MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > Disgusted by this film...

Disgusted by this film...


TCM ran this in the middle of the night, and I couldn't sleep and wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

I missed the first few minutes, so I will have to watch it again, but I find the movie creepy and I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

James Mason is perfect as a pedophile, but I find the films "whimsy" (Camp Climas, Dr. Kegel, "Dick" the boyfriend, etc.) NOT funny at all, but incredibly inappropriate and just weird. Does the book make this references? I'm going to try and read it this weekend so I can at least do a better review.

Sex between a 14 year old girl (that's how old Lyon was at the time; the book has Lolita even younger; 12.) and a grown man is DISGUSTING.

Anyone who has suffers sexual abuse as a child will have difficult time with this film.

reply

The "whimsy" is not in the book, at least not to this degree. It's added to the screenplay by Sellers and obviously approved by detail-perfectionist Kubrik.

Part of a reader's problem with the book might be that Humbert is a first-person narrator and, while deplorable, you're basically going on this journey with him. If you find the prospect possibly triggering, you should read about the book before reading the book itself.

Like the film, much is hinted at and never shown (after all, this is mid 20th century literature) but there are details and Humbert's own observations and opinions throughout.

reply

The "whimsy" is not in the book, at least not to this degree.


You did a horrible job of reading the book then. The amount of sexual innuendo in the novel is found on every page. The problem with the movie is that it completely downplays the horrors of the relationship.

==================================
Fire Commissioner Cover-Up Immediately!

reply

TCM ran this in the middle of the night, and I couldn't sleep and wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

Reminds me (smiling) of the old joke:

"Officer, that man next door is naked. It is disgusting."

"M'am, all I see is a man with no shirt on."

"Here, officer, climb on this ladder and you will see he really is naked."

Sure, "you couldn't sleep"!

FWIW, I purposely saw it, about 10 years ago, on DVD. Then I read the book. While sex between a grown man and a minor may be disgusting and certainly illegal, unless you live in a cave you know it happens. It has happened for all of recorded history, and probably before that. This movie isn't condoning it, the movie (and the book before it) attempt to give us a glimpse into why it happens. Consider it in that light and maybe you won't be so disgusted. Is it really any worse than, or even as bad as, people shooting and killing each other?

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

lol if you think this is creepy, then you must live in a bubble. try watching Todd Solondz's movies, you freaking child

reply

[deleted]

It's just a movie. Cry me a river. Sex is sex and love will always be love. As long as you don't hurt anyone and it's consensual, it's fine. Stop pretending you're not human and that you wouldn't feel sexually attracted to someone much younger than you if she was a gorgeous-looking women/girl.

Society trying to enforce "rules" on love. Hilarious.

reply

Thank you! I agree completely. I get why we have laws against pedophilia, but I will never understand the immense hatred people have for someone having sex with teens. Reverse the sexes, and it's all dandy.
It's all relative. As long as both parties are consenting, I don't really give a *beep* about what they're doing.

reply

Thank you as well, haha. It's nice to see that some people are starting to open their minds, rather than digest whatever society tells them like misguided fools.

Love is an extremely powerful emotion. Sometimes it can't be explained nor reasoned with. It's something that comes from the heart, and enforcing "barriers" on something that beautiful is completely ridiculous.

Do follow most of the "rules", so you can co-exist peacefully with others, but also follow your heart.

reply

[deleted]

Reverse the sexes, and it's all dandy.


No, it's not. It's still abuse, and it's still disgusting. And it's definitely still illegal.

As long as both parties are consenting


Minors cannot consent. They don't have the emotional maturity to consent.

As great as the novel and the movie are, the worst part of Lolita's legacy is how every creeper thinks they give the go-ahead to their disgusting appetites. The creepers ignore the tragedy (that Lo's life is literally ruined by Humbert's obsession and that she's terribly unhappy) and see the story as HUMBERT does--as some great romance. He's a pathetic character and it's disturbing that all these losers start droning on about "throughout history.." and poo-pooing societal codes against pedophilia as "bourgeois morality."

reply

I would not throw rocks at them, but it is messed up. Teenagers are still kids. You can find them attractive, but there is a line.

reply

"It's just a movie. Cry me a river. Sex is sex and love will always be love. As long as you don't hurt anyone and it's consensual, it's fine. Stop pretending you're not human and that you wouldn't feel sexually attracted to someone much younger than you if she was a gorgeous-looking women/girl.

Society trying to enforce "rules" on love. Hilarious. "

Statutory rape is illegal for a reason. Grown ups should NOT have sex with children for many reasons.
Society has a rule on SEX, not love. As an adult you are not allowed to have sex with someone who's underaged. There. Furthermore you have misunderstood the film if you think it's about consensual love. It's about a peadophile and his obsession.

reply

Well said, Carmen. A bunch of morons are on this thread trying to BS people talking about love and "consensual sex" (with his stepdaughter, by the way. Incest. Real nice.) Obviously, this movie is not about love - it's about a very disturbed man and his obsession over a teenage girl. The truth of the matter is this: the law needs to provide some age to adults to say to people "No, you cannot have sexual relations with people below this age." What do some of the people on this thread want to do? Eliminate the issue of a child's age all together? Idiots.


He won. Get over it.

reply

Carmen..

And where did these laws that society pushes onto us come from? Let me play with your mind for a moment please...

Are you a good God fearing person? or do you believe in the laws of nature? It matters not what your answer is because:

Either God, or the laws of nature, decide when a woman/girl is ready for producing children (which btw, normally involves having sex)...

So...in your moral world...exactly who was it decided to pass laws above and beyond, and higher than God's or natures own laws?

Quite the question don't you think?

