------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------
A new movie version of "Lolita" directed by Adrian Lyne was released in 1997, and I haven't seen it yet. It's not that I look down on it, it's that I look down on it, I don't believe that he can shoot well. Just think of starring Jeremy Irons' eyes. It's hard for him to be hungry for so many years.
I used to read Nabokov’s interview "Stubbornly Opinion". What impressed me very much was that Nabokov admired Kubrick’s film "Lolita" very much. This is quite unusual for him, because we all It is clear that Nabokov's anger and resentment are not necessarily less than his talent. Re-checking the book now, I found that there are three places that talk about Kubrick's movie version. Every time the comment is changing, praise or praise, but the gap gradually expands, and what is revealed below is dissatisfaction.
The first time it was told in an interview with a reporter from "Playboy" in March 1963. Soon after the movie was released, Nabokov barely left room for words: "I think this movie is absolutely top-notch. The four main actors All deserve the highest praise.” The second time was in August 1964, and Nabokov seemed to gradually wake up: “As far as the film is concerned, I admire the film "Lolita" very much-but very much. Unfortunately they didn’t give me a chance to participate in the production. People who like my novel say that the film is too incomplete. However, if other films based on my work can be as charming as those taken by Kubrick, I won’t talk too much. "The third time, two years later, Nabokov is preparing to publish the full text of the movie script he wrote. Perhaps he thinks that Kubrick has changed too much to the original. He did not respond to the questions of the "Paris Review" reporter. He said without complaint: "I don't want to say that Kubrick's film is mediocre. As far as the film is concerned, it is first-rate, but that is not what I wrote. I never wanted to understand why he didn't follow my instructions. Don’t do what I dream of."
In fact, there is nothing hard to think about. How could Kubrick listen to the instructions of someone so strong, let alone impose any dreams. I watched the movie "Lolita" like watching Nabokov and Kubrick in a tug-of-war. It is not only a see-saw of physical strength and a see-saw of will, but also a see-saw of artistic concepts, and even the inevitable see-saw of different art types. This reminds me of Humbert in the novel when Humbert finally took a pistol to seek revenge from Quilty, and described the two people fighting on the ground: "The fight between us was neither fierce boxing nor flying. Furniture. He and I are two dummies stuffed with dirty cotton and rag heads. This is a silent, soft, and inexperienced fight between two scholars, one of them He was overwhelmed by drugs, and the other had a heart attack and drank too much gin.”
My associations are not as random as they seem, but it is actually a reminder of Kubrick’s major changes to the original work. I. In the novel "Lolita", whether it is Lolita, Mrs. Haze and Quilty, they are just some superficial characters. They are not unimportant, but their importance can only be reflected in Humbert. The contrast is on top. Humbert is the only protagonist of the novel. He is in the mirror to see himself. Quilty and the others are Humbert's mirror and running water. In Kubrick's movie, we see Quilty rise. From the beginning of the film's flashback, Quilty has become a force. He and Humbert competed. This struggle became the main line of the film, and the protagonist's status has changed from dominance to side by side.
Kubrick’s changes are obvious: the mysterious trailing vehicle on the road was added later; Quilty dressed up the inquiring policeman in the motel. There was no such thing as; in the novel, Humbert was persuaded. The person who allowed Lolita to join the dance troupe was not someone Quilty had faked, but a real Mrs. Pratt; of course, the harassing call when Humbert was sick in the hotel was not from the original. of. With this change, the drama has naturally improved a lot, but we weren't watching a detective film. What's more, the ending of the film has been announced a long time ago. What's the point of asking who the murderer is. In my opinion, Kubrick made Quilty such a protagonist, and he really meant not to be here.
Strictly speaking, Quilty and Humbert are not rivals, but rather like a pair of brothers. These are "two dummies stuffed with dirty cotton and ragged heads", these are two civilized men who have gone bankrupt. Said they are civilized people, because they have been baptized by civilization, and they have penetrated the bankruptcy of civilization with their own wisdom, precisely because they came from civilization, and they know the fragility of civilization best. Quilty shoots pornographic movies, and Humbert is obsessed with budding girls. They are very aware of the essence of these rebellious behaviors, but rebellion is also a kind of civilization, which is unknown to the ignorant and the worldly. Conversely, they are said to be bankrupt, because they think they are immersed in civilization, but in fact their hearts have not yet touched the drops of civilization. Their hearts are like a peach: ignorance is the fluff on the outer skin. Although it is disturbing, it is easy to remove. The flesh is rich and delicate, but once it rots, it will reveal the hard core inside. This hard core is vulgar. What Nabokov said, "Nothing is more exciting." Vulgarity is not the opposite of civilization, it is ignorance that opposes civilization, and vulgarity crawls out of civilization. If civilization continues for one day, the life span of vulgarity will increase by one day.
Quilty and Humbert are both vulgar—in fact, no one in "Lolita" is not vulgar—but their forms are different. One is cynical, the other is wretched and hypocritical, and the other wakes up from a civilized dream. Realizing that the building faults in the dream are all fakes, I struggling to smash and trample on the remaining tiles. The other is that I haven’t fallen asleep at all, but hides under the solemn building faults, pretending to have such a dream. Like. Kubrick picked up a character like Quilty from "Lolita", and he saw through his dreams.
Nabokov also admitted that Kubrick made a charming movie, but I still feel that the novel "Lolita" has not been exhausted by the movie, and will never be exhausted. At the bottom of the well, which is short and hard to reach, lies the tone of the novel quietly. Everyone knows that the novel "Lolita" was self-reported by Humbert, and his pretentious tone runs through from beginning to end. The story he tells, the fog lost the building, the fictitious reality, makes people suspect that it is somewhat credible, but the problem is that we have no other way other than Humbert’s exaggerated and pretentious tone. This voice is used to understand the event itself, in a word, we can only listen to Humbert, listen to his lies, listen to his babble. However, the charm of the novel is here, and Nabokov's originality is also reflected here. Ordinarily, Nabokov followed Flaubert's path, but his "Lolita" surpassed Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" to some extent. Why do you say that? Because Although Flaubert found such a vain woman as the protagonist, he was still emotional when he wrote, and Nabokov’s writing of Humbert and Lolita was really ruthless, and Nabokov was based on it. His indifference surpassed Flaubert, because the way Flaubert was originally meant to do his handiwork indifferently.
Looking back at Kubrick’s adaptation now, I vaguely think he has long understood that it is impossible to reproduce the ambiguity of a novel with the directness of film images. Movies have the domain of movies, and novels have novels. territory. Pope said: "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread." (for fools rush in where angels fear to tread.) Kubrick turned Humbert’s monologue into a dialogue with Quilty. He is not a fool, he is very shrewd, not only is he not a fool to take another path where he can't get involved.
View more about Lolita reviews
