MovieChat Forums > Wuchak

Wuchak (4142)


Pedestrian retread My thoughts on the film Decent direct-to-video sequel, but forgettable Entertaining, but one-dimensional with a tedious third act Ebert's clueless criticism of the line "You mean, inland?" Could someone please explain these puzzling plot questions? (SPOILERS) Disturbing, potent, beautiful and undeservedly obscure So cute in... Moody Witch revenge in Massachusetts It's not all bad, e.g. the creature itself is awesome View all posts >


<blockquote>14 for most of the shoot</blockquote> This blows your case since it was a 3-month shoot and 15 years-old is the cut-off point in distinguishing a hebephile from an ephebophile. You keep using the book as a source of authority when, as explained, it's irrelevant to <b>the movie</b>. Even today, no sane producer of mainstream movies would seriously entertain having a 12 year-old play a middle-aged man's object of affection it's so abominable, let alone in 1961 when this film was shot. Even the 1997 version of "Lolita" used <b>a (voluptuous) 16 year-old</b> to play the role, Dominique Swain, which squarely categorizes Hum in <i>that</i> film as an ephebophile. Since Lyon was plainly a relatively developed teen of 14-15 during shooting, Hum was more of an ephebophile in the 1962 version, rather than a hebephile. But, as I said, it could also be argued that he was on the fence between the two. If you still disagree, so be it. Have a good one. Presume much? I was never attracted to immature girls, even in my teens. I prefer mature women with seasoned intelligence and spirituality, not to mention whoa-manly curves. I guess that's why my wife is older than me. My playful description of Lyon in the movie as a "lil' hottie" is simply a fact of <b>how she looks and is presented in the movie</b>. Do you deny that she's displayed in this manner? Googling her pics from the film tells all. <blockquote>Lolita is 12 in the book</blockquote> Again, this is not relevant to <b>the movie</b> where Lolita is clearly about 14-15 years-old, <b>which happens to be the age of the actress playing the role</b>. The book and the movie are two different pieces of art conveyed through two different kinds of art (book vs. film). There are similarities, of course, but they're two different worlds, just as the 1989 version of "Batman" is its own world separate from the silver age comics, the 60's TV show and the later "Batman Begins." The fact that Lyon was cast when she was 13 is also irrelevant. The producers already had a general shooting schedule. Do you think they were unaware of the fact that she'd be close to 15 during the 3-month shoot? If they wanted a girl who looked 13 for the movie, they would've cast an 11 year-old. Speaking of the shoot, the fact that Lyon was almost 15 during the 3-months shows that she passed the age of which defines a hebephile. So Hum in the movie was more accurately an ephebophile. But, to keep the peace, perhaps we could say he was on the fence between the two. And, as you pointed out, he might not be either if his attraction to Lolita was a one-off thing. The problem is that girls develop physically at different ages. Since Lyon looks less like an undeveloped 11-13 year-old and more like a "lil' hottie" 15-16 year-old, ephebophile is actually more fitting; and more so since <b>she turned 15 during shooting</b>. Case closed. Truth There's a world of difference though between an undeveloped girl that's 11-12 (or even 13-14) and a relatively developed 14-15 year-old who's able to turn the head of practically any male, young or old. Sue Lyon in this movie strikes me as the latter (and more so a year later in "Night of the Iguana"). That's why I suggest that ephebophile may be a more fitting description. Actually, it was post-Edwardian Era since the events take place in 1912. The Edwardian Era ended in 1910. Close enough though. If going by the book, what you say is true, but we're talking about the movie, which is separate, just like "Conan the Barbarian" must be evaluated separate from the REH books. As such, Hum in the film was technically an ephebophile, an adult man attracted to mid-to-late teen females. In short, he's attracted to girls that are physically developed. Not necessarily fully developed, like when a woman hits 30-35 and has better curves, but certainly developed enough to be a "lil' hottie." I guess I just get sick of people referring to Hum in the movie as a pedophile when that's simply not the case. <blockquote>That is if we assume that his ‘love’ for Lolita isn’t a one-off and that he’s persistently attracted to that age group.</blockquote> Good point; well said. I edited my post accordingly. It doesn't change the fact that Hum was an ephebophile, not a pedo. lol! We're not talking about the book, but rather the movie. And, in <b>the movie</b>, Lolita is 14 years-old played by a 15 year-old lil' hottie, which means that Hum is an <b>ephebophile</b>, <i>NOT</i> a pedo: <url></url> View all replies >