Defeating EVIL By LAUGHING At It | Analyzing Kubrick’s LOLITA
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Evil doesn't always look the way we expect it to.
Lolita is a 1962 dark comedy directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on the 1955 novel of the same title by Vladimir Nabokov.
Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures | Filmmakers Behind the Scenes | Warner Bros. Entertainment: • Stanley Kubrick A Life...
SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS
Instagram: / empire_of_the_mind
Facebook: / empire-of-the-mind-102...
Twitter: / _empireofmind
PATREON: / empireofthemind
Email: theempireofthemind@gmail.com
Lolita is a book narrated by Humbert Humbert (a pseudonym), written as a defense and justification of himself. He is an unreliable narrator. All of the characters are presented through his lens. Humbert would like the jury, the reader, and himself to believe that Dolores, a 12-year-old girl from whom he has stolen her childhood, her autonomy, and even her name, is his seducer and he her victim. Humbert tells himself he "loves" "Lolita" (a name only he calls her) as he keeps her imprisoned by her dependence on him after her mother's death. Indeed, her only hope for escape comes from another predator.
In an interview with the Paris Review in which the interviewer says that "Humbert, while comic, retains a touching and insistent quality-that of the spoiled artist," Nabokov notes, "I would put it differently: Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching.' That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl."
You don't get it. You are female? Only a man over forty five understands the true meaning. It is not physical...not really.
It's not the mummy, it's Frankenstein's monster. The difference is extremely important: "The curse of Frankenstein" is a story about power and corruption told in first person by an insane individual. "The Mummy" is a love story.
"I love Mummy and I love Hummy"
Though the Hammer mummy films (and any Universal films after the original) always had a person controlling a mummy. Although there are elements to the love story in the Hammer mummy, he still murders a lot of people not out of love but because his controller has a strong vendetta against those that removed artifacts and mummies from Egypt. The love story is only a strong presence in the Imhotep mummy. I think for the rest of the films is Kharis. Comparing the Universal films to their Hammer equivalents is like comparing fruit to vegetables.
So he is technically right about control, he is still very wrong about the monster.
Great observation!
I am a former major crimes Detective and have conducted far too many investigations of this type of assault with children and adults as victims as well as the suspect interviews and I found this to be an excellent examination of the film and of the subject matter. I found your statement about evil not looking an expected way to be accurate and I even knew a fellow Detective who not only had to leave the squad but left law enforcement all together when he saw a bit too much of himself in a unassuming suspect and it shook him to his core. Law enforcement is difficult but conducting these investigations are too much for most law enforcement.
While people focus on the H.H. and his crimes/bad behavior. No one looks that she left him for a worse person. Had he not been in the story everything bad that happened to her still would have happened… Quilty had already made his impression on her .
This doesn’t take away any guilt on HH’s part but Lo was handing out minor-rape charges. People see the story of a pedophile when it’s really a story of a bad mother raising a bad kid .
I am also a private detective and contractor. What shook me to the core was realizing just how evil and vile my own mother(narc) is. If you were to study her and my family. You would have probably ran a campaign to have her publicly hung. Witchcraft has been punished and burned at the stake in the past for a very legitimate reason. Unfortunately evil has stolen the hearts and minds of far to many people these days. As you may have found out for certain is that God and the devil are very real
@@rppope1006 hanged ..
Guess RP was full of poop
You're not alone, I was repeatedly handling aspects of the Dutroux case, and it just grinds on and on. Weinstein's main thread dives back through history, and it's pervasive. That leaves me unable to see the humour, not because they're far from what they think they are, but from concern it's still going on, which is heartbreaking.
I keep learning Kubrick was even more brilliant than I previously realized.
There is a reason why he is my favorite director. I also like Tarantino, but Kubrick blows him and everyone else way out of the water. Hitchcock is also up there with Kubrick.
@@pandakicker1 I would add Akira Kurosawa. Masterful filmmaker as well.
@@LoneCloudHopperbergman and tarkovsky
The Coens
Personally, I think that every Kubrick films is about control, in every considerably form.
They are about other things as well, of course, but control is always a theme.
And pedophilia
Yep
Nailed it
I watched the 90's version as a teenager because I like Jeremy Irons. Made me feel dirt and uncomfortable at the same time. The amount of pain created by a false love that predators use to reel it their pray.
