MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > First ever movie about a pedophile?

First ever movie about a pedophile?


Just wondering, I know this was a groundbreaker of a movie in many respects. Did any movie before this have any references to pedophilia? Maybe some European or underground movie?

reply

Technically, it´s not about pedophilia cuz Lolita wasn´t physiologically a child.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

What? In what universe do you exist? In the book she is 12. In the 1962 movie, the actress is 14. I've got news for you. That's a CHILD.

reply

I exist in a world where you haven´t bothered to familiarize yourself about the topic you´re aggressively debating here. These kinds of things are very specifically defined you know - namely, pedophilia commonly means sex with a "child", and "child" means a pre-teen. Sue Lyon was clearly a teenager, not a pre-teen, ie physiologically a young woman. Hence it´s not pedophilia.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Franzkabuki:

I hope you're not saying that an adult having sex with a minor is okay to engage in and not psychologically damaging, therefore, okay?

I hope you were never sexually abused as a child or adolescent so that what you said in your post wouldn't have been said.

It makes no difference that Sue Lyon played Lolita as a 14 year old. Humbert having sex with his 14 year old stepdaughter is pedophilic and incestuous.

Have you or would you engage in sex with an under-18 girl?

reply

What should be well evident without further inquiry, is that I´m saying sex with a 14-year old is not defined as "pedophilic". But of course facts for you "make no difference", so I´m obviously wasting my time even replying here. And 18 as a cut-off age is entirely arbitrary as evidenced by the fact that in many countries it is indeed lower than that.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Yo! Frank Bazooka just go out and have sex with a 14 year old and see what happens to you.

reply

Is this the most idiotic way you could think of to reply or is there some hidden potential left? Apparently, there´s some nitwit convention going on on this board that I got mixed up in...



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I don't know where you're from, but in my country, having sex with a 14-year-old would make you a pedophile, both legally and morally. Semantics aside, 14-year-old girls are still basically children, much too immature and underdeveloped to be fair game for middle-aged creeps.

I do think that changing her age from 12 to 14 reduces the impact somewhat, but I still consider Humbert to be a pedophile. After all, it was conceived as a story about pedophilia, whether you like it or not .

reply

Defining pedophilia has got nothing to do with any laws or morality (and even less with what anyone might privately "consider") and everything to do with physiology - and the vast majority of 14-year olds are not children. Whether or not they´re psychologically mature enough to sleep with middle-aged men, is a different topic altogether.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

On a Psychological basis, a pedophile is characterized as being attracted to a prepubescent child, OR a child 13 years or younger.


You can decide that 14 years to be a child, but physiologically, age doesn't define your childhood as much as puberty does.

Also, what country do you live in? In the US, the American Psychology Association has in fact defined pedophilia as sexual feelings for 13 OR YOUNGER. Read the DSM-IV to see for yourself.

Those who argue a 14 year old is a child is purely on a sociological basis, NOT physiological. Does this mean Humbert having sex with a 14 year old is morally alright? Absolutely not, but that doesn't automatically make it pedophilia.



My Novel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/emo-alan-dj/1107079914?ean=29400328262 93

reply

Thanks for setting the record straight in all regards there. It´s basically more or less what I´ve been arguing - and for that trouble I got issued a threat of lethal violence by that guy Ryder or whatever (I did not, at any point, indicate that Humbert´s actions were to be regarded as morally acceptable, even though I did not specifically spell it out; I mean - Humbert´s behaviour being abnormal/pathological and the resulting feelings of guilt and paranoia are the defining emotional/ethical underspinnings for him and Lolita and the entire story. Should sort of go without saying).


"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

It wasn't a real threat. I honestly thought I was being funny. I was drunk and made a mistake. I subsequently tried to apologise, both in this thread and via PM, but you had already put me on ignore (as well as called me a psychopath and a dimwit), which was most unfortunate. You would have found me a lot more reasonable than that post indicated.

I also knew exactly what you were saying all along. I simply had an issue with what I regarded as unjustified arrogance and condescension on your part. When it comes down to it, I really can't argue against your point. Strict definition of pedophilia does refer solely to pre-pubescent girls.

