MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1998) Discussion > Why Is A Character From A Film, Who Is A...

Why Is A Character From A Film, Who Is A Pedophile, Gets Any Remorse?!!

posted 15 years ago by royalprince
92 replies | jump to latest

I'm not trying to anger anyone, ruffle feathers, or insult anyone. I want people to really think about what this is at its purest form with no bull! You know, people talk about this character feeling so sorry for the man who has feelings for A KID AT 13 YEARS OLD! Then in real life, when a 13 year old kid gets, seduced, raped, or gets abducted by an adult, it causes outrage and anger. In contrast, people pay money to see a film in which this pervert who is highly sick and dysfunctional, who hungers for a child, gets remorse! Uh? What? Hello! Feeling sorry for a Pedophile!!! I don't care if this is fiction! It is what it is! Immoral! Unethical! Ill Rational! It's a twisted out look that goes against a healthy form of Human Nature And Society! It’s Completely contorted! Not an ounce of acceptance in our society should be tolerated! It amazes me how casual people talk about this poor male character, Hubert who is just trying to rekindle feelings when he was this girl's age! I wouldn't be too surprised if a law passes where it's all right for an adult to have sex with a minor! It really scares me that people talk about a repulsive character from a film that reflects real life in which this twisted behavior does occur, and again, there is to be found remorse! By The Way! How would you like it if a man like this went after your son or daughter and victimizes him or her? Would you pay to watch a film like this there after a tragic encounter like that happens to your child? This isn't between two consenting adults! Again! It's An Adult Who Wants A Child!

[–] meakins8 14 years ago

First of all, Humbert truly loved her, he also wanted to be a father-figure to her.

Secondly, Lolita was sexually precocious and actually led Humbert on.

Finally, at the end Humbert knows what he did was so wrong, he can never forgive himself for take away her childhood, he describes in the book a time when Lolita's friend came round with her parents, and she started crying because she didnt have a happy and stable family like that.

Humbert would have died for Lolita, yet it was unrequited love, tbh Lolita was a propa bitch, she ran away with some old brute who was much worse than he was.

[–] ftomasi 13 years ago

Meakin8, ditto! Now if only everyone understood this. I still can't believe why people just hate Humbert when Dolores was more intelligent than she seemed and actually lead him on. When I was a bit younger, I knew quite a few girls my age(underage at the time) who dated older men and"used"them for various reasons.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bastasch8647 13 years ago

Humbert is not a rapist, he's a seducer. Nor is he a pedophile. Nor is he really an ephebophile. Recall that he is _only_ interested in "the Nymphet" - not in ANY OTHER adolescent girls. Humbert's nymphet MUST meet the minimum requirements of his lost Annabelle; just an ordinary girl won't do.

Note how Humbert drives to Lo's summer camp, through crowds of pubescent females, while only having eyes for Lo, and having an abysmal insecurity over what she may have been doing with "Charley". Note that when he enrolls Lo at Beardsley, Humbert walks unseeing through a group of swimsuit-clad adolescent females with never a meaningful glance: it is ONLY his NYMPHET-LOLITA who interests Humbert.

Humbert is a man sick in his soul, and he admits it: "The poison was in the wound, you see..." He's not proud of what he is, but he IS what he is. Tragically, he cannot escape himself.

No rape occurs in the film, but rather a mutual seduction. Lo makes a series of "first moves" to which the doomed Humbert is _bound_ to respond. Anyone who thinks that Humbert "seduced a little girl" wasn't paying attention. Swain was not a little girl of twelve, like the novelistic Lolita. Frankly, she looked like she could suck the chrome off the proverbial trailer hitch. She is constantly casting about with seductive gazes at _every_ male she encounters, from hotel clerks to cops. She dons a napkin bra and flaunts it at a waiter. She is every bit the little DEMON that Humbert loves and fears.

This portion of the tale is not about a bad man who rapes an innocent little girl. It's about demonic possession: Humbert is ripe for nymphetic infection, which is the moral equivalent of possession:

First, he is possessed by the memory of lost Annabelle; and he is possessed/obsessed with the gaping hole in his soul that could only be filled by a nymphet; then the poor bastard actually meets his nymphet in the person of the little Haze demon. To think of the narrative only as a tale of intergenerational seduction is like thinking of Moby Dick only as a tale of chasing a giant white whale. The _demonic_ is very much in play between the characters Lo and Humbert, with Humbert as the possession victim.