Oof Frank Langella
Why would it make you feel dirty and uncomfortable unless you share some wretched fantasy of your own? Did you read the book? Lolita seduces Humbert and he is not her first lover. The book is beautifully written and has everything from rich prose to Greek mythology to entomology. I recommend the annotated version. The additional information might just quell your misgivings.
@@thomaspeters5889Nabokov himself said that the Nymphet Lolita was just in Humbert mind and that he was the monster.
I watched it in my teens as well but I felt like Lolita was the predator and Humbert was the victim.
@@Reprodestruxion That scene of him running around naked was memorable.
"Evil often wears kind and friendly face" so true. 😇
Indeed it does. As an ex-police officer I can attest to that.
And screams loudly about how kind, compassionate and inclusive it is.
Excellent analysis of a film that's intriguing yet always leaves me with a very cold and queasy feeling. Watching the teenage Lolita character go from a scheming child to manipulative too soon adult was what I always picked up on. Especially in the car scene where Humbert tells Lolita that they're on an extended vacation. She has a knowing look that says 'I've been here before but got away before it got serious' and she's weighing the cost of taking that step she never took before. I always took it as she's been surrounded by predators most of her life an decides that Humbert may be easier to manipulate and control then Quilty.
I honestly saw Lolita as someone who was told her whole life she was a spiteful little monster, so she became one. I recall for years being told when I was crying when my father shouted at the top of lungs for any - and I really mean any - reason, that I was trying to manipulate him by crying and it was all an act anyways, I wasn't "really" scared. I was just a girl terrified of her father's anger but it was called manipulation. And in my preteens and teens I was manipulative and deceitful, not only because I felt that was my only defense from abuse, but because I was called a little lying manipulator from day one. I didn't consciously think "well if you're going to call me a little liar I'll be one", but it was drilled into my head that's what I was. It took no small amount of therapy to break me out of the cycle of reaching for manipulation first, rather than communicating my thoughts and feelings and needs in a healthy way, and to stop fearing retribution for being honest and upfront.
Lolita was already a victim of her flippant and frankly cold mother calling her a liar and a monster, and Quilty preying on her. it's no wonder Humbert was able to manipulate her so easily - she never had a good example of love at all.
Very good
@@catscratchfever7540 you sound apologetic.
meh, grew up with a single mom that hated my dad, likely hated all males, and she said i looked and acted just like him. grew up being told i'm useless, worthless, a piece of shit, etc etc etc. No matter what, started working when I was 5 years old cutting lawns to bring home money, just a worthless POS, getting spanked every day because someone stole something from me (one of HER boyfriends, i found out later) - went on until i ran away at 18, because she didn't want me to leave the house, even though I was nothing but a fuck up
I'm 43 or 44 now, my wife remembers tht for me, 6 kids, and they know that they're loved, but when they do something wrong, I correct them an explain why. I refuse to be my mom or my dad, and while i carry a lot of anger inside of me, I still see myself as a fuck up. my anger is what pushes me to not be what I was told I was.
I've made peace with my mom, she grew up in a bad household, she was a young single mom and couldn't put food on the table, we've made our peace - but don't become what they want you to be. take your beatings, endure, but choose for yourself who you want to become. Your scars are your past, and no matter how much of you is covered in scars, inside and out, they are just one part of you - they are NOT you.
Find that original, hurting, broken person inside of you, that part that's scared, crying and hurting, and tear down the walls and everything you built up to keep that small part safe, and live a life that you can be proud of, and to hell with what anyone else says!
@@DavidAKZ about what or are you just projecting?
The book is not told from the point of view of Delores Haze, it is told from Humbert's unreliable memory. We are never told how she feels but we are told of her reactions and behaviors and we can only surmise.
Somewhat like the character Alex in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (not the Anthony Burgess novel) a person who is utterly loathsome and morally repugnant, Humbert Humbert, also happens to be brilliant, witty, and hard to not enjoy. It's easy to portray a monster and invite condemnation from the reader or viewer. It's far more challenging - and disturbing - to make a monster somehow appealing, in spite of our condemnation, because we are now left with the uneasy feeling of complicity. When art portrays evil in all it's complexities and contradictions the viewer or reader is more likely to perceive the morally gray territory that all of us have in ourselves. As with the cinematic Alex, we like Humbert Humbert on some level and because of this we're not afforded a comfortably rightous distance from the evil we experience.