Anyway, I'm truly sorry for attacking you like that, weird joke or not. I was way out of line.

reply

Okay then. I guess my command of tone isn´t always impeccable, either - I do have a tendency of getting annoyed with unexamined hyperbole and shrill extremist attitudes one too often encounters hereabouts. The ignore thing was kinda silly of me, too, especially considering I usually find your posts interesting and eloquent and all that. Just thought that picking up the conversation anew might lead to some of those angry, tiresome, meaningless exchanges of four letter words so difficult to break out of again.

But all that´s past now. I´m cool - and feel better already. Cheers.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

This was a great read. I'm glad you guys made up.

reply

Indeed.

reply

I second that.
That almost never happens anymore...
...and Franzkabuki (RIP) was always an interesting poster. Not that many left either.
Oh well.

reply

You didn't articulate your opinion very well than, because somehow it came off as you approving of Humbert's actions. Unfortunately it doesn't go without saying, because there are a lot of people who defend him. I agree that technically he wasn't a pedophile (I've learned a new word: ephebophile), but I think that most 14-year-olds are certainly children. Even a lot of 20-year-olds are children, psychologically. Behaving like an adult is different from thinking like an adult.

reply

Even a lot of 20-year-olds are children, psychologically.

---

ditto for 70 year olds and for Humbert

THAT [wild oats] is what story [book at least via Annabel] is about, ie the effects of NOT getting wild oats AS a teen at the right time and it then becoming a total obsession.

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

reply

The bottom line is people just like the sound of "pedophile" better than "ephebophile" and don't much care about making fine distinctions.

reply

[deleted]

Have you read the first sentence of the wikipedia definition of pedophilia? It includes the word "prepubescent". Find out what that word means, and you might understand.

P.S. Where on earth did you get the idea that if something isn't pedophilia it must be okay. Murder isn't pedophilia. Is murder okay?

reply

Humbert was an ephebophile. Very significant difference.
Pedophiles are into prepubescents.

----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX

reply

I haven't read the book, but in it, is he like this from before and it s not the first time or was it just this one time that he felt something for somebody way younger Because if it's his first time i would imagine that he would have had a greater conflict accepting the fact, and i didn t find that the movie emphasized the battle inside him.

reply

read the trivia. the actress is a 16 year old playing a 14 year old

reply

Not tehnically, it's not pedophilia. It's hebephilia. There is a major difference and people have become very lazy with the terminology.

reply

Technically, it´s not about pedophilia cuz Lolita wasn´t physiologically a child.


Ironically, doing a Google search for Lolita results in a warning about child abuse.

reply

M by Fritz Lang was about a paedophile child murderer and was made in 1931, I'd imagine that was the first. This was probably the first where the offender is seen in a 'relationship' with the victim, maybe?

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

reply

Baby Doll (1956) Isn't about a pedophile but its about a young virgin (17 I think) who sleeps in a nursery and is promised to an older man for marriage.

reply

[deleted]

You seem to have given this subject a lot of thought. I think the police should be called on YOU and I think YOUR computer should be looked over and I think YOU might be a pederast

reply

[deleted]

That's a perty poem you sent me in the private messaging. The authorities (and I do mean authorities) have it now. That's hate speech and you better move out of your parents basement taking that poluted computer with you. It won't be difficult to find what else you got on there, even if you do try and destroy it

reply

[deleted]

Except he did not only lust after her. In the movie the sex is only alluded to (if you pay even a bit of attention, which you didn't seem to have done). In the book it is more clear that their relationship is consummated meaning they *beep*.

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

reply

Humbert Humbert is a hebephile, it's on Wikipedia. A paedophile is someone who finds pre-pubescents attractive, so 11 and under. A hebephile is someone who has a sexuel preference for 12-18 yr olds.

reply

What a tangled odd subject. Someone near the beginning of this thread said to someone else "would you have sex with someone under 18?" I for one would say yes because the legal age here is 16, so if a stunningly attractive 17 year old threw themselves at me I'd have my socks off before my shirt had reached the floor.

When I myself was 16 or 17 a bunch of the girls we hung out with were still 14 and some guys and gals would hook up, this was not legal obviously, but it can't be described as paedophilia, that's why it is termed as underage sex instead. At 14 you are physically mature, but not emotionally mature - you are a young adult.

