Very uncomfortable to watch - Lolita (1998) Discussion

Then why did you watch it? ?

reply

It's supposed to be uncomfortable to watch-on a lot of levels. That's the whole point of the story.

reply

I think it's unfair to ask someone why they bothered to watch it since both of those scenes are fairly late into the film. I often continue to watch disturbing films just so I feel justified in commenting because some endings turn out like it was all a dream or a fantasy and I'd hate to post on IMDb armed with only half of a story 

If something is disturbing from the outset I can understand discontinuing the viewing of it but Lolita is a cinematic masterpiece and captivating. The only difficult scenes occur much later into the film. 

"These days you have to boil someone before you can sleep with them"

reply

[–] mcdreamysfan-29293 9 years ago

I watched it b/c I was still curious. You can be curious and still be grossed out. Anyway, I skipped many parts that made my skin crawl

reply

[–] cobnut 9 years ago

Were you expecting a Disney movie? I really don't mean to sound rude, but seriously, this film is supposed to be uncomfortable to watch. If it makes you feel any better, there is a small school of thought that posits that Humbert suffers from psychosis amongst other mental illness, and that Lolita never actually existed, she was just a manifestation of his mind. Of course, that's concerning the book rather than this film.

The mirror... it's broken.
Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look the way I feel.

reply

[–] mcdreamysfan-29293 9 years ago

No I wasn't expecting Disney, though yes you do sound rude.
I knew what the movie was about but I wasn't prepared to see what I saw or feel how I felt in this movie. Therefore, there was a shock to my system.

It's one thing to know what the story is about and another to actually watch and hear it.

reply

[–] SheLeppie 9 years ago

I completely understand what you're saying. Ignore the idiots. It was uncomfortable to watch, and confronting. Made me really realise how unnatural and sick paedophilia (or ephebophilia in this case) is, and how it damages the child victim. The movie was no gratuitous in any way, and the acting was superb; making me feel for Iron's character as well as Lolita.

I simply am not there...

reply

[–] cobnut 9 years ago

Wow, you have to wonder why some people bother to create topics of discussion only to then be hostile and curt to people who contribute. And 'ignore the idiots'?? Why, because I read the book and attempted an explanation of the movie? You two are far more rude than I am, so jump right off those high horses and pull the sticks out.

reply

[–] mcdreamysfan-29293 9 years ago

I would gladly pull out the sticks and beat you with it. Just because I started a topic does not mean that you contribution has to be rude or sarcastic. Feel free to bring a conflicting or opposite argument and maybe we can both learn something.

reply

[–] Hows_yer_arm_john 8 years ago

"Wow"
You instigate an argument then go the "wow" route. Same *beep* / Different post.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16552) a year ago

"Ignore the idiots", says the idiot. It made you feel uncomfortable? Good--it succeeded! That's what it's all about. It's not a Hallmark movie.

reply

[–] lazarillo 8 years ago

It's hard to adapt this book. Even the great Stanley Kubrick wasn't entirely successful and a relative hack like Adrian Lyne shouldn't have tried. That being said, I wasn't too "creeped out" by this since they pretty much removed all the sex even though the graphic scenes were performed by a 19-year-old body double.

But I think people who haven't read the book are not going to get the point of this movie. It's about a very troubled man finding genuine love in the midst of the most sordid lust and finding beauty in the midst of horrible ugliness. Focusing on the S-E-X in "Lolita" is like focusing on the whaling aspect of "Moby Dick". Whaling is really even more horrible than sexually violating a teenage girl in my opinion, but neither work glamorizes the activity (quite the opposite) and that is really not the point of either book, both of which transcend the ugliness of their surfaces to find a really transcendent beauty and truth. "Lolita" and the "White Whale" really have a lot in common as powerful metaphoric literary devices even if--in any movie adaptation--there is going to inevitably have to be a REAL whale and REAL young girl.

Although they've never successfully adapted "Moby Dick" either, people don't have the same knee-jerk reaction to the surface ugliness of whaling and they seem to realize that it IS just a movie after all. My theory is that is because most men aren't TEMPTED to harpoon a whale and most women haven't been in the position of being harpooned or nearly being harpooned in the literal sense. It's a different story when it comes to male lust for young girls. THAT hits a lot closer to home. And it probably doesn't help that both versions of this movie have made the girl in question both more mature and more attractive than the ordinary 12-year-old girl in the novel. Anyway, that's my two cents.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

reply

[–] Alice-Morgan 8 years ago

Yes, puke worthy

The universe isn’t evil, John, it’s just indifferent.

reply

[–] roraio 8 years ago

The novel is even more uncomfortable to read! I felt decided to stop reading and put down the book several times, but I forced myself to read it until the end because the writing was good. The novel contains very disturbing scenes that weren't included in the movie, such as Humbert masturbating near Lolita, and sedating her with the intention to not scare her if he penetrated her. However, most sex scenes both in the book and the movie are cut out (thank goodness) and not discussed in detail.