[–] badponymedicine 12 years ago

While I definitely agree with most of what you say, I don't believe he is a seducer, as she was the one who made the first moves. IN this version, she even climbs on top of him. Problem is, his mental condition, etc, allows him to justify not stopping her. He is the adult, he is supposed to be responsible, etc. That is why we hate him. He allowed himself to be 'seduced' by an adolescent. He is supposed to have the maturity, the self-control, to say, "No, this is not right, we cannot be doing this", and Lolita sees his weakness and takes full advantage of it. She shows incessant contempt for Humbert, and sees sex as a way to get what she wants. Then she meets someone she thinks can offer her more for the same acts, and goes with him, and the heartbreak is what makes us pity Humbert, and revile Quilty, because Humbert actually loves Lolita, not any other adolescent. Quilty loves no one, but lusts ALL children, especially for monetary gain. Yes, Humbert is sick, but Quilty seems far more sick and despicable in the most heinous way. You're glad Quilty is dead, but you tend to feel bad for Humbert for his loss of Annabelle/Lolita. Lolita, near the end, lets us know the contempt she really has for Humbert, playing once again on his love for her to get money out of him, but telling him she'd rather go back to Quilty than be with him. She knew she could always manipulate Humbert, which is what makes us despise HER.

[–] eve_dolluk 12 years ago

I have friends from all over the world, I know a few girls who have watched the film that thought Lolita was a complete bitch for what she did. They don't see her as a child because from where they are from the age of consent is lower so falls into the category of legal age. They feel sorry for the guy because he is so lost and was in love.

When I questioned them on this I mentioned that he was a paedophile, they then said but "why she wasn't a baby" ( meaning pre puberty ) . All they see is a man in love and not a predator but if you ask them about Quilty the opinion is totally different and while they did not class him as a paedophile they did class him as pervert who is a bad man, they also said he was creepy and not very attractive.

They did not understand the attraction to Quilty because they said that Humbert would make the better husband, from their background it is quite normal to think about marriage and finding a partner at a young age. They don't look at this from a rebelling point of view but more of a natural progression of their lives.

The opinion for many in certain countries is that sexual activity for females starts with the arrival of the period. The body is naturally telling you that you are no ready to have sex and have kids. This does make perfect sense, it does not mean that they have to rush out and do it but simply says that they are ready to do it if they so choose. Obviously the law is there to protect young people from rape.

I find it incredibly naive that people believe that girls are not actively seeking sex or older boyfriends from the moment their body's tell them that they are ready to do so. Consensual sex between a minor and an adult happens all the time and often has no terrible repercussions for those involved. It is when minors are exploited that it becomes a problem and this is why we have laws in place. I was under-age when I first had sex with an older guy and it felt loving and caring, when I had sex with someone of a similar age I felt more used in that situation as he seemed to be more caring about getting his end away rather than having particular feelings for me and that was all I cared about. Mow people may say well you should have waited but the fact is I wanted to have sex because its pleasurable, I wasn't thinking of all the responsible aspect regarding this, I didn't really start doing that until I was a lot older and then I found that I was over analysing and less happy, eventually you find the right balance but I could only do that through experience.

Even then through all the experience and knowledge using intelligence and good judgement you still don't always get it right.

I know people that were married at 14 and still married 20 years later and still happy, to suggest to them they were somehow taken advantage of would be patronising and rude. There are people who wait and get married in their 20's or 30's trying to do the more responsible thing yet their marriages fail.

There is no perfect way of doing things, you just play it by ear and hope things work our !! the law is in place for protection but it has become a moral objective which I find that annoying especially when you look at our history as humans on such matters, it seems unnatural to put a number on such things. It is just another way that we tend to sterilise our natural instincts into something that can be controlled better or manipulated by using the fear of manipulation in the first place.

"Can people handle the truth"

[–] scndform 12 years ago

I understand what you are saying and I even agree with a lot of it. I have a sister-in law who began dating her husband when he was 24 and she was 15. Another married when she was 14 and her husband was 20. Both of them were married for over 50 years and their marriages were happy, strong, and stable. I have a grandfather who married for the first time at the age of 15. His first wife died of influenza at the age of 17. He married again at the age of 22 and his 16 year-old wife was my grandmother. They were also married over 50 years and where devoted to each other.