I agree with the 16 legal age as a cut off. Do we have anything like that in the animal kingdom where all animals start to breed the moment they are of breeding age? That would mean every living thing on earth with the exception of humans commits paedophilia at some point. Paedophiles tend to favour sex with prepubescent's, which is wrong on every single level, hebophiles are a grey area because naturally it isn't wrong, but criminally and definitely morally it is wrong.

On a side note, I'm 30 and can legally date a 16 year old if I wanted (Footballers do it all the time), yet if I was 50 or 60 it'd be perceived as wrong, yet it's still legal. Psychoanalysts must have a great time playing with the working of the human mind, it's a crazy thing.



Opinions are just onions with pi in them.

reply

Psychoanalysts must have a great time playing with the working of the human mind, it's a crazy thing.

---

yes indeed and Humbert deals with these matters extensively in the book, especially his time with Annabel, same age as Lolita but he same age too, and what might have happened HAD he not been pulled away just as he got his socks off.

he even mentions how shrinks would have a field day with him.

Kubrick does not deal with Annabel [or his wife] but for a thinking/experienced person such matters must be inferred in the molding of Humbert to the person he became [and loathed]

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

reply

No because if Humbert is attracted to Lolita then he's not a paedophile because she's 14 in the film and that would make him a hebephile.

reply

This may be a stretch, but in the 1945 movie "They Were Sisters", there is the suggestion that Geoffrey is sexually abusing his daughter. Their scenes together are replete with hints of sexual intimacy; at first I though she was his assistant and they were having an affair. Interestingly, James Mason was Geoffrey and Pamela played his daughter. Most people have probably never even heard of this film, which is a shame because it tackled subjects other films never touched - alcoholism, domestic violence, suicide, incest. A movie truly ahead of its time.

One more comment, I've been reading the postings on Lolita, and how strange that James Mason is barely mentioned. His acting is brilliant (of course, it nearly always was) and courageous. Perhaps the finest actor of his generation, he was and continues to be neglected. I think he was too intelligent, too complex, and too cerebral for American audiences. Sad.

reply

pedophilia is pre-pubescent. interest in sexually maturing teenagers is called ephebophilia.

the film is not about pedophila.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

reply

No, while implied rather than stated outright, Fritz Lang's very well-known film "M" beat this by three decades.

reply

Exactly. That is a very famous movie and OP should have been aware of it.

reply

I wish people would stop quoting Wikipedia for everything.

Humbert Humbert is and always has been a straight up pedophile. Obviously, for censorship reasons and to get the movie even played, the film had to be coy about it and age up Lolita a little bit. But he's a pedophile.

reply

We're not talking about the book, but rather the movie. And, in the movie, Lolita is 14 years-old played by a 15 year-old lil' hottie, which means that Hum is an ephebophile, NOT a pedo: https://www.google.com/search?q=ephebophile+definition&rlz=1C1FGUR_enUS884US884&oq=ephebophile&aqs=chrome.1.69i59j0l7.2476j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

reply

She was 14 & 15 during the shoot.

reply

I edited my post accordingly. It doesn't change the fact that Hum was an ephebophile, not a pedo.

reply

Humbert is most likely a hebephile, which is someone attracted to 11-14 year olds. That is if we assume that his ‘love’ for Lolita isn’t a one-off and that he’s persistently attracted to that age group. The film doesn’t mention any other underage objects of affection for Humbert, but the book does.

reply

If going by the book, what you say is true, but we're talking about the movie, which is separate, just like "Conan the Barbarian" must be evaluated separate from the REH books. As such, Hum in the film was technically an ephebophile, an adult man attracted to mid-to-late teen females. In short, he's attracted to girls that are physically developed. Not necessarily fully developed, like when a woman hits 30-35 and has better curves, but certainly developed enough to be a "lil' hottie."

I guess I just get sick of people referring to Hum in the movie as a pedophile when that's simply not the case.

That is if we assume that his ‘love’ for Lolita isn’t a one-off and that he’s persistently attracted to that age group.


