Thursday, October 29, 2009
Old vs. New
After viewing both movie adaptations of Lolita,we realize that both movies are different from each other even though they are about the same novel. The 1961 version seems to be filled with many comedic instances while the 1997 version is more dramatic and sentimental. The 1997 version with Jeremy Irons quotes more from the novel and seems to follow the source novel more closely. Did you prefer the 1961 version or the 1997 version? Why? If you liked the 1997 version, did you like it because it followed the novel more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actualy liked both movies. I think the 1997 movie reflected the novel more which I prefered to watch more becase it shows what the movie is talking about, which gave the audience the feel of what Humbert and Lolita shared.
ReplyDeleteI definetly liked the 1997 version of Lolita better than the 1961 version. I liked it more not only because it stayed true to the novel, but because it was able to show me the characters in a completely different view. After reading the novel I was very disgusted with Humbert and his actions. However this movie showed that the realtionship between him and Lolita was mainly because of her actions, and not his.
ReplyDeleteI liked the 1997 version of Lolita better than the 1961 version. I liked the 1997 version more because it accurately depicted the main elements of the novel. This version gave more of a sense of the true emotions of the characters,especially Humbert and Lolita's. The 1997 version was filled more with more drama and true love, and I like that in movies. This version gave a sense of how love was seen in Humbert and Lolita's eyes.
ReplyDeleteOverall I preferred the newer version of “Lolita”. The Kubrick production seemed to want to be too many things. The film took too many different directions. Overall I felt Kubrick was making more of a satire of his own version. He downplayed the sexual aspect of the novel. Kubrick lightly scratches the topic of the affair; it’s as almost never truly addressed.
ReplyDeleteAs were, I did find that James Mason made a better Humbert character than Jeremy Irons. While, as a whole I feel Mason is a much better actor. I maintain, the Charlotte Haze character is missed cast by Shelly Winters. In the 50’s and 60’s, the popular belief of the viewing audience was somewhat attracted to slender model types. As while I did not find believable chemistry between Mason and Winter’s. In fact, Clare Quilt female companion would have made a much better Charlotte Haze. The Peter Sellers donation to the film was eclectic for that time period. More importantly, I can’t put a finger on it, but, why his character was so interesting? I have a few thoughts, well maybe he was bored with the role, as were, are maybe was trying to make a name for himself?