MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1998) Discussion > Would you still love this if she was 12?...

Would you still love this if she was 12? (spoiler)

posted 13 years ago by axedone
18 replies | jump to latest

Like in the novel. She had to have her age moved up because even as pervy as the movie is, 12 just seems so extreme. Now I LOVE this movie... it drew me in with the excellence of everything about it. I felt miserable at the end... I think particularly when he went to go visit her when she was older and pregnant. And he sits in his car watching her as she had become but imagining her as she once was I find the scene one of the most powerful moments... I think it was at that moment he realized that he had ruined her life. God... such a powerful scene, to me.

But what if she was 12 when he started messing with her? To me, there is a world of difference between 12 and 14. How would you feel if she was actually 12 in the movie? Would you like the movie more or dislike it more? I think if it stayed truer to the book, you'd be more devastated by the end to see a child curious about sex completely ruined by it with a man who was always telling her he was her dad. I think it'd be far more powerful. But the ending of this movie... I swear, you watch it and you can make yourself feel okay with it but then you see the (to me) devastating ending of how she turned out.... I feel nothing more than just devastated and like there is a hole in my spirit. This movie quickly drained me. I don't see how anyone can say the things she did was her fault... she was very young and immature, she wanted a father figure so badly she tried to see one in Humbert but he took complete advantage of it. She thought she was doing what was normal. This movie is beautiful but it really did drain me emotionally. It's so powerful. I think I'd be more drained if she was 12, like in the novel. I am female, btw, so that is my perspective. What do you think?

[–] idk12229 13 years ago

That scene was incredibly powerful. I also thought the end when he hears the sound of children playing in the distance was incredible.

I haven't read the novel (but I want to) so I can't comment on it in relation to your question. But I think it would have definitely made Humbert less sympathetic.

I've seen both versions of the film and can easily say this one is better if only for its portrayal of Humbert. Despite his actions I felt the character was even sympathetic. I myself, though still a teenager (19), had an experience with a Lolita-like girl. Not in age mind you, she was actually a little older than me, but in attitude. Trying to have a daddy-daughter relationship, always testing me to see how much power she had / what she could get away with, and ultimately choosing a man who wanted her only for sex and still having a greater fondness for him after she discovered his true intentions.

This worked in the film because the girl, although 14 and immature was pretty developed. If she hadn’t lived through so much and gotten pregnant I think Lolita would still be acting generally the same into her early twenties. The actress even looked older, I would guess, if I saw her on the street to be maybe 16.

The film works well as it is because it allows you to be sympathetic to both parties while also realizing how both of their actions are wrong. The film was uncomfortable to watch as it is. It’s almost impossible for me to imagine it with a 12 year old girl.

I believe the power of the story and emotions would still get through but it would be far more difficult viewing, which I suppose may have made it more worthwhile in the long run.

Humbert unquestionably destroyed her innocence but she too was a seducer of him, which is definitely not an excuse seeing as she was a child but it is something to wonder about. To be honest, I don’t think I could stomach watching a 12 year old girl seduce an older man, at least not without feeling utter hatred for that man for succumbing. A girl who is 12 is unquestionably a child in all definitions.

I think the age was moved up appropriately in that it managed to make Humbert more sympathetic but it lessened the tragic side of Lolita which I think was sufficiently tragic enough.

The destruction of innocence has always been a subject that’s affected me strongly. I think part of Lolita’s tragic side is the fact that she, like Humbert, has a flaw in her personality that led her to the fate we see. If both, or even one of them had been stronger it could have been avoided, but unfortunately they weren't. It be perhaps too much for a film to show that flaw in a 12 year old girl.

[–] scndform 13 years ago

excellent answer, idk. I agree with most everything you said. I agree that Lo wished for a father figure, but I've never been so sure she ever viewed Hum as a father. She seemed to have a need to compete with Charlotte over Hum's attention more as a control factor and a need to be the "alpha female" in the home rather than striving to gain a father.

I'll a;so add in that even though the affair began when Lo was 12, most of the events portrayed in both the film and novel occur when Lo was 14. And yes, - this was done so that the reader or viewer would form a more sympathetic relationship to Humbert.

[–] highpriestess32 13 years ago

I was also thinking how maybe Hum was not (going again only by the film at this moment in time), solely responsible for any loss of innocence. I look forward to reading the novel as to how it may differ but in the film, Lo had presumably already lost her virginity to some boy at summer camp. But she only whispered all that to Hum in bed that first time so we weren't privvy to what was said word for word.

She even made a joke to Hum in the car about how she was "A daisy fresh girl and look what you've done to me" before smirking. She was also apparently sexually attracted to Quilty although possibly because of his notoriety (she did of course refuse to take part in the hedonism he tried to get her involved with eventually at his residence and this resulted in Quilty throwing her out).