Good point; well said.

reply

Going by the Kubrick movie, which doesn’t specify Lolita’s age, Humbert would best be described as a hebephile, because the actress was cast aged 13 and was 14 for most of the shoot, and hebephiles are attracted to 11-14 year olds.

That’s assuming Humbert is persistently attracted to such people, which the Kubrick film doesn’t comment on, in fact it’s perfectly plausible that Lolita was a one-off as I mentioned.

reply

There's a world of difference though between an undeveloped girl that's 11-12 (or even 13-14) and a relatively developed 14-15 year-old who's able to turn the head of practically any male, young or old. Sue Lyon in this movie strikes me as the latter (and more so a year later in "Night of the Iguana"). That's why I suggest that ephebophile may be a more fitting description.

reply

Well in this film she was 14 for most of the shoot, and was cast aged 13, and so ‘hebephile’ is the fitting description.

reply

The problem is that girls develop physically at different ages. Since Lyon looks less like an undeveloped 11-13 year-old and more like a "lil' hottie" 15-16 year-old, ephebophile is actually more fitting; and more so since she turned 15 during shooting. Case closed.

reply

Lolita is 12 in the book, and we don’t know her age in the Kubrick film but we do know the actress was 13 when cast and 14 for most of the shoot, all of those ages fall under the Hebephile definition so that’s what Humbert is. Case closed.

You’re trying to put her in the wrong category based on you considering her a ‘lil hottie’ but that’s just your subjective experience, the facts point to Humbert being a hebephile.

reply

Presume much? I was never attracted to immature girls, even in my teens. I prefer mature women with seasoned intelligence and spirituality, not to mention whoa-manly curves. I guess that's why my wife is older than me.

My playful description of Lyon in the movie as a "lil' hottie" is simply a fact of how she looks and is presented in the movie. Do you deny that she's displayed in this manner? Googling her pics from the film tells all.

Lolita is 12 in the book


Again, this is not relevant to the movie where Lolita is clearly about 14-15 years-old, which happens to be the age of the actress playing the role. The book and the movie are two different pieces of art conveyed through two different kinds of art (book vs. film). There are similarities, of course, but they're two different worlds, just as the 1989 version of "Batman" is its own world separate from the silver age comics, the 60's TV show and the later "Batman Begins."

The fact that Lyon was cast when she was 13 is also irrelevant. The producers already had a general shooting schedule. Do you think they were unaware of the fact that she'd be close to 15 during the 3-month shoot? If they wanted a girl who looked 13 for the movie, they would've cast an 11 year-old.

Speaking of the shoot, the fact that Lyon was almost 15 at the start of the 3-months shows that she passed the age of which defines a hebephile.

So Hum in the movie was more accurately an ephebophile. But, to keep the peace, perhaps we could say he was on the fence between the two. And, as you pointed out, he might not be either if his attraction to Lolita was a one-off thing.

reply

It’s true that Humbert’s attraction to Lolita could be a one-off, but if it isn’t (and it isn’t in the book) then he must be considered a hebephile, because the actress was 14 for most of the shoot, 13 when cast, and 12 in the book.

reply

14 for most of the shoot


This blows your case since it was a 3-month shoot and 15 years-old is the cut-off point in distinguishing a hebephile from an ephebophile.

You keep using the book as a source of authority when, as explained, it's irrelevant to the movie. Even today, no sane producer of mainstream movies would seriously entertain having a 12 year-old play a middle-aged man's object of affection it's so abominable, let alone in 1961 when this film was shot.

Even the 1997 version of "Lolita" used a (voluptuous) 16 year-old to play the role, Dominique Swain, which squarely categorizes Hum in that film as an ephebophile.

Since Lyon was plainly a relatively developed teen of 14-15 during shooting, Hum was more of an ephebophile in the 1962 version, rather than a hebephile. But, as I said, it could also be argued that he was on the fence between the two.

If you still disagree, so be it. Have a good one.

reply

In the 1997 version Humbert is an ephebophile, you’re correct there, but in the 1962 version he is a hebephile because the actress was 14 for most of the shoot, 13 when cast, and the character’s age is never mentioned but in the source material she’s 12.

reply

post-puberty teenager is not a child, if you can bear children you are not a child.

reply