In fact, the possibility of doing this -- creating a monster that is appealing -- calls into question the very concept of 'monster'. Not that I am pleading for moral relativism, but if monsters can be appealing, even vey appealing, does it ever come to a point in which you simply can't tell if someone is a monster or not?
I love that you coincidentally starting doing Kubrick movies a month after I rewatched and was mesmerized by them - although - I still haven’t seen this one 😅
Found this guy content yesterday. I subbed in just 3 minutes in and I'm watching all his videos
Same except I went through this process over a year ago
Came across this channel a day ago. Great content.
I'd like to thank you for the reminder, that there always could be a jolly looking psychopath trying to toy with us - and if you're smart enough, you could subvert his game against him.
But Dolores/Lolita ends up dead in the end, while the monsters write their memoirs.
@@Badficwriter i'd consider it as a lesson by example.
I dont know about humbert being a psychopath in the film he couldnt get himself to shoot charlotte quilty though seems to be a sociopathic character
@@Badficwriter Humbert and Quilty do also die, but it's too late for the poor girl.
Another great video, EotM. And yes, this movie deserves to exist.
I’ve always loved Peter Sellers. I think this is his best performance. Kubrick cast the film very well and insightfully in picking him.
Life on earth is an immersion in the knowledge of both good and evil. And based on this truth the video essay is essential viewing.
*Yes, you missed something:* @26:30 by writing off as "evil" Lolita's self-defense mechan-isms from being sexually groomed at a _very_ young age, you are guilty of making the sad mistake of blaming the victim. Charlotte may never wanted to have children in the first place, but is that Lolita's fault? No, it shouldn't. Does Lolita deserve what's happened to her just because she doesn't have "a winning personality" as a result of all that abuse? Of course not. Honestly...
This essay reminds me of another book I had a devil of a time getting through, American Psycho, talk about dark. You did an excellent job reviewing Lolita, maybe I will take another look at it.
I as well had some misgivings about watching this review but, you handled this subject in a very elegant manner. And I agree with you about "laughter." Laughter, I think, is the antidote that neutralizes evil!
I just found your channel last night and I haven't stopped watching your works of art, about those incredible cinematic works of art. For me, your movie reviews or analyses, that I watched so far, are simply spot on. You take those, so called, "movie reviews" to a completely different level, my friend! You've inspired me to watch some these movies again and to enjoy them but from a different perspective. Thank you for sharing.
I admire your videos, anticipate and appreciate them. Keep going man.
This video was a graceful dance through very dangerous subject matter. Brilliantly done. There are certainly different levels of evil in this world and this is surely up there towards the top. I think it's uncomfortable to think about for very obvious reasons but it's also insightful to the human condition. I think by getting a glimpse of evil it can often times, if we look carefully, reflect a little of our own, perhaps not the same kind, but our own flaws we carry.
I still love Lolita through and through its just done so well you don't know who to feel bad for
Wow- just found you today! Superb analysis and you literally quoted what I said yesterday about CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. Evil needs to be revealed but its horrible to dissect and focus on. Subbed!
All Stanley kubrick films are funny, I think he uses humour in all of his films even the shining...Paths of glory is a serious subject but he makes it ridiculous and hilarious. Eyes wide shut is very funny, lolita is very funny He had a great sense of humour , some might call it a dark sense of humour. James Mason is hilarious. I'm going to watch it again. The female mannequins scene is similar to the masked ball in eyes wide shut.
I also have a dark sense of humor and Kubrick is my favorite.
Now I understand why Epstein's plane was called "Lolita Express". 🤔
The reformed orthodox rabbi Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer.
@Elkster Eidolon okay.. thanks.
But, that word/number thing..
I can't think of a worse way to waste ones time and thoughts.
Trump met Epstein at Mara largo.
After he left he called him a creep.
He later warned authorities that Epstein was into human trafficking and pedophilia but they ignored him.
He was about to sign an executive order to release the client list as POTUS.
But please keep the number thing to yourself unless you want people to know you're a whack job.
The kind of people who think that's an actual thing are the same that believe in psychics and read National Enquirer.
@Elkster Eidolon 吴茂失败者
@Elkster Eidolon Okay Chinese Bot
@Elkster Eidolon oh, and ..buh-bye
Lolita was my first girlfriend's favorite book. I really should have seen that as more of a red flag than I did....
Why, because it gave her more understanding of how predatory men operate?
@@radicalcartoons2766 Have you watched the film? She was the one manipulating and using the men. All the way through. She was also in love with the older actor. She was not a victim, by any means.
Perhaps she identified with a girl defiled by a pedophile. As a child, she has to be the victim.
@@rnt45t1in Kubericks film, yes. In the book? Hell no, she's a 12 year old child who's kidnapped by her step father and abused for years 🤦♀️ as the narrator of the story he tells the reader and Jury she seduced him because thats what many predators do.
'Have you watched the film?'
Have you read the book? 😂
I think you get Lolita herself completely wrong, but that’s because Kubrick himself did too. In the novel Humbert is unreliable in his narration in that it is a defense of himself. Like you said his illusion of love for Lolita is one of the main points of this story but so is his illusion of Lolita’s control. By all means she is a normal teenage girl and she is entirely powerless the entire novel. She is however intelligent and her advanced intellect is manipulated by Humbert to claim her as a seductress. She goes from being resented by her mother for misbehaving as any child would, to being abused by Humbert and taken into his care once her mother dies and then escapes him only to fall into the abuse by Quilty. She is a prisoner trying all she can to make the best of her captivity and wriggle herself free but she ends up jumping from captor to captor until finally she ends the book trapped as a mother and wife much too young, as many women are.
I logged in wondering if there were a review of clockwork orange, came to this channel first, and see you've just uploaded this on kubrick. Thank you...
Thanks for talking about the evil aspects of the characters in Lolita. That
was very interesting to me.I also think Lolita was concerned with the effect
of HH's obsession with Lolita.I don't have a copy of the book at hand but
I do remember that at the start a story about an ape in a zoo who was made
to make a drawing after much prompting . It turned out to be a drawing of
the bars of his cage. I can relate this to HH. This describes his situation fairly well.He was evil because of his unhealthy obsession with young girls.And his obsession was
the cause of his death.
I think this film short changes who gross this movie actually is for a couple of reasons. First, in the book Lolita is 12 years old and Nabokov goes to great lengths to make it clear she was not yet a woman and still appeared to be a child. This makes Humbert's act disgusting in a way that doesn't come though in the movie. Kubrick cast Sue Lyon specifically because she was very developed physically for her age and looked and acted a lot older than she was. Lyon was 15 at the time but could easily have passed for 20. She was a beautiful young woman who no longer looked like a child. This makes Humbert's lust for her much less shocking and more palatable than it was in the book. And Kubrick did that intentionally.
Second, the really sickening thing about this movie that doesn’t get mentioned here is that Sue Lyon, who played Lolita and was barely 15 at the time of the filming ended up having an affair with the producer of the film presumably with Kubrick’s knowledge. Lyon ended up deeply harmed by the affair and in later years described Lolita as “the film that ruined my life “. Lyon ended up throwing away a promising career in Hollywood and spend her life going from one bad relationship to the next and finally dying in poverty a few years ago.
Given what happened to Lyon during the filming, I have a hard to believing that Kubrick saw Hubert as particularly evil. It is a gross film and frankly not worth watching. I wished I had never seen it when I later found out about what happened to Sue Lyon during the filming
Something to be said about what Kubrick was and Hollywood as a whole. Rules for thee and not for me.
Interesting. It will not surprise you to learn that Kubrick was known to be a porn addict.
Kubrick chose a 15-year-old rather than the book’s 12-year-old because the Hays Code forbade those things. With the young but sexually developed Lyons it became a more conventional tale of a young woman and an older man. The audience would therefore be more sympathetic of Hubert with a sexy actress than with Nabokov’s child. There was also a rumor of a relationship the producer had with her. at 15 she was probably victimized by the experience. She had five husbands and a career that faltered
You can also tell when someone has only watched this film and not read the book/watched the 90s adaptation of Lolita when they insist Dolores was the seductress/predator and Humbert was the poor defenceless victim 😏🫤
This movie , and this commentary on it, most definately should have been made. You did a keenly insightful job of breaking down the dynamics happening within the film. And its important because this most closely depicts what its like to be an actual human living in the actual world. There are no purely good or bad characters. Noone completely hero or villain., or victim. But we all are all of these. Time and circumstance and self examination, and decision affecting us and acting upon us as we act upon others. Desire, and fear are the prime movers in our lives. Love is what we have come to call it. But theres little actual love in it. " wise as serpents, harmless as doves" ..yeah right.
Lolita was such a weird comedy. It was genuinely hilarious.
if you actually read lolita then you will realize how badly kubrick adapted the book into his film. in regards to lolita being somehow the evil of the film, this very idea highlights the issue with kubrick’s film. nabokov wrote humbert as an unreliable narrator that depicts delores as a seductress. he intended for humbert’s pov to be likely untrue or manipulated and for lolita to be an obvious victim that never seduced the narcissistic and depraved humbert. on top of this nabokov vocally expressed his disdain for kubrick’s film which just completely fetishized the relationship between humbert and delores.
The novel is unfilmable. If you forget the source the film is fine.
This video was very informative in terms of addressing the issues with the movie:
ua-cam.com/video/4Qw1d7aKZOo/v-deo.htmlsi=yJ_14Aku1oobBGfu
At 19:25, Women are called "furniture" in the book and movie, Soylent Green.
Your Channel is such a wonderful thing; so glad I came across it!
Lolita, jump a little higher! Seniorita, come sit by my fire!
And the stars and the cars and the bars and the barmen...
Your analysis done well!
Excellent to find a thoughtful breakdown of S.K’s Lolita with good parallels of message from other commentators and thinkers. Locations of where control is found and trying to peek into their objectives is a reasoned attempt to understand. Reasoning is the golden key I guess. Watching this recently and thinking about it, another question I had was regarding the female that accompanies Quilty. Is she there solely so that Quilty is not portrayed as a lonely presence like H.H ? or does she represent something shared in Quilty’s hidden practice? She is clearly not a conventional romantic partner. Improved respect for both Shelley Winters and James Mason’s abilities as actor and actress.Mediocre for P.S. S.K continues to provoke questions.
Ghislaine Maxwell...
Extending what this video says, Quilty and her could also be another example of the controller being controlled. Quilty says when talking to the hotel receptionist: "she's a yellow belt, I'm a green belt, that's the way nature made it" (green belt is a higher rank), but then he says that she throws him all over the place. So, even though he is naturally a controller, he still is controlled by her.
Great closing line.
This movie had a liberation effect back then I was 16 In 76
It's always stunned me how this movie snuck so many hints at degenerate things going on behind the scenes at a time when they would have been unthinkable in the cultural zeitgeist, besides the obvious one of lust for an underage girl of course. If you have a relatively uncorrupted mind and/or aren't paying attention, you wouldn't even notice this movie referenced swinging, voyeurism, and mentioned what at the time would have been the fledgling pornography industry.
Kubrick was known to be a porn addict.
@@radicalcartoons2766 boy, you sure like telling us that.
Brother, did you read the novel? It is the definition of “not because it’s a bad novel, but because it is good… and it makes me feel gross”
I find Django like this. It's important to show the barbarity of slavery while positioning the slave holders as just baffoons barely keeping it together via a tyrant mindset.
Please don’t compare Tarantino’s pandering Hollywood garbage to Kubrick. Tarantino is probably a real life Claire Quilty.
@@sdhomeguide6343 I'll go with that, or something analogous.
I agree with you Liam.
I find it a bit childish to always from ones enemies as buffoons that don't know what the hell they are doing. It is a disservice to all. Regardless of how one may feel about slavery, it was a normal aspect of almost all human civilizations and history. Can't chalk that up to gross incompetence, that would simply be masturbatory.
Slavery is bad and all but Lincoln not sending those slaves back to Africa did so much cultural damage to America it's actually insane
idk why ppl say stuff like it was the hardest script i wrote for a video ect ect like bro the movie is about predatory and abuse but it doesn't have any crazy scene that take the subject to another level ppl act as if someone took a dumb on them such overreaction to a story that is not the most disturbing when it comes to this subject
I must have been too young when I read Lolita and too open-minded. I mainly remember feeling sorry for Humbert. He seemed pathetic rather than evil.
That's kinda the point he's a unreliable narrator he twists the story to be the victim
In the book Lolita is 12.
