It makes sense that Lolita is Lynch’s favorite Kubrick film. Throughout the film there’s this wonderful and terrible sense of pure uncomfortably due to the subject matter itself. As well as that it’s pure Americana and a critique on the suburban lifestyle which Lynch loves to show in a lot his films, and finally the hopeless love that will never be and the dark side to it all, like Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks.
Lolita is my top ten favorite films of all time, i have been watching films avidly since i was a kid, i adored going to the cinema to see anything at all even at age eight, and this film remains in my memories ... Peter Sellers, James Mason, Shelley Winters ! they should all have oscars
Not only that, but the film is filled with quirky, strange characters that look absolutely normal on the outside, but shows some really odd personalities once you start knowing them a little bit, like Quilty, Mrs. Haze or the couple that she is friends with. That's something that Lynch does with perfection in his works.
Lynch secretly quoted Lolita in his speech at the 2019 Governors Awards. He closed by using Clare Quilty's line "You have a most interesting face. Good night".
Interesting information I didn't know. What a great line to say to someone, they probably wouldn't forget you, would certainly leave them wondering, lol. Especially when you don't know how to end a conversation, but would take some nerve.
This interviewer has no nuance whastsoever in the art of coversation, so an already awkward socially, Lynch, seems a bit cornered and just peppered with basic questions about his favorite film of all time. A shame really.
I'm not surprised, so many people don't see the great art and talent put into Lolita, and just want to scold those of us who love it. I just think they're ignorant for not being able to get past their hang ups over the subject matter.
@@serenatwilite4005 there’s nothing wrong with loving lolita as a book as long as you call it what it is, a story about the pedophilic rape and kidnapping of a 12yo girl, and not “a great love story” or some such nonsense
Damn I can’t wait to watch this movie. Just read the book and loved it. There were many moments when I would cringe with disgust at Humbert’s personality but then laugh out loud at his way of talking to the reader and his witty remarks. Fucking excellent book, I’m so glad the great master Kubrick took it on 👌👌 Btw I feel like the other movie/book power-duo that this reminds me of is American Psycho. That character is also hilarious while being abominable. Christian Bale’s acting is out of this world 🎥 🍿
I respect Lynch's reluctance to try and verablise the genius of a film or artwork. It makes sense. If it's truly a great work, then by definition it's all there already; if it's been rendered near perfectly, then there's nothing more to say. I guess that's why the greatest works of art are great - precisely because they defy being conveyed better in any other way. Any other way would have been suboptimal. And to stoop to an inferior portrayal of what's at stake would be a betrayal of both the work and what's being captured or conveyed.
It's as dark as a dark comedy can get in many ways, made only worse when you do things like read reviews of the original novel around the time of its release where many defend Humbert's decisions against the writer's obvious intention. Honestly a fantastic book, though I haven't watched the film.
Why do people find it so sickening that a grown man can fall in love with and appreciate a child, even in a sexual way? Most people are entranced by babies. I think a lot of men feel that way but would never dare say so. They claim to be sickened by it because they think that's the required response. In my opinion there should be nothing shameful about being attracted to innocence.
well, for me there's definitely something in the relationship between lula and her mother in wild at heart which always gives me the almost same vibes as the ones between lolita and her mother
The first part of the movie is really fun with Mason and Winters, after the death of Charlotte the film gets darker but loses much of that funny edge, which remains only in Clair Quilty character. My favorite scene is Humbert drunk in the bathtub after his wife's death.
Lolita was Kubrick's first 'great' film (in my opinion). The Killing and Paths of Glory were very good films but didn't have the incredible acting performances of Peter Sellers and James Mason. I saw it when it first came out in 62' and was shocked when someone told me that Peter Sellers played 3 different characters in the movie, ha! his acting was that good. It's a masterpiece as good as Welles 'Touch of Evil' made a few years earlier. Those two films were laying the groundwork for what was to follow in American film
sorry about that, let me poke around my notes and see I can this. I used to trade with people to get so much Lynch stuff, I had so much. I might be able to find the source
I can't choose between them. I think they both were two of the greatest films ever made for different reasons. The actors were superb in both of them, and they doesn't happen very often with a remake. I thought the remake took the sexuality a lot deeper and gave more insight into the characters. The black and white was so beautifully filmed and so pretty to watch, but I always love seeing a movie in color, too. When I watch black and white it drives me crazy sometimes wondering what colors the fashions and decor are when I really love them, like in Lolita.
One of the most common negative comments about films are that they are not true to the source novel. When the reality is no film can be because every film would be at least 4 hours long if it was tbh. Nabakov was quite pleased with Kubrick's adaptation of his book. Nabakov's screenplay would have also ran several extra hours on screen and that was explained to him and he saw his error. His whole ass screenplay was actually one giant BOOTY that couldnt be filmed.
ha agreed. i know nabokovs screenplay would be far too long. but if lolita can only be adapted in a four hour film, then spare four hours! i read his screenplay and i loved it. never watched the other two but i dont hold out much hope
It seems strange that Lynch has such difficulty describing a psychotic performance. In most of his movies, he has written and directed psychotic characters, so he most certainly understands what they are and where they come from.
He seems to get very complex feelings about certain things which he can't really put into words. His whole creative philosophy is about reaching ideas and feelings that aren't obvious and take a lot of thought to get to - "Catching the big fish" as he puts it.
@@gmann6269 There are, perhaps, not many words to describe the "depths" he at one point refers to, but he clearlyy accesses them himself in his brilliant work.
@@dm5432 Hollywood - at least the boundary breaking part - is well in fact a boundary-breaking-place. You can't have the one thing without the other one I guess.
@@dm5432 No, I would never excuse having Sex with a 12 year old morally, but I guess that there's something true about that. Also it seems to me like it's countinously: some slightly cross of line (like in that case a 17/18 year old having something with an older person), but you have to make very sure that you don't erase all boundaries, become a nihilst, and make others and your life hell.
tbh I don't like Lynch's analysis -- there's nothing to it. He doesn't know how to explain it despite it being "one of his favorite films" -- idk was definitely underwhelmed by this
Is not easy to analyse certain movies. One of The reasons why i love this movie is how well it communicates Humbert’s desires through Mason’s brilliant acting.
@@luke9947 Lynch, like Kubrick, avoided explanation of their art. Kubrick's wife gave a short, but pithy explanation of the film: "Good and evil do not always come in the expected packages."
well, he does say how much he admires this particular film, that in itself is why its on my youtube page. But as much as I like Lynch he does not say much in his interviews, he is surprisingly inarticulate in interviews
David... YOU'RE ONE OF MY MOST FAVORITE DIRECTORS, IF NOT THE MOST FAVORITE! I also LOVE KUBRICK... just as Ido Bergman, Tarkovsky... BUT THIS FILM IS GREAT?!?! GET DA FUCK OUTTA HERE! It COULD only be good enough, in a sense of a film by itself! But as a film made by a GREAT BOOK?!? Common David! THIS FILM IS BAD! Even Kubrick himself admit it s not good, and that it's just as good as the times back then allowed it to be... but to call it a great film?!? JESUS! Don't deliberately stuck your tongue in Kubrick's asshole David! "DOGS DO THAT! YOU'RE NOT A DOG, ARE YOU DAVID?!" Adrian Lyne's version from 1997 is like 10000000 times better and more accurate to the book!
@@morningowl43 That doesn't matter - it's most often result of the feeling that was prevailing in a person at that very moment, or was a result, a reaction of the content that provoked "the pretentious" response! What really MATTERS, WHAT'S IMPORTANT, is that IT'S TRUE!
@@Shteno People are allowed to enjoy whichever films they choose, nor do they have to explain why they enjoy them to others. If a film-making team liked it enough to bother making it, it can be legitimately enjoyed by anyone. You don't really get to decide what you do or don't enjoy, unless you live your life pretentiously trying to impress others.
It makes sense that Lolita is Lynch’s favorite Kubrick film. Throughout the film there’s this wonderful and terrible sense of pure uncomfortably due to the subject matter itself. As well as that it’s pure Americana and a critique on the suburban lifestyle which Lynch loves to show in a lot his films, and finally the hopeless love that will never be and the dark side to it all, like Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks.
Lolita is my top ten favorite films of all time, i have been watching films avidly since i was a kid, i adored going to the cinema to see anything at all even at age eight, and this film remains in my memories ... Peter Sellers, James Mason, Shelley Winters ! they should all have oscars
Not only that, but the film is filled with quirky, strange characters that look absolutely normal on the outside, but shows some really odd personalities once you start knowing them a little bit, like Quilty, Mrs. Haze or the couple that she is friends with. That's something that Lynch does with perfection in his works.
Nonce alert
Or hes just a pedo
Most of Lynch's movies also revolve around the sexually abused being turned into killers by their abusers.
Lynch secretly quoted Lolita in his speech at the 2019 Governors Awards. He closed by using Clare Quilty's line "You have a most interesting face. Good night".
interesting
Interesting information I didn't know. What a great line to say to someone, they probably wouldn't forget you, would certainly leave them wondering, lol. Especially when you don't know how to end a conversation, but would take some nerve.
When Lynch said, "the proof is in the pudding," I was really hoping the interviewer would have followed up with, "What pudding is good for acting?"
“Well he’s dead” 😂😂 LOL that cracked me up
ua-cam.com/video/Id7cXO4nXYk/v-deo.html
well yeah, that would put a major hitch in the procedings
"no I only cast alive people"
Kubrick knew the truth about the creeps in society
This interviewer has no nuance whastsoever in the art of coversation, so an already awkward socially, Lynch, seems a bit cornered and just peppered with basic questions about his favorite film of all time. A shame really.
I love David Lynch but you can tell he’s holding back and even maybe a little uncomfortable with the questions.
He looked like he was concentrating trying to articulate a description for the movie
I'm not surprised, so many people don't see the great art and talent put into Lolita, and just want to scold those of us who love it. I just think they're ignorant for not being able to get past their hang ups over the subject matter.
@@serenatwilite4005 there’s nothing wrong with loving lolita as a book as long as you call it what it is, a story about the pedophilic rape and kidnapping of a 12yo girl, and not “a great love story” or some such nonsense
Lollita is about the pedo elite. Nabokov knew people from elite.
such an incredible movie and great to hear about why David lynch loves it and I agree one of the best performances by James mason
Fantastic video. Heard the audio before but never seen the footage. Thanks. :)
Lolita's rock & roll theme is amazing! Kubrik as always, good taste in music too!
Damn I can’t wait to watch this movie. Just read the book and loved it. There were many moments when I would cringe with disgust at Humbert’s personality but then laugh out loud at his way of talking to the reader and his witty remarks. Fucking excellent book, I’m so glad the great master Kubrick took it on 👌👌
Btw I feel like the other movie/book power-duo that this reminds me of is American Psycho. That character is also hilarious while being abominable. Christian Bale’s acting is out of this world 🎥 🍿
Have u seen the movie? What did u think of it?
book and film, both among my greats
I respect Lynch's reluctance to try and verablise the genius of a film or artwork. It makes sense. If it's truly a great work, then by definition it's all there already; if it's been rendered near perfectly, then there's nothing more to say. I guess that's why the greatest works of art are great - precisely because they defy being conveyed better in any other way. Any other way would have been suboptimal. And to stoop to an inferior portrayal of what's at stake would be a betrayal of both the work and what's being captured or conveyed.
“It’s just there. That’s one of those things.” 💯
This is from the Dutch interview show Wintergasten. The interviewer is film critic Joyce Roodnat. Originally aired in 2006.
Kubrick were also a big fan of Lynch, especially ”Eraserhead”.
Bob Harris composer: 'Lolita' theme. Music conductor: Nelson Riddle
Mason is stunning, ravishing in his awfulness.. not many people can be that
Lynch lives "Show Don't Tell"
It was a good movie but man oh man it was dark and sad.
It's as dark as a dark comedy can get in many ways, made only worse when you do things like read reviews of the original novel around the time of its release where many defend Humbert's decisions against the writer's obvious intention. Honestly a fantastic book, though I haven't watched the film.
@@SomniaCEbut the writer makes fun of psychology he wrote it as a pedo in love not a doctor
Lolita is underrated
I love this movie
Sickest movie ever made.
Absolutely unwatchable.
I can't turn my eyes away.