I hate to use that phrase "Things were different back then" but I believe it is true. My grandfather may have been 15 when he married but he had also been gifted with a hundred acre farm that he ran by himself because he was raised in an era when kids where taught everything from sewing your own clothing to building your own home to problem solving, and handling the responsibilities of a spouse and children. These skills allowed them to become not only independent but instilled a maturity level that I don't see today in most American teens.

Today's society is pretty much set up so that people have a very hard time becoming independent and responsible until they are in their twenties- at least here in the United States. Heck,now we keep children on our insurance until they are 26 and a large percentage of people in their twenties still live with their parents.

I guess I've taken a long way to try to say that I can't advocate teenage girls becoming involved in relationships with older guys- yes, there are exceptions but most girls are not mentally or socially prepared to handle such a relationship. They really can't just play it by ear and hope things work out.

[–] frequency-2 10 years ago

Humbert is in love with an erotic ideal, not Lolita. When she matures fully Humbert will lose his erotic interest in her and look for another. His love is a fantasy/urge that is wrong and destructive.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frequency-2 10 years ago

Have you read the book?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ciprianl 9 years ago

Have you seen the film? When he meets her pregnant with another man's child, he says he will forever love her. That, of course, does not mean that his love was not twisted and destructive and despicable. Which, in turn does not make the film itself (and the novel even more so) not to be a thing of beauty.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] red_rackham_77 12 years ago

While I love reading a great story this one is a damn challenge for me, I have read Flowers in the attic and I loved it (well just that one book the rest I can live without) but in the topic of this; sorry but I can't pity or sympathies with any of the character. Humbert a man who falls in love with a 12 year old, no one falls in love with a 12 year old, NO ONE!!!! What he had was lust for her, an obssessive lust for Lo and he got it because she was willing to give it to him. Had she been a right minded girl, she would have known that what he did to her was wrong and he should have gone to prison for it.

This book seems to try and make it sound like a love story well an unrequiated love story about a man and a child which is sickening. Sorry but I'd have to put the pruds on this story though I am glad it ends with Humbert and Quilty dead like all pervs should be but Lo, she was a mess. It is fiction but there are a million Lo's out there and boy Lo's who don't seem to understand that they are victimized by these Humberts and Quilties.

This is a pedophiles love story, out-there and down-right gross.

[–] laikaisdead 12 years ago

You'd feel bad for him because he had to go through unrequited love? Did you not see the passion he had for Lolita everything he sacrificed and gave to her? And I know your own reason has kept you victim from understanding that younger children can consent to adults and love has no restrictions just because society revolves around this being such an atrocious act. In the book/film's case, yes, it was forced Lolita was unhappy with Humbert. But I feel that in general you'd have a very skewed opinion on such a matter even if the child enjoyed being with the adult.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Virgil_Hawkins 12 years ago

Wow, you found a soul mate.

Just don't go trading... "illegal" pictures with him.

We are eagles of one nest, The nest is in our soul

[–] rosarypliers 12 years ago

In the novel, Humbert tries to win the sympathy of the reader through manipulation. That's what he's good at. Also, some might feel sorry for him because he is pathetic. He rambles back and forth in the book, once he is "poor miserable me", then he seems to show at least some remorse, then he tries to justify his feelings by reminding us that in other times and at different places, sex with girls as young as 8 was/is common.
I think the worst thing Humbert did was not having sex with Lolita at the Enchanted Hunters hotel. Even if Humbert is an unreliable narrator, we may believe it was consensual. 12 is very young to have sex, but it is not that uncommon. No, the worst thing he did was acting as a lover and a guardian at the same time. He took advantage of the fact that she was an orphan, that she could not support herself on her own. During their journey, he threatens to put her in a reformatory, if she doesn't behave, he bribes her with gifts and money, part of which he takes back again from time to time, he plays the part of a strict father while he engages in sexual acts with her. That is really sick.

[–] MissBoom 11 years ago

I just watched the film for the first time. I have never read the book and i can kinda relate to the film.

First of all iam from australia where 18 is the age to be.

However when i was 14. (Same age as Lo in the film) I did become friends with a 50 yr old man and developed some feelings for him. We never had intercourse but we did have sexual contact and we did have oral sex. I have never considered him a pedophile because I GAVE HIM PERMISSION & I EVEN WANTED IT. He has never raped me sexually in any way and any sexual contact was usually started by me like me kissing him First.

the friendship and relationships continued until i was 17 where he had to move interstate for work. naturally we stopped seeing each other when he moved away however we still talked a was still in contact. When i was 21 I had planned to visit him interstate when He suddenly passed away before i got there so i never ended up seeing him again.

