David why do you like Cap’in Crunch so much? David: “Well…. It’s crunchy. Ahh…………. There’s a texture and a sweetness to it that I like. Umm………… I like to look at the box while I’m eating it. Ahh…. I like to imagine the adventures Cap’in Crunch has been on, and things like that.”
James Mason was a phenomenal actor. No merely "great" actor should attempt an horrific role like Humbert Humbert, but Mason made you despise Humbert and pity him simultaneously. As Nabokov did in his book.
Well do we even have to ask? "Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue.." Laura is one of the most iconic characters captured on film of all time in my opinion. There's something about her character that transcends the fiction, she lives in the mind and investigation of Twin Peaks just like Lolita lives in the confession of Humbert Humbert.
Unsurprisingly, Lynch struggles to describe what the story is about and never mentions Nabokov's script or book once. Visual, conceptual guy through and through. 😅
@@loganperry5167 You're welcome, but I fear that my comment will only attract a certain type of reader...if you know what I mean. Still, Lolita is an excellent book and maybe they'll get more out of it than they expect.
David Lynch is a wise man, he has no certainties but he says the right things. Yes the film is about a period in the United States and Lynch is one of the directors who understood his country the most.
Kubrick’s Lolita wasn’t available in vhs video stores where I live and only came later in dvd. When I first saw it I was a little disappointed. Later I rewatched many times and now I think is a masterpiece. The scene with Humbert in the bathtub is the funniest ever.
Maybe the only way for me to think about this subject is if Lynch talks about it. There are too many real maniacs in this world, which makes it hard to survive.
He picked up on something that I think a lot of people miss and that's viewing the story as a commentary on a particular time and its shifting mores; '50s Americana losing its bloom, and embracing the worldly European émigrée, in the pursuit of affecting his jaded sophistication, just as he is perversely attracted to teasing their naivete.
As much as I love Dr. Strangelove and Peter Sellers in it, I feel like he's the weakest part of Lolita. Maybe they thought he would help distract from the film's subject matter but I just didn't think his humor and all of the costume changes really fit.
One of the nicer surprises is that Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" isn't terrible. Very good casting for its time (1997). Jeremy Irons is not nearly as funny as Mason and is tad too easy to see as a predator. Dom Swain has an interesting, athletic take on Lo as a Gen X teen who's energy is not under her own control. She is sometimes the only one bringing the fun. Melanie Griffith is perfect as the mother (I suspect she pulled some experience from being Tippi Hedren's daughter.) Frank Langella is a fine actor but not right for Quilty. He seemed too much of Iron's equal in many ways. The Morricone score is also gorgeous. It's just a different film and I appreciate that Lane wasn't intimidated by Kubrick's legend.
@@Fiveash-Art I am a HUGE fan of Lynch. You´re misunderstanding my comment as an attack. Even the interviewer is sort of puzzled at why he´s acting this way. Normally the questions are about his own work, so you can understand why he wouldn´t want to articulate things that could clash against other people's interpretation, but here he refuses to really say anything specific about Kubrick's work as well. He starts to say things that could be somewhat specific and backs away from that real fast into the ultra general. He just repeats the same "real from a deep place" line he comes back to all the time lol. Again: I think Lynch is one of the coolest human beings ever, this isn´t an attack.
Lynch often says some things in film can't be accurately translated into words. And so if he's struggling it's because he's also trying to accurately and effectively translate feelings into words, an often equally impossible task
@@JimElford exactly .. He's being thoughtful and carefully picking his words. He wants what he's saying to be true. Most people don't care about that. They just want other people to think what they're saying is true. People are dumb and tend to buy anything if it's sold to them with confidence, slick language, and false authority. It explains the state of academia today and why the universities have been so easily corrupted.
i'm not sure if this is Lynch's point but I think he is correct in pointing out that Lolita is hard to describe, which is why I think that because it is genuinely a mainstream film it has been the default position for commenters and critics to pegged it simply as movie about a dirty old man, and precocious flirty teen, and a narcissistic mother. But there is a lot more going on and these elements are almost window dressing. HH is virtually crawling out of his skin to not be who he is in order to be the "right kind of man" and yet he clearly never can be Quilty. Lo is a nymph but not in the overly sexualized American slut-shaming context but rather in the nature demi-goddess of Greek myth. She possesses a mecurcial confidence of one who has been around a lot longer than her age would suggest. And naturally she will be drawn to the aged shepherd boy in HH but will also fall under the sway of Quilty's wild, lascivious faun.
Lolita is not one of Kubrick's best films. What it has is a good cast - James Mason was a good choice here. He strikes one as a man taken over by his obsession for Lolita.Sue Lyons is fine as the title character . Peter Sellers though steals this movie a n d quite frankly helps make it good picture It's decently staged, nicely shot . It's in some respects a careful movie because of the nature of the story.
A 14 year old teen girl isn't a woman buddy. Sure there can be animal brain attraction but on the conscious, conscientious level, acting on that attraction is abhorrent.
It's no surprise David loves it. It's about that dark underbelly of midcentury American suburban life. Lynch's very favorite!
David Lynch seems proud that Stanley Kubrick cited Eraserhead as an influence on his masterpiece The Shining(1980)
It's close, but no one could be as proud as Tommy Tallarico's mom.
David why do you like Cap’in Crunch so much?
David: “Well…. It’s crunchy. Ahh…………. There’s a texture and a sweetness to it that I like. Umm………… I like to look at the box while I’m eating it. Ahh…. I like to imagine the adventures Cap’in Crunch has been on, and things like that.”
Float Pop w/ me.
James Mason was a phenomenal actor. No merely "great" actor should attempt an horrific role like Humbert Humbert, but Mason made you despise Humbert and pity him simultaneously. As Nabokov did in his book.
This film really established Kubrick's trend of challenging the medium of movies itself (Not to forget Paths of Glory which is an amazing film).
It’s like a severed ear in a perfectly cut lawn.
“There’s a body alright “
Blue velvet much?
@@izetyusein3323 that was the reference I was going for 👏
Wondering if Leeland Palmer was inspired by Humbert
Well do we even have to ask? "Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue.." Laura is one of the most iconic characters captured on film of all time in my opinion. There's something about her character that transcends the fiction, she lives in the mind and investigation of Twin Peaks just like Lolita lives in the confession of Humbert Humbert.
Kubrick's Humbert calls more to mind Ben Horne
they are both driven mad, Leland by Bob, h.h. by that w.a.p.
@@chadbarbaro bruh
@@iamyearning lol
I'm not saying it Kubrick's best film, but it's my favorite of his. James Mason is so good in this one.
Unsurprisingly, Lynch struggles to describe what the story is about and never mentions Nabokov's script or book once. Visual, conceptual guy through and through. 😅
Pure Artist locked up in himself except for what bits he can squeeze out in his creations.
I love David Lynch
Lynch choosing his words very very carefully.
Sellars kills it in this show.
a highlight of the film ?
@@Joshua-mv3mv Defo.
such a intresting film with realism and that
Sue Lyon was a mature looking fourteen year old when she made the film. In the book, they met when Lolita was twelve.
yuck
@@loganperry5167 You're welcome, but I fear that my comment will only attract a certain type of reader...if you know what I mean. Still, Lolita is an excellent book and maybe they'll get more out of it than they expect.
This is a film that walks a tight rope that goes around the world and Kubrick navigated it perfectly.
David Lynch is a wise man, he has no certainties but he says the right things. Yes the film is about a period in the United States and Lynch is one of the directors who understood his country the most.
I love Shelley Winters. To me she is the star!
Kubrick’s Lolita wasn’t available in vhs video stores where I live and only came later in dvd. When I first saw it I was a little disappointed. Later I rewatched many times and now I think is a masterpiece. The scene with Humbert in the bathtub is the funniest ever.
Lynch's perspective is as clear in this video as it is in most of his movies.
Maybe the only way for me to think about this subject is if Lynch talks about it. There are too many real maniacs in this world, which makes it hard to survive.
i always thought Sellers would have played a great Lynch villain.
Lolitas' theme was by Bob Harris.
Peter sellers character was a ball
Kubrick's producer partner ended up marrying this actress by the way
You mean like eventually???
Mason also went that deep toward the end of A STAR IS BORN.
I preferred 'For a Lost Soldier'.
James mason is my eternal crush ❤
Lynch was heard to say, "Me not think-and-talk-same-time very good."
And then Lynch fired his writer.
Was it, David? Was it "filled with all kinds of things?"
"I don't know what word I would use . . . but, um . . . it's, um . . . a story about . . . I guess, a time in America, and . . ."
OK, it's mean, but it's not like David Lynch is going to read this and cry, so who cares?
"I, um . . read this, and I guess, um . . . it made me cry." - David Lynch
He picked up on something that I think a lot of people miss and that's viewing the story as a commentary on a particular time and its shifting mores; '50s Americana losing its bloom, and embracing the worldly European émigrée, in the pursuit of affecting his jaded sophistication, just as he is perversely attracted to teasing their naivete.