But I think this is why we can sympathise with Humbert - because of Lo's own nymphette behaviours and sexual awareness/experience. Not that we should necessarily condone his actions but when it came to Lo, he wasn't always the grown man he actually acted as at times. Right from the outset he narrates that when his first love, the child Annabel, died of Typhus, something froze within him. So I always felt this was done to make us feel that his romantic urges were somehow still tied in with the 14 year-old Humbert as opposed to the middle-aged Humbert. He loved Annabel and he seemed to loved Lo in the same way. Hum was not always an aggressive lover it seemed in Lyne's film. Because of his maturity in other ways he did on occasion treat Lo like the daughter she should have been to him but he felt so hopeless and his one time rough handling of her with the banana scene in the motel room was born out of hopeless jealousy.

The best man for the job is a woman..

[–] monochrome-delirious 13 years ago

Rapunzel_Knows_Best is a proven pedophile and ephebophile.

Please contact IMDb user KevinologyReturns for proof and information.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scndform 13 years ago

I had never heard of this child model so I clicked on the link at the bottom of rapunzel's post. The photos of this child are creepy to say the least and so disturbing I feel sick to my stomach. How anyone at Vogue Magazine could think these photo shoots are appropriate staggers the mind much less the girl's parents.

What in the he** are they thinking? Never mind I already know; Money and fame.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] monochrome-delirious 13 years ago

Rapunzel_Knows_Best is a proven pedophile and ephebophile.

Please contact user KevinologyReturns for more information.

[–] bastasch8647 13 years ago

If people love the book and "she was 12", why not love the film if she's twelve?

Sure, the film could star a twelve year old: there have been any number of kids who could easily have handled the role, e.g., Kirsten Dunst as the child vampire shows that she could have been a worthy Lo. Ditto Christina Ricci, Dakota Fanning Anna Paquin and Natalie Portman, too - back when they were twelve.

The problem isn't _finding_ a child actress for the part, the problem is _filming_ it. I appreciate that this thread is a "What If?" scenario, but in my mind it's rather a moot question because I do not believe that there is a director skilled enough to deliver a real twelve-year-old Lo to the screen. Look at the horrible history that the late-adolescent, precocious Swain film has had, all the way from irresponsible, paranoid gossip to marketing nightmares. Just think what a film starring a _real_ twelve-year-old would go through. In today's climate, I think it's an impossible thing to film.

[–] scndform 13 years ago

Plus the novel covers a five year period beginning with Lo at age 12, most events occuring when she is 14, and ending with her just shy of an adult 18. It would be pretty tough to find a teen actress to pull that off.

[–] bastasch8647 13 years ago

scndform, you make another excellent point. I had entirely neglected the aging factor. As you say, it's doubtful that a 12 year old actor could convincingly express the "aging Lo" dynamic, even with all the makeup and coaching available...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hmguk90 11 years ago

She's 12 in the book, so that's what she is. They made her 14 in the film to make sure it would be legal to show and they could make some money off it.

I'd still watch it if she was 12 in the film, yes. If someone disagrees, I assume it's because they can imagine *beep* a 14 year old but not a 12 year old.
12 and 14 are both underage, both children. Some girls get their period at 10, some at 14. Most around 12.

I don't think it is possible to make a movie that will justify the book. The book has such a powerful language. They have cut in pieces of the monologue simply to give people some of the same feeling, but it's still not the same.

I think there would be some advantages to her being 12 in the film too. You see some morons questioning her behavior, saying she's promiscuous and so on. Not that these people should guide a storyline, but there would be less of that if she was 12.
To me, it is a bit 'off' that she is 14 in the film. 14 year olds are more sexually aware. I'm 23, but have a clear memory of being 14 - I was afraid to have sex, but clearly aware of it and some girls did it. I did not see it as a "game from camp" and something without consequences. Older men hit on me, but I clearly saw boundaries and knew what to avoid. Lolita seems to childish, tomboyish and naive for a 14 year old in the film. It would have made more sense if she was 12.

[–] masuka-fan 11 years ago

I'm sure I would like it just as much. I loved the novel. There isn't any difference between 12 and 14 in my experience, despite all the ritual jewish nonsense I had to go through.

"Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater!"

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

She ranges from 12 to 17 in the book actually.

My favorite books are "Moby Dick", "Heart of Darkness", "Notes from the Underground" and this. But does that mean in reality I want to harpoon sperm whales, ride a tugboat up the malaria-ridden Belgian Congo, or hang around with 19th century Russian prostitutes? Of course not, and my love of this book has nothing to do with how old the girl in it is. It's kind of a stupid idea to think that what you enjoy in fiction--books or movies--somehow has to do with what you do and how you are in real life.

[–] Saemilin 10 years ago

The most powerful part for me was the scene of the day after they had sex for the first time, and Humbert was narrating that he felt like something precious and good about her had been killed by him. From then on their relationship started to morphed into a business model relationship. Delores was colder and more cutting. She became more aware of the dynamics of the relatiobship. she's a purveyor of sex and humbert is weak. innocence lost.

[–] liscarkat (16552) a year ago

If she was twelve I would find it interesting in a slightly different way than if she was fourteen, as I did when I read the novel. After all, I'm just a detached observer of the lives of two fictional characters. I'm watching how they make moral decisions, not making them myself.