if made in the U.S.A.) would
be illegal as it would violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
I would sooner believe that Nabokov held a higher opinion of the movie and
Kubrick's skills than Mr. Morris does than I would that Nabokov allowed
himself to be muzzled by something as trivial as an illegal contract.
Incidentally, I've always taken the "view from an ambulance" statement
to describe the frustration one would feel in being unable to see more than
a hint of a beautiful landscape that is flying by too quickly.
I feel that the "view from an ambulance" statement is Nabokov's elegant
and truthful opinion of Kubrick's "Lolita".
Brian Gross
(briang@sr.hp.com)
over-personal (although this is certainly not so in Brian Gross's posting
below). I would like to thank the contributors for their worthwhile
observations on the film's virtues and deficiencies, it is perhaps time to
move on to greener pastures.
I would like to reiterate Ellen Pifer's suggestion of this A.M.:
"Those particularly interested in the topic should note the recent
announcement by the VN Society in the Spring 1997 MLA *Newsletter.* Under
Calls for Papers for the 1997 Toronto Convention, see listings (p. 26)
under
"International Nabokov Society," which read as follows:
INTERNATIONAL VLADIMIR NABOKOV SOCIETY:
1)*Lolita* in Context. Issues, controversies, English and Russian texts,
film adaptations, intertextuality. Papers or proposals by 1 Mar.; Ellen
Pifer.
2) Open Topic. Papers or proposals by 1 Mar.; D. Barton Johnson.
Ellen Pifer, VP IVNS
English Department
127 Memorial Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Tel: 302-831-6965
Fax: 302-831-1586
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Gross <briang@dingo.sr.hp.com>
I cannot jump into the fray (much as I'd like to!) and add my own critique
of Kubrick's "Lolita" as I've not seen the film in several years. It's
time for a re-run!
I must, however, question a statement made by
Mr. Morris <mmorris@riscy.forsyth.tec.nc.us>:
>
> Incidentally, I think it is important to remember that Nabokov had a
> contractual obligation never to say anthing bad about Kubrick's version of
> his film. To me, his praises have always been models of polite
> disingenuousness.
>
Perhaps his praises were indeed "models of polite disingenuousness" but I
would have thought that any such contract (if made in the U.S.A.) would
be illegal as it would violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
I would sooner believe that Nabokov held a higher opinion of the movie and
Kubrick's skills than Mr. Morris does than I would that Nabokov allowed
himself to be muzzled by something as trivial as an illegal contract.
Incidentally, I've always taken the "view from an ambulance" statement
to describe the frustration one would feel in being unable to see more than
a hint of a beautiful landscape that is flying by too quickly.
I feel that the "view from an ambulance" statement is Nabokov's elegant
and truthful opinion of Kubrick's "Lolita".
Brian Gross
(briang@sr.hp.com)