Love Mason
Sellers rattled the great James Mason. Incredible scene mimicking Kubrick's voice.
I really despised James Mason's character, which means that he did a great job.
As much as I love Dr. Strangelove and Peter Sellers in it, I feel like he's the weakest part of Lolita. Maybe they thought he would help distract from the film's subject matter but I just didn't think his humor and all of the costume changes really fit.
One of the nicer surprises is that Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" isn't terrible. Very good casting for its time (1997). Jeremy Irons is not nearly as funny as Mason and is tad too easy to see as a predator. Dom Swain has an interesting, athletic take on Lo as a Gen X teen who's energy is not under her own control. She is sometimes the only one bringing the fun. Melanie Griffith is perfect as the mother (I suspect she pulled some experience from being Tippi Hedren's daughter.) Frank Langella is a fine actor but not right for Quilty. He seemed too much of Iron's equal in many ways. The Morricone score is also gorgeous. It's just a different film and I appreciate that Lane wasn't intimidated by Kubrick's legend.
His best film, I’ve watched it more than any other movie
Creepy movie. Very well executed, though.
How I feel about Poor Things.
Only seen it once, wasn't a big fan, he released Dr Strangelove after this and it's his best film in my opinion.
This film of Kubrick is so underrated even with his fans
Rightfully so, it's about pedophilia
It’s my least favourite Kubrick film but the acting is amazing in it, especially Shelley Winters as the mother.
This guy didn’t have anything of note to say
The remake was pretty great too. Was able to be a lot more daring.
You’re talking about the Jeremy Irons’s one right?
@@izetyusein3323 Yeah.
I prefer 'For a Lost Soldier'.
This video shows (I think) that he can´t explain things, it´s not just that he doesn´t want to.
He explains things better than you ever could. 😂 (I think) .. you should probably stop trying to do that.
@@Fiveash-Art I am a HUGE fan of Lynch. You´re misunderstanding my comment as an attack. Even the interviewer is sort of puzzled at why he´s acting this way. Normally the questions are about his own work, so you can understand why he wouldn´t want to articulate things that could clash against other people's interpretation, but here he refuses to really say anything specific about Kubrick's work as well. He starts to say things that could be somewhat specific and backs away from that real fast into the ultra general. He just repeats the same "real from a deep place" line he comes back to all the time lol. Again: I think Lynch is one of the coolest human beings ever, this isn´t an attack.
@@botero01 Maybe he was high
Lynch often says some things in film can't be accurately translated into words. And so if he's struggling it's because he's also trying to accurately and effectively translate feelings into words, an often equally impossible task
@@JimElford exactly .. He's being thoughtful and carefully picking his words. He wants what he's saying to be true. Most people don't care about that. They just want other people to think what they're saying is true. People are dumb and tend to buy anything if it's sold to them with confidence, slick language, and false authority. It explains the state of academia today and why the universities have been so easily corrupted.
i'm not sure if this is Lynch's point but I think he is correct in pointing out that Lolita is hard to describe, which is why I think that because it is genuinely a mainstream film it has been the default position for commenters and critics to pegged it simply as movie about a dirty old man, and precocious flirty teen, and a narcissistic mother. But there is a lot more going on and these elements are almost window dressing. HH is virtually crawling out of his skin to not be who he is in order to be the "right kind of man" and yet he clearly never can be Quilty. Lo is a nymph but not in the overly sexualized American slut-shaming context but rather in the nature demi-goddess of Greek myth. She possesses a mecurcial confidence of one who has been around a lot longer than her age would suggest. And naturally she will be drawn to the aged shepherd boy in HH but will also fall under the sway of Quilty's wild, lascivious faun.
Lolita is not one of Kubrick's best films. What it has is a good cast - James Mason was a good choice here. He strikes one as a man taken over by his obsession for Lolita.Sue Lyons is fine as the title character . Peter Sellers though steals this movie a n d quite frankly helps make it good picture
It's decently staged, nicely shot .
It's in some respects a careful movie because of the nature of the story.
Its about a man going for a younger woman. Its about Biology
A 14 year old teen girl isn't a woman buddy. Sure there can be animal brain attraction but on the conscious, conscientious level, acting on that attraction is abhorrent.
He has no idea what he wants to say cos he doesn't want to say that it's about psychosis LMAO
Lynch is so verbally inarticulate. He doesn't explain anything in this bit.
I can't disagree more, I just keep feeling like we didn't see the same movie, I low-key like the 90s remake better