An actress who is remembered unfairly as a ditzy blond when she was an outstanding actor of great presence and chosen by top directors Stanley Kubrick, John Huston and John Ford for key roles in their films.
@@tiaaaron3278 Night of the Iguana and Seven Women are a pair of top notch films she was featured in. Other roles were in lesser regarded movies, but she performed well in all of them, e.g. The Flim-Flam Man
She always said that filming Lolita was the best time of her life and that it was extremely fun. Knowing that Stanley Kubrick is famous for being one of the most difficult directors to work with, and how demanding he was with his actors, I can only conclude she had to be incredibly talented and intuitive, being able to pull that role so convincingly and never having any issues with Kubrick.
There is also a very specific sexual innuendo going on, with Humbert basically drooling at the feet of his underage, but very dominating mistress. "Open your mouth... you can have one little bite." Masterful scene.
@@veilofreality She barged into his room and delivered his breakfast. Then stayed there being all bratty and snotty. What was he supposed to do? Yell at her, order her out and back to the kitchen? I mean, sure, today, in 2023 you HAVE to do that. But in 1962 there were different expectations.
@@RaptorFromWeegee what I meant is that there is a sexual undertone to the scene, female feet are used in this sense many times in this movie by Kubrick, just look at the opening credits.
I just heard about the passing of Sue Lyon....she was so good in "Lolita" and I had a MAJOR crush on James Mason....loved his voice, he was fantastic....watched this film every time it was on TV when I was a teen....Rest In Peace Sue Lyon : ((((
@@stripedshirts Oh yes, it was much better....Peter Sellers, James Mason & Shelly Winters, with a cast like that how could it be bad...lol....I saw the Jeremy Irons one, didn't like it at all even though some said it was more true to the book.
There's a moment when Lolita comes home early and walks in on James Mason and Shelly Winters dancing and she greets them with an innocent "hi" followed by a little shake and her teasing with "cha-cha-cha." Funny and perfect. I thought she was under-rated in that film.
@@haintedhouse3052 You are so right....I thought Sue Lyon was absolutely perfect for Lolita too. And I can see that moment you described in my head right now...lol...there are so many great moments like that. I especially love the one where James Mason is in the bathtub, his facial expressions are priceless..
I like how she’s a clueless, somewhat hardened teen who is completely uncaring about the highbrow stuff he’s immersed in. Meanwhile he is dumbly fascinated by her. She toys with him but ultimately his infatuation is destroyed and she just goes on.
@@juicer67 I guess Kubrick wanted her to be happy. After all, she really wasn't a bad person unlike Humbert. She was a child and Humbert is irresponsible for the bad things that happened to her.
@@hebneh she only was because the censorship didn't let them have a 12 year old girl in that role. Her age is not told in the movie so vievers can give one to her instead. The fact they wanted to cast an actual 12 year old is disturbing
Perfect that he reads Edgar Allen Poe... who married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his twenties. Of course it was a different time then, but still an interesting poet to be reading from considering that.
That's the issue with this book and movie. Times have changed since it was written. What was a bit too young back then is now disgusting today. Elvis began dating Priscilla when she was 14. That morally questionable back then today it's disturbing. So, I like when in movies the increase her age to fit the era. Today she would be 16 or 17.
@@candicefrost4561 Everything changes. "The Lover" is an autobiographical novel about a 15-year-old girl's affair with a 27-year-old wealthy businessman in 1929. Today that would be a crime. Back then they could have married.
Kubrick's direction is genius in how he makes Humbert seem even older and out of touch with the times when he's reading classic poetry. Meanwhile, Lolita sounds like any sassy teenage girl from today, bored to death, with an attention span of -10.
As much as I like this movie, I can't help but think that after reading some of the comments here, the movie failed to capture the true meaning of the original novel and ended up romanticizing pedophilia (Granted, not nearly as bad as the 1997 adaptation, but still not great)
Kubrick actually watered down a lot of things. You say 1997 version was worse when it was more accurate to the novel. Anyways, none of them romanticise this relationship. They all know it's terrible.
The actress is older than written in the novel, and this scene is not at all as it is in the book. I guess they had to change it, so as to be not quite as disturbing, though it is disturbing enough, as written.
