Kubrick trivializing pedophilia?
This post is about the movie (obviously) not the book.
I always found this movie to be entertaining, expecially the first part with the pathetic mom still alive, not giving too much importance to the way the issue of pedophila is belittled. It's a funny movie and I had fun watching it.
Then I found out that my gf has been molested as a child, so it all become not so funny anymore (I know, I'm one of those assholes that take notice of heavy issues only when they hit them directly). Anyway, I noticed how Kubrick tries to humorize the subject but never takes a minute to actually condemn it.
Kubrick was an intellectual and a moralist (just watch eyes wide shut to see what I mean), but in this case I never quite noticed a real sense of critique of the subject, it's almost as if he roots for Humbert, a pedophile, who's not as monstous as the "bad" pedophile, and he thinks we should do the same (root, not molest).
Lolita is almost the guilty party here instead of the victim, her actions are dictated by her self judgment (she is a minor, so imagine how well founded that could be, but it's all played like "she does this because she wants it so... she's getting what she wants, right?") and her demise is never described as a tragedy, but almost as a comeuppance.
Now, I wonder if the 60s were maybe different times, so...sex between an old man and a 15 yo? Whatever, if there's grass on the pitch, let's play!
Or maybe she wasn't that young as in the book, so Kubrick felt he could mix it up a bit without taking a stronger stance against the issues?
Or maybe, and this is my take, Kubrick just ignored the whole point, was interested only in the trivial aspects of it and acted like an immature asshole that makes jokes about stuff whose depth and seriousness he doesn't quite grasp.