Let it ride...

reply

[deleted]

Either God, or the laws of nature, decide when a woman/girl is ready for producing children (which btw, normally involves having sex)...
---

yes it always makes me laugh that the same mob [Catholics] who have thought nothing of murdering the millions over the years in the so called name of "christianity" went to so much trouble to specify Mary did not have sex in building Jesus

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

"Murdering the millions"? In some movie, you mean? Or are you not too good at history?

Or did you perhaps mean "atheists" such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc....

reply

Whoa, go easy on the Cathophobia!

reply

'Quite the question don't you think? '


no its not. I seriously hope you don't think you are remotely clever.
In fact you are either completely retarded, or just some pothead. either way you got no brain cells.
as stated above the law was made for a reason, by people much smarter than you. well, my dog is smarter than you. this is not a religious issue.

people don't mature mentally till at least 18 sometimes 48.

whats this love bs.theres no love in this film.

also, what if I love to drink and drive, should that be made legal

u r a fkn moron

reply

Sad, isn't it? If they would think their ideas through, they would get it. But they never do.

reply

Well said. It's obvious what you say would go far beyond people's minds, they just can not comprehend the world without the need for laws, which is where I believe we are headed as a civilization thankfully, where the only laws that matter are laws of the universe and nature that operate on the basis of karma, so when something bad happens, someone gets murdered, we can choose not to intervene, and let the karma play itself out without the participation of society whatsoever, no judges, no jail, no cops, no solders, no wars, but this is the leap of faith we all individually have to make first before the collective joins in, it requires facing our fears and embracing darkness and evil as good and part of its karmic process. I am personally in touch with people in their 40's who used to have sex with their pre-pubescent children as part of a dark ritual, I am also in touch with a woman who allows herself to be impregnated so she could abort the baby as an offering to her Gods. Why should I intervene, it is their karma, I refuse to police the world, this way I am saying to the universe - I do not need governments oppressing and controlling others, I do not need any authority having control over others'sovereignty. I allow nature to express itself as it is without me being a judge. Let me tell you, THIS is the way how you gradually start removing all governments on earth, where individual people become their own governments ruling only their own lives, not others. Which again requires embracing darkness and having faith and trust that we are protected by the higher powers of the universe, that nothing bad happens to us.

In our ancient history this is how many pagans also used to live, they used hidden magick for protection, they didnt police the world, they embraced evil without any need to fight it. Which is a temptation for an ego that perpetuates wars of good and evil, all the divisions among people, instead of unifying the polarity of good and evil as part of one greater whole.

reply

these types of relationships aren't good or ethical today but years ago (in the bible btw) girls were married off even younger and the men had numerous wives. obviously we have evolved somewhat but it used to be the norm.

this movie is hysterical and proves the point that relationships of that kind don't work. people that have morals obviously know better but the main character doesn't and his life is ruined bit by bit by it. the humor is in it's ridiculousness and his being a dumbass perv.

if you don't find this movie funny get your sense of humor checked.

The Dumbing-Down of America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down

reply

john-san3 you sound like a sick pedophile. how come Chris Hansen hasn't caught you yet?

reply

"Lolita" is supposed to be weird. The entire story is told from Humbert's POV and Humbert is not the most reliable of narrators. He's a self-justifying pervert, paranoid, idiosyncratic, and slightly mad. Humbert's world and Quilty's shadow world are saturated with perverted sex. They don't think like normal people. The only reason we give a sh*t about Humbert is because James Mason is such a good actor - a perfect blend of cruelty and pathos

reply

You nailed it Heather, and Carmen too. The story is not about the perils of forbidden love, it's about child molestation told from the molester's point of view. Notice the swelling, romantic music during the scenes where Lolita leaves for camp, and when Humbert leaves her house at the end? This is the soundtrack of his perverted romantic imagination, where he and Lolita are doomed lovers. What we actually see play out on the screen is a young girl who's just getting a sense of her sexuality, getting taken over by this predatory man, having to live in this hellish situation until she can escape, only to find herself in the hands of another sexual predator, and finally ending up as a waitress in a two-bit dive, no family, no education, all of it taken from her... yet she is saved by a combination of a truly good guy and her own resilient character. And Hum is allowed to redeem himself slightly by helping her out with money at the end (instead of fantasizing about how he can go after her daughter in another 12 years, as in the book). However it may differ from the novel, it catches the tone perfectly, and it similarly implicates the audience/reader enjoying the humorous spectacle unfolding. It was adapted by Nabakov himself, after all.

reply

Frankly, Lolita is as bad as Humbert which adds an added twist to the movie. She apparently is amoral while he is decidedly moral and knows what he is doing is wrong.

I agree with OP though. It's easy to fall sway to the black and white photography, James Mason's melodic voice and lose sight of the real ugliness of the underlying story.

Make something repellent seem attractive is a great way to destroy n's ethics and morality.

reply

Uh, no. Lolita is not amoral. Why on earth would cause you to say such a thing? She has almost no agency in the film at all--nearly all her decisions are made by her mother or Humbert.

Are you trying to erode sympathy for the victim by presenting as somehow complicit in her own abuse?

reply

Almost no agency? You must have been watching a different film!

reply


you're so disgusted by Lolita that you're going to watch it again and read the book. sounds like Kubrick did a great job!


Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.

reply

Yes, it is disgusting, but what about the Hannibal trilogy ? Do you find Dr Lecter less disgusting that Humbert*2 ?
On French television, Nabokov gave an interview where he explained that his idea of Humbert Humbert came to him while he was visiting the zoo and he saw an orang-utan masturbating behind the bars of his cage, watching the visitors while unable to reach any and with no hope of ever getting out.
So if you ever fancied a prequel to Lolita, à la Hannibal Rising, there you are !

reply

Don't forget the cavity she's having filled by the dentist.

reply