yes we CAN say slutty in the present American Beauty
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lolita
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 12 years ago(November 17, 2013 10:59 PM)
yes we CAN say slutty in the present American Beauty
question is could it be said under Hays Code for Lolita 1962 and ditto for 1997 version where Hays is replaced with small f feminist induced political correctness [that led the OP to euphemise the word hirself]
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
TraumatizedPanda — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 06:56 AM)
What you guys have to remember is that the story is being written from Humbert's perspective. A lot of the things Lolita is doing are most likely exaggerated and we are only getting the story the way HUMBERT tells it. We never get Lolita's perspective or anyone else's, we only have the story from Humbert. If the story were told from a different perspective, maybe if it were an unbiased third person narrating, the story would be completely different. Unfortunately, it's not, so we have to listen to Humbert even though he is unreliable. Humbert portrayed Lolita the way he wanted us to see her: a seductive nymphet. This is why Lolita is always sitting with her legs open and flirting with Humbert because this is what Humbert wants us to see. He wanted us to think that Lolita wanted it as much as he did. If he portrayed her as a girl he was obsessed with that wanted nothing to do with him, the audience would feel no sympathy for him and label him a creep right off the bat. Humbert didn't want to be seen as a creep. He wanted the audience to think that him and Lolita had this epic romance and in the end he was heartbroken by her betrayal. People today are still fooled by Humbert being the unreliable narrator and blaming Lolita for tempting Humbert.
Lastly, I would like to say that I think it's absolutely sick that people actually defend rapists! Saying the way the person dresses is tempting is utter bulls***. People need to realize how traumatizing being raped is to the victim and putting the blame on them rather than the rapist is terrible. The fact that there are people out there who defend a rapist's actions is disgusting. -
!!!deleted!!! (8778465) — 11 years ago(December 03, 2014 05:44 PM)
This is a great post. Rare thing these days, especially on IMDB.
The unreliable narrator aspect needs to be taken into account and so far this is the only post I've seen it mentioned.
The story is told from the (skewed, biased, twisted) perspective of a child molester. The entire narrative cannot really be taken at face value, unless you subscribe to the belief that sexual predators can be trusted and relied upon to tell the truth.
Everyone sympathizing with Humbert has pretty much lost the plot. You've allowed yourselves to be duped by someone who married a women, who he later murdered, so that he could molest/hold captive her twelve year old daughter. Good job, guys, and gals apparently. You people make me sick, no joke. I hope each and every one of you dies soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator
In some cases the narrator's unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lolita/canalysis.html
Humbert is a completely unreliable narrator, and his myopic self-delusion and need for sympathy make many of his statements suspect. He claims Lolita seduced him and that she was in complete control of the relationship.
Unbelievable. I can't even come up with words to describe what an embarrassing beep show this thread has turned into. Who should we sympathize with next, guys? What other sick beep human beings guilty of committing atrocious acts towards women and children is most deserving of our sympathies?
Idiots.
Although the name Lolita has become synonymous with underage sexpot, Nabokovs Lolita is simply a stubborn child. She is neither very beautiful nor particularly charming, and Humbert often remarks on her skinny arms, freckles, vulgar language, and unladylike behavior. Lolita attracts the depraved Humbert not because she is precocious or beautiful, but because she is a nymphet, Humberts ideal combination of childishness and the first blushes of womanhood. To nonpedophiles, Lolita would be a rather ordinary twelve-year-old girl. Her ordinariness is a constant source of frustration for Humbert, and she consistently thwarts his attempts to educate her and make her more sophisticated. She adores popular culture, enjoys mingling freely with other people, and, like most prepubescent girls, has a tendency toward the dramatic.
However, when she shouts and rebels against Humbert, she exhibits more than the frustration of an ordinary adolescent: she clearly feels trapped by her arrangement with Humbert, but she is powerless to extricate herself.
Good job guys. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.
Humbert objectifies Lolita, and he robs her of any sense of self. Lolita exists only as the object of his obsession, never as an individual. The lack of self-awareness in a child is typical and often charming. In the adult Lolita, the absence of self-awareness seems tragic. -
andromache3 — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 06:45 PM)
This is a great post. Rare thing these days, especially on IMDB.
The unreliable narrator aspect needs to be taken into account and so far this is the only post I've seen it mentioned.
