MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > Lolita - a great movie villain

Lolita - a great movie villain

posted 4 years ago by Drooch (5333)
60 replies | jump to latest

Humbert is a grubby perv and insanely possessive, and Quilty is a creepy lecherous freak, but both men are driven to madness by their insatiable lust for Lolita, who flirts outrageously with Humbert, leads him on, cheats on him, torments him with lies, and when his love is at its peak and he has been drained of everything else in his life - she stamps on his heart, enjoying the pain she has inflicted with a truly sociopathic glee.

Then she has the gall to ask him for money so that she can fuck, marry and build a family with another man. She chides him for crying from heartbreak as he hands over all his worth, her eyes beaming with joy at the bounty as the man’s heart rips in two - an affliction that will later kill him in prison.

What makes the film great is how all the characters are predatory and also victims, but I didn’t expect the film to be a psychological horror with a stone cold temptress who destroys men as efficiently as Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Are you victimising Lolita's abusers?

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

They don’t need to be ‘victimised’, they are objectively victims of Lolita’s cruelty.

[–] TheArgentinian (6431) 4 years ago

She's a teenager, you incel! You expect her to be loyal to her abusers?

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Hard to pick which is the most moronic assumption in your post. Yes, she’s a teenager - so what? She’s still a great movie villain.

Her ‘abusers’ were also her victims, she destroyed them through temptation and calculated manipulation. The fact that they were morally dubious doesn’t detract from her villainy.

Who on earth suggested that she ‘be loyal to’ them?

[–] TheArgentinian (6431) 4 years ago

Temptation? Manipulation? You're a pedo incel that hates underage girls for rejecting you.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

You’re now projecting your powerful sexual desires toward children onto others.

Try to stay on topic and keep your paedophile fantasies out of this discussion. Lolita uses ‘temptation’ and ‘manipulation’ to destroy her victims, yes - did you not see the film?

[–] TheArgentinian (6431) 4 years ago

"I know you are but what am I?"

You're a waste of time, Donnie.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Who are you quoting?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Himself from a session with his shrink.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

But they *deserved* to be destroyed!

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

They fell into her very deliberate traps. Should they have? No. But she played them from the start, and destroyed them for pleasure.

[–] whynotwriteme (7121) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

She got revenge on the people who ruined her life. Nothing to disapprove of there, when John Wick does the same thing people cheer and applaud!

Anyone who perceived this situation differently is either a perv who fears retribution, or (duh) a contrarian troll.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

John Wick doesn’t bait people then sadistically torture them, visibly gleeful at their demise, so your comparison doesn’t work.

Neither does your false ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a pervert/troll’ dichotomy. It’s juvenile and obnoxious.

Finally, most people agree with my position, so if anyone’s a ‘contrarian troll’ here it’s you. Check yourself for projection.

Grow up then return to this discussion and try again.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the internet troll!

Sitting in his momma's basement all day, unwashed and deathly pale except for the Cheeto dust on his fingers, alternately chuckling because he's sure he's SO much smarter than anyone else, and sobbing because teen anime girls aren't real.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You're mistaken. Whatever Drooch is in other threads, he's on point about this movie. Lolita is a manipulative asshole who cold-heartedly toys with men. The fact that she's a teen and cannot be held responsible or that her suitors are way out of line persueing her at all is not changing that fact. Stick to John Wick.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Oh for fuck's sake, you think that young girls should be NICE TO THE MEN WHO RAPE, EXPLOIT, AND/OR KIDNAP THEM?????

Get a fucking grip!

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You haven't watched the movie nor read the book, that much is obvious. And leave your fantasies in your head, please. They disgust.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

I'm going to tell your mother than you've been using your rent-free home in her basement to post pro-statutory-rape bullshit on the internet.

No more free rent! No more PBJs on demand! NO MORE WIFI AND NO MORE ANIME FANTASY NYMPHETS!!!!!

[–] chilone (17262) 3 years ago

You should quit while you're behind. You're making a fool of yourself.

[–] Jinx (3040) 2 years ago

WOW, this is an extremely telling comment that you forgot to delete.

[–] chilone (17262) 2 years ago

What are you talking about?

[–] punkrockgirl (1153) 2 years ago

The only one I see acting like a fool was the original poster and you it seems. Otter is 100% right.

They aren't just trolls but horrible people that sympathize with criminals. Shame on you if you're in agreement with the op

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Very true. This dildo is a clueless pervert. I’ve discovered the origin of his name: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/30/what-is-an-otter-the-gay-tribe-for-lean-guys-with-a-bit-of-scruff/

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Spot on.

[–] liscarkat (16515) 4 years ago

Good analysis by Drooch. Regardless of her "victimhood", Lolita is a sociopath. Her age is irrelevant. She'll grow to adulthood and middle age still using men to satisfy her sick emotional sadism.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Exactly, this is even shown at the end where she says Quilty is the only man she was ever really into. ie not the husband/baby father she ends the film with.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Bollocks.
You cannot rape (a child in this case) and then, "regardless" of this little element, judge the victim.
Her status has been drastically and violently altered (often for the worse) by your actions.

You cannot beat up a puppy and train him to be a fight dog and then, "regardless" of this little element, call it a violent dog. You made him that, he is just adapting and reacting.

That's why there are laws in place against pedophiles and animal abusers: it's a heinous crime and it's affecting the victims deeply.

[–] BigMom (1936) 3 years ago

She was not raped.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

You have zero legal knowledge, clearly.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

At a stretch you could argue it was statutory rape, but even then she led them on entirely, for her own sadistic pleasure.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

She could have been spread eagle butt naked in the middle of the street, if an adult touches her inappropriately he is still a molester, if he touches her with his dick he is still a rapist.
Is that too difficult a LAW to understand?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I see you keep your romance strictly transactional, Heisenberg. Queue Jyi Peuong.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Fuck are you talking about?

