"I want it. I have to have it. I need your juicy piece of...bacon?"
Kubrick's independence from Hollywood effectively begins with Lolita (1962). We can see glimpses of the future director's experimental camera angles and storytelling techniques, but we also see the influence of the director's past in Classical Hollywood Cinema. In a career of masterpieces, Lolita fails to stand out, overshadowed by the greatest, least recognized war film, Paths of Glory (1957), and certainly his later films making it simultaneously underrated and mediocre depending on your perspective. This film feels more like an outcast like Spartacus (1960) from Kubrick's singular oeuvre.
The film lacks restraint both in its running time (and therefore editing choices) and its on-the-nose tone. Unfortunately its greatest failure is the cast, except Sue Lyon (Lolita) who captures a casual, simultaneous seductiveness and childishness that rarely feels forced. For a film whose backbone is the nature of sexual desire, James Mason (Humbert Humbert) acts like an asexual robot, so his character falls flat. He also fails to capture any authentic sense of remorse. James Mason is better off in Roman epics or as Captain Nemo. Peter Sellers (Quilty) literally does a Stanley Kubrick imitation and behaves (as he often does in his roles) as a complete alien.
Direction reigns supreme. Kubrick uses black and white cinematography masterfully. In one shot, a domineering high angle looks down on Lolita in a white dress laying in a pool of bright white from the bed sheets. The only significant source of darkness comes from the soles of her symbolically adult, high-heeled shoes she dangles. In another, Humbert is drowned in darkness with the sole light sharply highlighting his hands covering his face. Like Welles, he uses elongated shadows, deep focus and blocking, and architecture that sharply frames shots.
Overall, the film feels like a parody of a satire of a borderline tragedy. Between the moments of slapstick humor and left-field double entendres about filling her cavity or making her a sandwich with extra mayonnaise just the way she likes it, the film fails to achieve emotional authenticity even if it does entertain. Maybe that was Kubrick's intention. Looking at it from 2011, it's more of an attempt at making an American Beauty (1999) than it is In The Bedroom (2001); it's just not certain where on that spectrum it's best suited. Is it a dark comedy or just snide mockery? At least it's well made and occasionally visually interesting.
The film lacks restraint both in its running time (and therefore editing choices) and its on-the-nose tone. Unfortunately its greatest failure is the cast, except Sue Lyon (Lolita) who captures a casual, simultaneous seductiveness and childishness that rarely feels forced. For a film whose backbone is the nature of sexual desire, James Mason (Humbert Humbert) acts like an asexual robot, so his character falls flat. He also fails to capture any authentic sense of remorse. James Mason is better off in Roman epics or as Captain Nemo. Peter Sellers (Quilty) literally does a Stanley Kubrick imitation and behaves (as he often does in his roles) as a complete alien.
Direction reigns supreme. Kubrick uses black and white cinematography masterfully. In one shot, a domineering high angle looks down on Lolita in a white dress laying in a pool of bright white from the bed sheets. The only significant source of darkness comes from the soles of her symbolically adult, high-heeled shoes she dangles. In another, Humbert is drowned in darkness with the sole light sharply highlighting his hands covering his face. Like Welles, he uses elongated shadows, deep focus and blocking, and architecture that sharply frames shots.
Overall, the film feels like a parody of a satire of a borderline tragedy. Between the moments of slapstick humor and left-field double entendres about filling her cavity or making her a sandwich with extra mayonnaise just the way she likes it, the film fails to achieve emotional authenticity even if it does entertain. Maybe that was Kubrick's intention. Looking at it from 2011, it's more of an attempt at making an American Beauty (1999) than it is In The Bedroom (2001); it's just not certain where on that spectrum it's best suited. Is it a dark comedy or just snide mockery? At least it's well made and occasionally visually interesting.
Lolita (1962)
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Vladimir Nabokov (from his novel) and Stanley Kubrick (uncredited)
Grade: B-
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Vladimir Nabokov (from his novel) and Stanley Kubrick (uncredited)
Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment