Never thought that I would cry at a movie about pedophilia (discussion)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lolita
roraio — 9 years ago(June 19, 2016 11:29 AM)
I read the book recently and I didn't particularly like it. In fact. I almost stopped reading and wanted to put it down because of the content and the scenes described, but I forced myself to read it until the end because the writing was good. I watched other films on male pedophiles (one example is
The Woodsman
(2009) with Kevin Bacon), less graphic, and I found them pretty disturbing.
However, watching this adaptation of
Lolita
left me conflicted. The film portrays an attractive, very self-restrained Humbert (if you read the book, you know what I mean), and an older, more sexualized Lolita, which makes it a bit less painful to watch. Also, the film doesn't emphasize Humbert's disturbing pedophile thoughts (like in the book), and instead, it conveys a strong and obsessive affection for Lolita, both erotic and fatherly (Humbert preparing Lolita for school, caring about her education and her physical safety etc.), and Humbert oscillating between these two types of affection. The film kinda tricks watchers into thinking that Lolita pursued Humbert (and not the only way around), and that Humbert truly loved Lolita as person (as opposed to psychological projection) and wasn't merely attracted to her as a nymphet. If you watch some of the ending scenes in isolation, removing the theme of pedophilia from your head, you get generic romantic drama scenes, where the lead male character gets revenge on people who hurt his lover. It might be because of my emotional charge, but I burst into crying during the scene in Coalmont towards the ending (Lolita and Humbert's last meeting, after three years), especially when Humbert uttered '
Don't touch me. I'll die if you touch me. Just tell me there's a chance you'll come with me
' not only because it was a depressing and desperate cry, but also because it triggered some personal experiences (unrequited love; not pedophilia) and this is exactly how I felt when I said goodbye to the only person I ever loved. I empathized with Humbert's heartbreak over Lolita's unrequited love (not with his pedophilia, to be clear!), and I felt guilty for it, because I did not feel like this when I read the book.
Did anyone else feel similar? What do you think? -
scndform — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 07:09 AM)
I totally understand. Whether told through book or film Lolita is a very powerful story and one of its powers is that it was meant to gradually seduce and control the emotions of the reader/watcher just as Humbert did to Lo. The book does this through the gorgeous prose and writing skills of Nabokov while the film does it through the stellar performance of a top-rate, handsome actor with a mesmerizing voice, a poignant, emotional soundtrack, and breathtaking cinematography. Both mediums intentionally play with the mind of the reader/viewer to cause conflict between the heart and the head as intentional ploys- yet in the end, the head, I think, must win out as this story also does a wonderful job of reminding one of why relationships such the one between Humbert and Lo are forbidden- both legally and morally.
Also remember that everything we see or read is presented as Humbert perceives the relationship- and Humbert doesn't see himself as a sexual predator. In his mind his story is a tragic case of unmitigated romantic love instead of sexual molestation, abuse, and control that causes nothing but the destruction and death of not only Lo, but himself as well. -
panda-boy942 — 9 years ago(July 20, 2016 03:17 AM)
Yes.
More mature readers and watchers see it your way.
Having read the book at an age that was very close to Lolita's, I understood all these things. Partly because the showtime debut of the movie had the director explain it too.
For me the book is great and for me the heart wrenching scene/part in movie and book was when he sat waiting for police after the murder. Nabokov's words and a Irons's voice are a good combo.
It's an obsessive love story wrapped in a pedophilic blanket. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 11:34 PM)
Yes, even though we know - from Humbert's own testimony that he's a fiend, yet one contiunally suffering an "Amfortas Wound" from having lost his "Annabelle" by the sea -
"the poison was in the wound, you see"
, still he remains parodoxically sympathetic.
One of the marks of Nabokov's writing skill was his ability to make us care and even sweat for Humbert, even though we should only be cheering for his arrest.
Ditto with this movie: by the time poor, bloodied Humbert (why do we care - he just murdered a man!) lets his car ramble through the cow pasture, and he gets out and hears a kind of distant carillon of children's voices at play, and he realizes that the one thing wrong was that Lolita's voice was absent from that chorus so touching, so moving, so tragic. Because when Humbert says that, he's telling us that he knows that he has stolen Lolita's childhood, and he is sufficiently human to regret it deep in his soul.