Almost cried here
Why do people find it so sickening that a grown man can fall in love with and appreciate a child, even in a sexual way? Most people are entranced by babies. I think a lot of men feel that way but would never dare say so. They claim to be sickened by it because they think that's the required response. In my opinion there should be nothing shameful about being attracted to innocence.
I wonder if the reveal in Twin Peaks was inspired by the relationship in Lolita.
I've seen Twin Peaks but don't quite know what you mean by 'the reveal'
@@Zedriodor I think he means that Leland was in love with and killed his own daughter Laura.
@@static3d Ah that makes sense, thanks.
well, for me there's definitely something in the relationship between lula and her mother in wild at heart which always gives me the almost same vibes as the ones between lolita and her mother
I think it was inspired by the old soap opera Peyton place
The first part of the movie is really fun with Mason and Winters, after the death of Charlotte the film gets darker but loses much of that funny edge, which remains only in Clair Quilty character. My favorite scene is Humbert drunk in the bathtub after his wife's death.
Do you by any chance have the full interview? Can't find it anywhere :(
same question!
I heard Peter Sellers was imitating Kubrick in Lolita.
Think about that
What exactly do this means?🤔
@@nati22love Peter sellers was imitating Kubrick -
@@nelstar4676 Dude... he was imitating the mannerisms. It's on the film's trivia.
It's pretty interesting and funny to think about, makes me want to see Kubrick on film or video and watch his demeanor.
can I watch somewhere the full thing?
Rent the movie. I love the way Kubrick's wife describes the movie: "Good and evil do not always come in the expected packages."
Mason OWNNNSSS this movie, absolutely hilarious.
His portrayal of Humbert was truly brilliant. That deep belly laugh after reading the mother's letter was just so real.
❤️
its Ozzie and Harriet on bad acid
David Lynch...Tom Waits. The hair.
Funny, they're both strange guys for sure.
Interesting
Lolita was Kubrick's first 'great' film (in my opinion). The Killing and Paths of Glory were very good films but didn't have the incredible acting performances of Peter Sellers and James Mason. I saw it when it first came out in 62' and was shocked when
someone told me that Peter Sellers played 3 different characters in the movie, ha! his acting was that good. It's a masterpiece as
good as Welles 'Touch of Evil' made a few years earlier. Those two films were laying the groundwork for what was to follow in
American film
Lady Layman
Speed Roadster
I can't help noticing the pedo teddy bear staring at us from the back round.
Really would love to know the source of this
sorry about that, let me poke around my notes and see I can this. I used to trade with people to get so much Lynch stuff, I had so much. I might be able to find the source
No mention of Lolita. 😡
Yeah David’s turned on here
I like the 1997 remake a bit more.
👎
I can't choose between them. I think they both were two of the greatest films ever made for different reasons. The actors were superb in both of them, and they doesn't happen very often with a remake. I thought the remake took the sexuality a lot deeper and gave more insight into the characters. The black and white was so beautifully filmed and so pretty to watch, but I always love seeing a movie in color, too. When I watch black and white it drives me crazy sometimes wondering what colors the fashions and decor are when I really love them, like in Lolita.
@@Johnconno the remake is much more true to the book and doesn’t paint dolores as the villain like the kubrik film does
If you are a fan of the book both movies are trash tbh...esp when you know that the author even wrote a whole ass screenplay and nobody used it :/
One of the most common negative comments about films are that they are not true to the source novel. When the reality is no film can be because every film would be at least 4 hours long if it was tbh. Nabakov was quite pleased with Kubrick's adaptation of his book. Nabakov's screenplay would have also ran several extra hours on screen and that was explained to him and he saw his error. His whole ass screenplay was actually one giant BOOTY that couldnt be filmed.
ha agreed. i know nabokovs screenplay would be far too long. but if lolita can only be adapted in a four hour film, then spare four hours! i read his screenplay and i loved it. never watched the other two but i dont hold out much hope
I think Lynch had a problem expressing himself here because he was attracted to the interviewer :)
It seems strange that Lynch has such difficulty describing a psychotic performance. In most of his movies, he has written and directed psychotic characters, so he most certainly understands what they are and where they come from.
Surprisingly inarticulate.