I am now 27 and i still don't consider what he did wrong or him being a pedophile. i know many people will disagree however my point in telling the story is..

IN THE FILM. i saw lo giving consent... JUST LIKE I DID and she was 14... just like i was. I never viewed myself as a victim although my relationship never went as far as intercourse.

[–] MathildeS 11 years ago

Jeremy Irons made this character likeable. I feel like he did everything he could to make him likeable and sympathetic. He was very attractive back then when he made this movie- why did they cast an attractive actor? What if the actor who played Quilty was casted as Humbert, would he get a remorse from the audience? I doubt it. If you want to sell this story,you need your leading man to be gorgeous,sweet,gentle,loving. Whether you like it or not,beautiful people can sell everything- from shampoo and cornflakes to a pedophile love story.

[–] dragonstephen-1 11 years ago

its wrong but pedophilia actually refers to pre pubescent. he shouldn't have done what he did with a 14 year old but in the book she is actually 12 !

[–] scndform 11 years ago

The novel covers a five year period. Lo was indeed 12 when the sexual relationship began and 14 1/2 when she ran away. She is just shy of her 18th birthday when the two meet for the last time. The largest portion of the novel covers events that take place when Lo is 14 so I believe that is why the film Lo is also 14.

[–] Saemilin 10 years ago

First of all, I came here because I watched this movie last night on 4 film. I think this movie is brilliant. This movie tackles the truth we often don't accept, that we aren't complete. Nobody is perfect and we rarely accept and often, completely ignore our vices. Those who face it head on, either on purpose or inadvertently, expose our frail nature. I suspect the OP is very inexperienced, without wisdom and simple minded - Much like Delores and Humbert.

This movie is about Humbert's vice. His vice being that albiet growing up and becoming an adult, he couldn't aleviate his subconscious fixation on his childhood lover. Much like how often, future gf's and bf's may remind us of elements of our first love, or a powerful strong relationship we had in the past - the archetype on which we measure future relationships against. That vice, given the particular circumstances of meeting Delores, manifested itself on Humbert, and most of the movie is about him trying to manage this vice - a 3 way battle between the egalitarian values of society, his inner conscience to satisfy the need to do the right thing, and being infactuated with a minor, his carnal temptation of wanting to do something which defies both societal expecatations and even his own morals - to possess Delores.

There is a saying, love defies logic. It's true. We've all fallen in love, become infactuated with something silly in our significant others, a handsome moustache, an enormous pair of breasts, a crooked smile, a bad personality or perhaps, oddly sized feet. Some people fall in love with inanimate objects. I know a lot of guys who prefer MILfs, animals, fetish with black guys etc. Humbert fell in love, not so much with the little girl Delores, as the memory of the little girl he fixated on since he was young. Through the movie, the only thing which differentiates Humbert's age from Delores' is his appearance as an older man. Everything else Humbert possesses is very much child-like (eg. his reasoning, his will power, his conversations). I couldn't help but feel sorry for Humbert, especially as the whole movie is about him being incredibly apologetic and defenseless. Hardly a despicable person.

Quince was such a good contrasting character. He is the real unapologetic, exploitative sociopath. One which couldn't actually keep Delores, and the one which Humbert shot repeatedly out of disgust. Quince and Humbert are both pedophiles, but on opposite ends of the scale. If the OP takes only the base from a great movie like this, I suggest OP not to watch most of the movies in the top 100, as forest gump will just be about a lucky disabled guy, Titanic will just be about a ship that sinks and one flew the cuckoos nest will just be about mental people.

[–] frequency-2 10 years ago

hmmmm, so Humbert marrying Lo's mom so he could get closer to the child is not despicable? I think Humbert is a very sleazy and horribly self serving man.

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

and Lo's mum AGREED to marry for what reason?

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

[–] Kingteb 9 years ago

yeah i dont get it either, and i read some of the comments and it seems like people still like this guy. why? because he said he loved her?because he was a poet? because he drove her around in a car running from the cops? because he bought her a milkshake one time? i dont get it, the dude was a creep

[–] MeowOinkMoo 9 years ago

what