MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1998) Discussion > why didnt the chose a 20 yeas old female...

why didnt the chose a 20 yeas old female actor who look 15 to play Lolit


she was only 17 weird they choose her

reply

[deleted]

Miss. Swain was actually 14 when the movie was filmed. The book covers a five year period beginning when Lo is 12 and ends when she is just shy of 18 with most of the events taking place when she was 14.

It would have been pretty hard to find a young actress who could pass for 12, 14, and 18 but as I said, most of the events in both the film and the book occur at 14 so 14 year-old Swain was the right age.

reply

what??? she was 14 when this was filmed? then isn't it illegal for jeremy irons to make out with her? or is it ok if she signed legal papers or something? this make me uncomfortable :/ troughout the movie i honestly thought she's an 18+ woman who played a child.

reply

Well, Jeremy Irons isn't making out with her for real- they are acting. They were on a set surrounded by crew members as well as Dominique Swain's parents.

Also, a pillow was placed between Irons and Swain while she was sitting in his lap.

I do know that there were many scenes that were shot and then cut from the final film at the studio lawyer's insistence because he thought they could possible result in legal problems if left in. This was due to a newly passed law which prohibited images of minors engaged in sexual conduct with adults. It was aimed to cut down on internet child porn (which was real-life sexual abuse and exploitation) but no one was really sure how this law would apply to child actors in major motion pictures.

Don't forget Lolita is supposed to be disturbing. The whole message of the film is how destructive the relationship between Humbert and Lo truly was.

Have you ever seen pretty baby? What Brooke Shields was allowed to do in that film at the age of 12 is REALLY disturbing.

reply

never thought of it that way, you're right; it IS supposed to be disturbing. no i haven't seen pretty baby, is the story good? i actually enjoyed Lolita, aside from the disturbing scenes i really like the movie overall.

reply

[deleted]

The character was supposed to be 14, but Dominique Swain was 17, not 14.

reply

Miss. Swain was actually 14 when the movie was filmed


Where did you get that from? She was 17 when the movie was filmed. I remember reading her interview when she first got cast, she said she was 17, plus, this movie came out in 1997, she was born in 1980. It did not take three years for this movie to be filmed and distributed.

~~~~~

reply

This movie was made in 1995. Casting took place around late-1994 so Swain was 14-15 when this was filmed.

A lot of movies do not get released until a year after production. This movie took almost 3 years to find a distributor willing to take a chance at it. In fact, this movie was supposed to have a THEATER release, but no one was willing to do it due to its content.

SHO finally picked it up, but not after many years (and heartache for Adrian Lyne). They only showed this in very limited release special "art-house" film theaters and to a few private universities. Lyne had no choice but to do the "university-circuit" to promote this film. I found out about this movie because Columbia University was screening it ahead of the SHO release.

I think only 1 university showed this in way back in 1996, and that was Harvard's theater arts program/school. The earlier screenings had some additional scenes that they had to edit out for fear of an NC-17 rating.

Imagine those never-before seen footage! :)

reply

It did not take many years for the movie to get released in this case. When I read about this coming out, Dominic Swain had just got cast and she she was 17.

~~~~~

reply

why you did learn talk good english more

reply

for realism?

reply

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/17327/interview-dominique-swain-portrayed-lolita-in-1997-remake


There you go. Straight from Dominique Swain's mouth herself.

She was 14 when filming began and turned 15 while still filming. The film drew so much controversy it took almost two years for it to be released.

reply

[deleted]

As someone said, she had to go from 12 to 17 over the course of the movie, so they split the difference. A 20-year-old wouldn't have worked.

It also wouldn't have made any difference as far as the "controversy" since Americans are idiots and can't tell fiction from reality. The nude sex scenes were done by a 19-year-old body double, not Dominique Swain, but they still got cut out.

Apparently just watching a movie like this will in itself cause men want to have sex with 15-year-old girls that look like Swain. None of them want to ALREADY of course, which is exactly why this is such a touchy subject. That's the irony. If America was the morally pure country it pretends to be, a movie like this wouldn't threaten them so much. And, no, I'm not saying I approve of real-life borderline pedophiles, but I don't approve of real-life serial killers either and there is never any problem making movies about THEM.

They should just have a disclaimer like with the AAPSCA: "No underage actresses were really *bleeped* during the production of this film". That is all that really matters.

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

reply

You make some great points.

reply

It's okay to show people getting their heads blown off on "NCIS" every Tuesday night at 8:00 on NBC, but a fourteen-year-old girl sitting on a man's lap in an arthouse movie they would have to take the trouble to seek out and pay to see gets their sphincters in a knot.

reply