@@СвеБожилова I was probably still to close to being a twelve year old girl, myself, at which time I would have had no sympathy whatsoever for twelve year old girls.
As an adult, now, with a family, I know that that age is young, innocent, naive, and needs guidance. Being that age it did not feel that way.
Teen girls do feel a lot of contempt for old pervs, so, my perception (at the time) was that Lolita knew her power over Humbert and was being "mean," sometimes. Of course, that's because I only knew his side of the story and he made himself sound so pathetic. His "love" was mental, and immature, and stunted. Teenage affairs are often the same.
I remember he rejected her after she became an adult, maybe she had a baby? I thought, "what a shallow creep."
His fetish was made to seem reasonable in the book, too. He was stuck on some lost love who died from a disease as a kid at Lolita's age. When I read the book I had no idea of the prevalence of weirdos with that fetish, and what is their excuse?
The same point is made in the movie, Captain Fantastic.
You want to see Lolita without the laughs? Watch the remake starring Jeremy Irons. Sheesh.
Not really a remake, just an accurate adaptation. I have watched both films and read the book and struggle to connect Kubericks film with the book, I see it as a seperate thing entirely.
Fantastic discussion! New subber.
Sir,you're so in the CENTER OF TRUE AND RIGHTEOUNESS that every words of yours could be mine.....happy to see that humanity is still ALIVE and you're ONE OF THE ELECTED to portrait the good word of the GOOD SOUL!
GREETINGS and much RESPECT from Como lake,Italia
GL
Have faith my friend, their is many of us still here. Keep your eyes open, we have some excellent work coming, moving forward in life. God bless you
In the 1960s and 1970s, people communicated practically every topic with humor. Humor was a vehicle that allowed people to express themselves freely, without having to deal with the stigma of dark subject matter. Today, very few people have wit or a sense of humor and everyone is just completely miserable.
What a great channel!
28:20 Well said, my friend, well said, said someone …’who is not yet dead.
I’ve yet to see it; Lolita.
Lolita is a creepy movie. It leaves you feeling unsettled both for laughing at all the characters involved and for feeling superior to them. In the end, you just feel... soiled for having watched it and trying to find some pleasure or meaning in the experience. It's a portrayal of weak, flawed people doing bad things over and over and over. So, yes - your questioning whether this movie should have been made at all seems legitimate. Was Kubrick warning his audience about the corrosive nature of manipulation, or was he attempting to manipulate his audience himself? Some of both, perhaps? One suspects he may have been playing a rather wicked game here.
He was a porn addict himself, so probably enjoyed the subject matter.
People wanted to cancel Stanley Kubrick in 1962
This version is tame compared to the one Jeremy Irons starred in.
Different eras.
I haven’t seen either in years but I was disappointed with the Jeremy Irons version. Although it was in color no one can match the polished James Mason and pretty blonde Sue Lyons.
@@stephenpowstinger733it was more true to the source material though, while that doesn't always make an adaptation better by default in this case it showed everyone involved understood the assignment.
Kubrick tried to get Cary Grant to play Humbert Humbert. Grant turned him down, calling the story "depraved".
That’s probably what I would have done too
A note about the intro. God laughs at evil, but He does so while seated on the throne. Once He stands and takes up the sword(the day of the Lord) there is no more laughter. Psalm 37:
"The wicked draws the sword and bends the bow to bring down the needy, and slay those whose way is wickedness--the Lord knows the days of the blameless and their heritage will remain forever".
Judgement is a sobering thing, which is why the end is characterized by the end of music and laughter. When it comes it will be done in silence.
Really interesting movie, this video has presented me with new insights I'd not before considered.
I always thought quilty says humans as furniture, and execution was a tie in to eyes wide shut... He was a TV producer and tried getting lolita to make an artsy movie *p0rn*.
Kubrick's Lolita is a wonderful film. I feel the biggest problem with adapting the book, would be the casting of a believable actress to play both the innocent, naive 12 year old Dolores, and the Lolita of Humbert's false narrative. I don't even know how you would begin to direct such an actress.
As such, Kubrick made the right choice to focus on the false narrative of Humbert. Humbert's false narrative is actually his guilt. He is making excuses for his behaviour, because he knows he is a monster. I'm not sure the film ever leaves Humbert's false narrative. Quilty is a continuation of his guilty conscience, he holds a mirror up to Humbert who responds by calling Quilty a monster. But by this point we know the only difference between the two is that Humbert tries to maintain an illusion of decency, whereas Quilty has no guilt at all.