It's crazy because in the book you have to keep telling yourself (and Humbert has to keep reminding us) that she's 12yrs old lol. I think if you put a 12yr old actress on *film* it would have just been to crude. The book gets away with it because we kinda like Humbert and find ourselves forgetting she's 12!? Idk it's a great read tho 👍
@@daviswendye I'm not understanding the need for such a specific relationship to be exploited unless, by your scenario, there's some deeper desire to have a father being used. In the context of the story, Mrs Robinson was on friendly-social terms with Benjamin's parents.
I can't. Everyone talks about how she is seductive?? and looks old etc?? she looks so young to me it's disturbing. Just seeing their faces next to each other makes me gag and feel sick to my stomach. Even beyond the story, the reality of her being 14 playing this role opposite a man 53 is disturbing. She looks so young I feel so horrified this a celebrated movie and story.
I know, it’s so weird seeing people try to say she’s seductive and knowingly tempting Humbert. She’s a just little girl. The whole point is this is told from Humbert’s POV. SO many people never understand the point of this book and film
You are right. Besides, Nabokov himself spoke of his novel as a kind of denunciation of Humbert Humbert's behavior, a character whose vice and ridiculousness he wanted to show... which this film nicely erases, in order to please all those who were raised with abusive and incestuous references. 😬
No ones making any of you watch the movie. If it disturbs you so much perhaps you need to be more careful of what movies you watch. You trigger too easily.
I hate this adaptation. She's completely wrong as a physical type. She looks about 19 at least and acts about 17. The original character is 12 and leaves him when she's 15. There are scenes in here that aren't in the book and they suck. They thought they could write better than the genius Nabakov?
It reminds me that Disney stopped hiring children to play children in order to avoid children being traumatized/abused by the dramatic characters they play or would play in the story. 🤷🏼♀️ Here this young actress plays a girl who is abused by a middle-aged man who decides to collaborate in her seduction game (or create it). The fact of NOT having taken such a young actress can be regrettable for the rendering that we have, but is better for the actress who played.
Nabakov wrote the screenplay for the Kubrick version. If they had been completely true to the book, no studio would finance it, and no theater would show it.
"Don't tell mom, but I've eaten all your bacon." And she keeps eating his breakfast. She's an impertinent annoying spoiled brat, unconsciously behaving in a seductive way. She takes all of it as a game, just like a baby girl, yet this is what amuses and fascinates him...
The problem with the story is that Lolita is a typical ignorant, classless, crude, and very average youngster when compared to a culturally refined older lady, making the professor a bigger fool. The story would have been more realistic, exciting, compelling, and empathetic to the professors dilemma and hesitation had Lolita been mature for her age.
What dilemma? He’s a pedophile? There is no dilemma that’s what he’s attracted to. And children don’t behave like adults because they are children. That’s the whole point.
@@leebliss3622 No thats a rather boring plot as you describe. Whats only on the surface is not what the author wanted, for the audience to go deeper and explore the evil (or is evil based only on society’s random definition of it in terms of a specific age, which changes over time) of man. Its why the film was so controversial.
Difficult to watch now, but same feel. Mason was too good for this. But liked Full Metal Jacket and The Shining immensely. Changes lives. It's periodic that's what made him great I suppose. We can't apply our genius like this. Learn to write kids the rain is coming. Put your phone in a fish tank. Get a STEM degree avoid the MULTICULT WOKE crap and certainly whatever is going on now at Universities and the rat show they make you play to get in. Pay a THIRD million for a degree and you will pay for 40 years and NOT be able to make a single minute of a film. I'm 55. Thank God.
this movie comes off so dated..The 1997 version was so much better..It was more erotic too because Jeremy Irons did a much better job and is definetly sexier than Mason. Ironic how this later movie was not played in any theaters. Different time..
I mean the film really isn't meant to be erotic. The 1997 one is also good, as it can actually portray the actual dark and messed up stuff due to less limitations, but honestly I think they needed to make Humbert creepier.
@@themagicalfox6 Some passages of the novel are, but everybody who wants something stimulated to read will be disappointed because what follows after the couch scene is more or less implied, and there's so much in the novel other than sex.