The story is told from the (skewed, biased, twisted) perspective of a child molester. The entire narrative cannot really be taken at face value, unless you subscribe to the belief that sexual predators can be trusted and relied upon to tell the truth.
Everyone sympathizing with Humbert has pretty much lost the plot. You've allowed yourselves to be duped by someone who married a women, who he later murdered, so that he could molest/hold captive her twelve year old daughter. Good job, guys, and gals apparently. You people make me sick, no joke. I hope each and every one of you dies soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator
In some cases the narrator's unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lolita/canalysis.html
Humbert is a completely unreliable narrator, and his myopic self-delusion and need for sympathy make many of his statements suspect. He claims Lolita seduced him and that she was in complete control of the relationship.
Unbelievable. I can't even come up with words to describe what an embarrassing beep show this thread has turned into. Who should we sympathize with next, guys? What other sick beep human beings guilty of committing atrocious acts towards women and children is most deserving of our sympathies?
Idiots.
Although the name Lolita has become synonymous with underage sexpot, Nabokovs Lolita is simply a stubborn child. She is neither very beautiful nor particularly charming, and Humbert often remarks on her skinny arms, freckles, vulgar language, and unladylike behavior. Lolita attracts the depraved Humbert not because she is precocious or beautiful, but because she is a nymphet, Humberts ideal combination of childishness and the first blushes of womanhood. To nonpedophiles, Lolita would be a rather ordinary twelve-year-old girl. Her ordinariness is a constant source of frustration for Humbert, and she consistently thwarts his attempts to educate her and make her more sophisticated. She adores popular culture, enjoys mingling freely with other people, and, like most prepubescent girls, has a tendency toward the dramatic. However, when she shouts and rebels against Humbert, she exhibits more than the frustration of an ordinary adolescent: she clearly feels trapped by her arrangement with Humbert, but she is powerless to extricate herself.
Good job guys. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.
Humbert objectifies Lolita, and he robs her of any sense of self. Lolita exists only as the object of his obsession, never as an individual. The lack of self-awareness in a child is typical and often charming. In the adult Lolita, the absence of self-awareness seems tragic.
Hear, hear! Thank goodness there are some smart people on imdb like you and Traumatized Panda. The defenders of child molesting creeps like Humbert on this thread make my skin crawl. What would these morons say if their wives/sisters/mothers/daughters etc. were involved with and exploited by a creep like Humbert? Pathetic.
"You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you." Mr Darcy -
The_Sedgwicks_Daughter — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 02:57 PM)
I don't know if it was just because I was bought up in a different culture or upbringing, but by the time I was 12 or 14 I was old enough to realize that feeling comfortable enough to change in front of a fully grown(strange man) it seemed like, it was not the way for a developing girl to behave. Ever. Let alone changing a bra, no man except for my real daddy if the occasion called for it(sick in hospital, sick in bed etc). Otherwise, it was just plain and overtly dirty and disrespectful. Girls need to understand boundaries, self-respect and self-esteem. The earlier the better, I'm sorry but I agree with OP on this. It takes two to tango, and if Lo did have certain morals instilled in her then their relationship might not have even worked or have gotten to the point of intercourse.
-
waleed90 — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 03:30 PM)
Keep in mind that the story is not presented through a reliable channel, but from Humbert's defense in front of the jury. So he may have altered the story, as a poster mentioned in another thread, to gain sympathy or maybe even he subconsciously misinterpreted her actions in a sexual way to justify his pervert feelings towards her.
Sure she was not a role model for a 15-year-old girl, but it was partly caused by seeing how slutty really was her mother in hunt for man to marry.
It is meant for you through out the film to see Lo through Humbert's eyes. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 11:47 PM)
Swain played Lo as slutty. But Nabokov's Lo was much more the truly innocent 12 year old. Not to be rude, but Swain's Lo looked like the proverbial girl who could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. I love this film, but I find Lo's occasional protestations vs. Hum and sex with him not exactly being from the heart.
Of course, casting an actual 12 year old would turn the film into much more of a horror movie than it already is. The filmed image dominates the viewer's perspective and hence his/her awareness, and seeing a "real little girl" mouthing Swain's lines and body language and style of (un)dress simply would not convey the story's primary humor and irony. So, in retrospect, I guess that I am happy enough with Swain, although she does not radiate the innocence of the novelistic Lolita.