He seems to get very complex feelings about certain things which he can't really put into words. His whole creative philosophy is about reaching ideas and feelings that aren't obvious and take a lot of thought to get to - "Catching the big fish" as he puts it.
@@gmann6269 There are, perhaps, not many words to describe the "depths" he at one point refers to, but he clearlyy accesses them himself in his brilliant work.
Why does she make Lynch and us watch the scene from the movie? Lynch knows what it is and we're only here for Lynch's reaction...
They are not acting.
Explain
@@dm5432 Hollywood - at least the boundary breaking part - is well in fact a boundary-breaking-place. You can't have the one thing without the other one I guess.
@@dm5432 No, I would never excuse having Sex with a 12 year old morally, but I guess that there's something true about that. Also it seems to me like it's countinously: some slightly cross of line (like in that case a 17/18 year old having something with an older person), but you have to make very sure that you don't erase all boundaries, become a nihilst, and make others and your life hell.
@@dm5432 Yes. But wasn't the idea to discuss it as it is real?
Telios Abraxas is that sort of straw man theory?
tbh I don't like Lynch's analysis -- there's nothing to it. He doesn't know how to explain it despite it being "one of his favorite films" -- idk was definitely underwhelmed by this
words are not Lynch's canvas, he is an abstract painter and filmmaker, I find most of his interviews to be as you described unfortunately
so?
Is not easy to analyse certain movies. One of The reasons why i love this movie is how well it communicates Humbert’s desires through Mason’s brilliant acting.
@@luke9947 Lynch, like Kubrick, avoided explanation of their art. Kubrick's wife gave a short, but pithy explanation of the film: "Good and evil do not always come in the expected packages."
ua-cam.com/video/ffllV6-aqWU/v-deo.html
I'm an admirer of Lynch, but he's disappointing inarticulate here. He says nothing. Sheds no light whatsoever
He old
His favorite Kukrick film? Jesus Christ, Lynch is such a contrarian, a man of some genius, but little taste or judgement.
Lolita is also my favourite, what is yours then?
@@adelinogoncalves1180 Clockwork Orange
Manx123 That is your taste or judgement though, which to me seems flawed.
@@serenatwilite4005 Not as flawed as having Lolita as your favorite Kubrick film.
My favourite is Odyssey Better than both of you lol😂
This has no downvotes ? I don’t know David lynch but he said nothing here ?!
well, he does say how much he admires this particular film, that in itself is why its on my youtube page. But as much as I like Lynch he does not say much in his interviews, he is surprisingly inarticulate in interviews
he has chronic art-brain. emotions seem too abstract for him to put to words
If you heard nothing, you weren't listening.
@@serenatwilite4005 I mean I heard words just nothing I could comprehend for myself 🤷🏼♂️
David... YOU'RE ONE OF MY MOST FAVORITE DIRECTORS, IF NOT THE MOST FAVORITE! I also LOVE KUBRICK... just as Ido Bergman, Tarkovsky... BUT THIS FILM IS GREAT?!?! GET DA FUCK OUTTA HERE!
It COULD only be good enough, in a sense of a film by itself! But as a film made by a GREAT BOOK?!? Common David! THIS FILM IS BAD! Even Kubrick himself admit it s not good, and that it's just as good as the times back then allowed it to be... but to call it a great film?!?
JESUS! Don't deliberately stuck your tongue in Kubrick's asshole David! "DOGS DO THAT! YOU'RE NOT A DOG, ARE YOU DAVID?!"
Adrian Lyne's version from 1997 is like 10000000 times better and more accurate to the book!
You don’t seem pretentious at all 🥴
@@morningowl43 That doesn't matter - it's most often result of the feeling that was prevailing in a person at that very moment, or was a result, a reaction of the content that provoked "the pretentious" response!
What really MATTERS, WHAT'S IMPORTANT, is that IT'S TRUE!
@@Shteno People are allowed to enjoy whichever films they choose, nor do they have to explain why they enjoy them to others. If a film-making team liked it enough to bother making it, it can be legitimately enjoyed by anyone. You don't really get to decide what you do or don't enjoy, unless you live your life pretentiously trying to impress others.
@@Shteno TRIGGERED
@@morningowl43 😆