I just watched Lolita, the 1997 version. I watched it to add to my list of “common knowledge.” There are a lot of movies out there I haven’t seen and I’m going for the bold ones that many people should be familiar with. It was interesting to finally know the story of “Lolita.” I’ve heard of that word before and knew it was in reference to a “seductive young girl”, but I actually didn’t know about the movie before. So now I know the term originated from the book (since the movie is based on the book). Hmm, interesting.

It was…disturbing. The kisses on screen were disturbing. I thought everything would be entirely suggestive, but some things really were acted out. I wonder how the girl’s parents felt about that (apparently she was 15 at the time of the filming). Rather creepy…

I read different comments about the movie, and it seems clear that the book gives much more insight. I don’t think I’ll read it though, because I’m kind of disturbed enough by the movie (which is supposed to be less disturbing than the book). Supposedly in the book, Lolita is less willing and Humbert is less regretful. The questions I noticed most were something along the lines of, “Who is the real monster?”

Someone commented that the movie is in the perspective of Humbert and so the movie is subjective to his eyes. (Therefore, although it looks like Lolita is acting beyond promiscuous, the childish acts of Lolita actually seem erotic to Humbert)

I can’t bring myself to like Humbert. I feel sorry for him yes, but I don’t like him. Despite the creepy factor, his undying love for Lolita seemed sweet. However, he loved her for the wrong reasons…he was in love with youth. He never liked Lolita’s mind. He loved her youth. When she said she was intelligent, he could only scoff.

He couldn’t resolve his relationship with the late Annabel. Perhaps if he could have dealt with her death, he might not have become stuck in time, so mentally ill and lusting over youth…

Besides that, he caged Lolita up and never let her grow up. She had no father and lost her mother…no where else to go. It was easy for him to keep her locked up with him. And the big wham-o’s were that he abused her (those slaps were unnecessary…she might have been a brat, but those slaps were attempts to control her) and let himself be controlled by his sexual urges.

Lolita is obviously not a child of innocence. Whether or not the film was subjective to Humbert’s point of view, Lolita must have been somewhat seductive and manipulative. To what degree, I don’t know, but she must have been. I don’t think it’s right to point the blame at her though because she was only 12 or 14 (the ages depend on the book or movie). I really don’t think a girl that young is capable of being such a devil. Whether or not she was a devil, a grown man (age 50) was put to the test and gave in to sin. I think the fault belongs more to Humbert than it did to Lolita…

Obviously he loved her in some way, since he gave her the money whether or not she would come back to him. In a sense, the man was very loving and sweet, but I think he made terrible mistakes before finally letting Lolita go. I believe Humbert is the real culprit, but by having the story end that way, it at least makes you feel some sympathy for the man.

People say age doesn’t matter, but I think it does when children are not developed and experienced enough. Maybe it’s true that love has no boundaries when it comes to age. Maybe it IS legit for an older person to love someone young enough to be their child. Perhaps it cannot be helped. However, I don’t think it’s legit for the person to ACT on it. Restraint, please. Ugh, I can’t even think about this anymore. Wow. That Vladimir Nabokov made quite a story there…