Film review : Lolita

Adrian Lyle’s Lolita is a remake of Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita. I have a lot of admiration for Stanley Kubrick, but any artist, and even any great artist, can have his or her bad days. Kubrick’s Lolita is flawed in many ways. First of all, it’s not as close to the novel as Adrian Lyle’s. 

In the book, Lolita is 14 years’ old. In the Kubrick film, she is clearly older. She is also a whimsical, superficial creature. Her heart is as cold as an ice cube. As for the professor, played by the talented James Mason, he is a hard and selfish man attracted only by Lolita’s body. Lolita’s mother does not exactly bring out the sympathy of the viewer either. So, in fact, not a single one of the main characters is likeable. As a spectator, we cannot identify with any of those self-centered persons. 

By contrast, the actress playing Adrian Lyle’s Lolita was really only 14 during the making of the film. You can feel the difference right away. The professor, played by Jeremy Irons, is attractive and basically nice. He does not only lust after Lolita : he genuinely loves her, and this love is a torture for him. It is like a curse in a Greek tragedy. 

If we add to this the quality of the camera work in every take, the impeccable choice and sharpness of colors and picture framings, Adrian Lyle’s Lolita is a true masterpiece, compared to the disappointing flop of a great film director.