Reviews

I've read the book, twice, and seen the Kubrick movie twice but Adrian Lyne's new version is the hands-down winner. The casting, the photography, and the production values are amazing. Having directed Fatal Attraction and 9 ½ Weeks, Lyne understands the dark side of love and sex. It's interesting that in his Lolita, he keeps that understanding of the obsessive as the keynote, but adds sunlight, beauty, and humor (a more sophisticated humor than Kubrick's). This dynamic works beautifully. Jeremy Irons adds a guilty edginess to the role and is excellent throughout, portraying complicated emotions naturally and credibly. In my opinion this movie is among Irons' top work.

There are many scenes that play out as they did in the book, and the small additions where Lyne has diverged from the book enhance the scenes with rich detail and beauty. The scene on the porch of the Haze house, with Humbert, Dolores, and Mrs. Haze, is wonderfully choreographed, and Swain, as Lolita, is believably kid-like yet sensual. Her sensuality is a new toy, something to experiment with. Dolores, becoming a young woman, plays with her emerging sensuality, but has a child's understanding of adult relations. When she's done playing with sensuality, she'll read a comic book, or listen to the radio, and she doesn't want Humbert bothering her again. Lyne brings out that contrast of normal teen to obsessive object Lolita—the contrast of Dolores Haze herself, and how her obsessive lover sees her.

The performance of Melanie Griffiths needs to be noted. She's beautiful, yearning, and a bit socially inept as the small-town landlady attracted to the sophisticated European professor. When she and her daughter get into arguments several times, Griffiths' voice cracks and takes on a shrill tone. These scenes are well-done, and Griffiths handles the switch from charming to infuriated extremely well.

The last of the main characters, Clare Quilty, is perfectly acted by Frank Langella. Where Sellers' Quilty was manic and funny, Langella's Quilty is shadowy and sinister, which is as it should be. Near the end, as Langella's Quilty talks to Humbert, we see precisely how Quilty is Humbert's dark (or is that "darker"?) side and we see that Humbert sees it too. Langella's Quilty is almost always seen smoking a cigarette in the shadows, and his devilish presence adds weight and gravitas to a small but crucial role.

As I noted, the production and photography are excellent. The set designs, cars, clothing, and music are all late 1940s, which is the time of the story in the novel. The Kubrick version was set in the time it was made, 1962. I appreciate Lyne getting this right. One of the themes of Nabokov's novel was post-WWII America, with its brand-new recovering economy, and its many highways that spanned the country. A good portion of the book details Humbert's and Lolita's wanderings across America,and Lyne portrays this in his version. He also portrays how immersed in her era Lolita is, using the slang, singing along with the popular music, and gorging on movie magazines and comic books. Lyne and Swain get this aspect of Lolita's character right. The attention paid to detail in Lyne's Lolita is gorgeous and eye-filling. Yet everything feels natural, with never a whiff of self-conscious retro. There are beautifully-lighted scenes, and a sunny surface that contrasts with Humbert's dark obsession. That contrast is the crux of the movie. Kubrick's Lolita brought out the dark comedy of the novel, but Lyne's version of Lolita brings out its lyrical beauty. Both deal with the unhealthy obsessive love Humbert has for Lolita, but in very different ways. I think those who have read the book will appreciate this second version of Lolita for its beauty and for Swain's portrayal of Lolita as an ordinary bratty young teen, and Irons' portrayal of a man with a fierce, yet helpless, obsession.