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Are you saying that if a 17 year-old woman lies spread-eagle in the Californian street and begs to be fucked, that if a man prods her in the forehead with his flaccid dick… he has raped her?

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Precisely. Not that difficult.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

It’s ‘difficult’ for anyone who understands what rape is.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

You clearly do not.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

I do, and the meaning of ‘rape’ is not a flaccid dick prodding someone’s forehead, as you would have people believe.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

A flaccid dick prodding someone's forehead would probably be just molestation, not rape. If he puts the dick anywhere inside, it's rape. I'm not a technician, I think that's how it is.
But both situations constitute a sexual crime against one victim, there is no doubts nor grey area there.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Well that’s quite a turnaround from a few posts ago when you stated it was ‘precisely’ rape for a man to prod the forehead of a 17 year old woman with his flaccid knob.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

No it's not. I just noticed that you were focusing on your bullshit hypothetical prodding of the forehead, whatever the fuck that is, rather than anything realistic or related to this movie. So I specified the difference between rape and molestation, which btw is slight.
At any rate, the point is still: She could have been spread eagle butt naked in the middle of the street, HER ACTIONS HAVE ZERO VALUE SINCE SHE IS A MINOR. ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION IS ILLEGAL.
Is that too difficult a LAW to understand?

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

You did turnaround. Here’s the original question:

Are you saying that if a 17 year-old woman lies spread-eagle in the Californian street and begs to be fucked, that if a man prods her in the forehead with his flaccid dick… he has raped her?

and here’s your answer:

Precisely. Not that difficult.

Given that you no longer consider that scenario to be rape you’ve made a huge turnaround.

Now, as for whether prodding the spread eagle and begging for it 17 year-old on the Californian street in the forehead with a flaccid dick is molestation and illegal… I don’t know but there would be illegality in there somewhere - for a start I suspect it’s Illegal Exposure to splay yourself naked in public, and probably some Domestic Disturbance from all the yelling to be fucked, as well as Anti-Social Behaviour.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

I think your trolling rethoric is adding zero to the discussion.
You just enjoy accusing rape victims of some guilt only an idiot would find.

At this point I can only wish you to get ass raped by some nice fella and then get everybody telling you the same crap you throw against rape victims.
That might give you some real perspective on the situation.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Yeah, you’re mindlessly spurging because you got caught reversing your position.

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

Nope again,
I'm spurging because you keep focusing on the fucking finger instead of looking at the moon you pretend is not there.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Is that bizarre finger fucking moon imagery also to distract from you embarrassingly reversing your position?

[–] Heisenberg (6315) 3 years ago

ok, you are a shitty troll.
I din't know.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

This is idiotic. 🤬

Lolita was a CHILD being preyed on by two STRANGERS. She had zero emotional attachment to either of them because she was being molested. The two fuckwits didn't realize that she couldn't have cared less about them because that's how pedophiles think. They think the child they are molesting are loving them back.

Plus, children are fickle. They have no loyalties outside of the present until they mature out of that stage. Their fickleness are why little kids will scream, "I hate you," to their parents one moment and, "I love you the next."

That is the point of the "betrayal." Pedophile idiots like Humbert Humbert think that children can be "groomed" and "kept" like pets, as if once they finger bang them, the child will be forever grateful and loyal to them like a golden lab. But children are the complete and total opposite of that--and then some.

Don't even bother retorting with a response you "think" is clever. You're either a sick person who doesn't get it or an immature man child trolling on the internet. There's no "debate" here as far as I'm concerned, just one person dismissing another person's post for the bullshit that is this and telling him this: get help if you think these views are normal; get a hobby if you're lacking so few activities that being a vapid, boring troll is the only way to keep yourself amused. Make something of yourself so that you die a dignified human being and not just an inconsequential waste of sperm and egg.

[–] whynotwriteme (7121) 3 years ago

I'm certainly not endorsing child molesters, but I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that there are many teenagers out there who are much more socially and sexually sophisticated and experienced than certain types of repressed, socially inadequate adult males, as I personally witnessed in the case of my coworker that I mentioned in a previous post. If a teenage girl who has slept with multiple teenage boys comes in contact with a 35 year-old man who is a virgin and a social reject (with a lot of spending money) who is exploiting whom in that case?

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Your hyper-defensive final paragraph is very telling, as is your worrying insight into the paedophile mind. ‘The lady doth protest too much’ leaps to mind.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

She's right. You're wrong.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

☝🏻 Worthless

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[–] SandyR (7345) 3 years ago

Boss-level needling right here. The responses are entertaining!

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

It’s just my takeaway from the film, it surprised me how she was a kind of juvenile femme fatale.

The responses contain some predictable outrage from SJWs who have been so indoctrinated by the cult that they cannot ever see a young woman as a predator, nor a man as a victim.

[–] SandyR (7345) 3 years ago

Indeed. They talk of having an open mind and yet see the world entirely in this or that terms.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

It’s easier that way. Uncertainty and curiosity are more difficult than telling yourself you’re right and stomping on anyone who disagrees.

[–] SandyR (7345) 3 years ago

I agree. I just wonder if the culture at large will move past this phase, because it's very productive or, ahem, progressive.

[–] punkrockgirl (1153) 2 years ago

Two buffoons pleased with themselves and their own ignorance. Many of the replies gave valid arguments and you can only see it as "SJW outrage." Because anyone that disagrees with you must automatically be in an indoctrinated cult.

Of course they have an "open mind" there were more than "this or that terms" and anyway some things in life are simply "this or that." Right and wrong.

She is not a "young woman." She is a teenage girl.