5:30 to laugh and cry without pause , as if one were playing a musical instrument… is the mark of madness, which is the very least evil would have us be.
Another great review, Thanks! And I see Master and Comander as one of the best movies ever made, your review was great.
amazing... wonderful work.
I just watched it for the 1st time today. I can't believe that a director would think to make something like this, and then for Mason, Lyon, and Sellers to agree to play those roles
Well, let's be charitable and say they thought it might alert at least some in the audience to how predators operate.
I, on the other hand, thought it was an unavoidable movie. If you are serious about the topic, and want to portray it faithfully (and without such portraits, how can one even think about a solution for it?) rather than just repeat stereotypes, then it was also a necessary movie. (It is better than the 1997 adaptation BTW).
Sickening.but very well done thankyou
Our deepest darkest secrets and desires on display, how quiet we become, how we turn away.
Problem: Everything you say depends on a definition of evil you never supply.
Evil is aggressive, trampling personal boundaries. Above all, it wants control, and ultimately, the destruction of its object. Humbert doesn't want to destroy Lolita, but he has the sociopath's inability to suppress a wish to cross that boundary.
Lolita is a great look into the experience of the “shared fantasy” in NPD.
i’ve read the book lolita and it’s a beautiful written book but even saying that makes me feel shameful in a way ..? like i don’t want people to think i’m romanizing the subject matter when i say it’s a good book.
I am laughing AT Justin Trudeau. I am laughing WITH the truckers and their supporters. Got it.
Brilliant. And this is why Trudeau is stomping his foot like a teenage actor. By the actions of the Truckers and laughing with them, it reveals Trudeau for who he really is. And he knows it. So he is compelled to take down the magic mirror of the Truckers asap, and will resort to any method to achieve this and therefore is lured out into the public space to be revealed for the petty tyrant he really is. A fait accompli. Thanks to the Truckers exquisite chess move.
That truck rally was nothing but a Karen rally. Bunch of a-holes.
"Tyrants dont recognise their tyranny"
Lolita is significantly younger in the novel, maybe 11 years old. There is a world of difference between that Lolita & Kubrick’s 14-year-old victim. Of course both crimes are repugnant, but between prepubescent & adolescent is a huge difference not just physically, but psychologically. (I say again, both are repugnant.)
This is not a subject from which we should reject any & all depictions in a knee-jerk reflex. It is a serious social issue that should be talked about & even satirized. I love Kubrick’s black comedies; not just Lolita, but Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange & others. I miss his amazing takes on the world.
@@jerryeberts3726 Well that's just wonderful, but what has it got to do with the comment I posted?
Good analyzation! But one thing I noticed is that you didn't analyze Lolita's point of view. (Maybe that's because you're a man and can't really put yourself in a teenage girl's shoes...) It can be VERY confusing to find an older man attractive at that age (14 yrs old). Kind of finding him handsome, but also father-like - then once the man wants MORE from you, it feels very WRONG. It can make one bitter toward all men and really warp your perception of them.
Brilliant! Thank you.
Excellent presentation. Your summation would seem to cast doubt on Iago, Richard III and Edmund as characters to be presented to an audience for fear their evil would rub off on them
I wasn't going to watch this video because I didn't want to revisit the film.But then I thought that maybe you would have an interesting take on it that might make me "feel better".
Well,you did point out a few things that made it somewhat more "interesting".So there's that:)
In any event,I hate the film mainly because the characters are all conniving,deceitful and beyond annoying.It's basically torture to watch this film.It's so negative beyond any hope.
I appreciate the attempt to paint light on the subject matter,but I wish there was a better way of doing it.Peace out.
Great video! What's the name of the painting at 6:20?
Well done
It's a bit of a vague generalisation to say that all abused persons go on to become abusers themselves. I think a lot of it comes down to character. I was bullied at school by a narcissist and have not become bad because of that experience, if anything I go out of my way to make sure I remain a relatively decent person. Other than that I did enjoy the video.
I don't think it was hard to believe that Lolita was also evil, but people tend to view all children as innocent which is far from the truth.
Right. I always thought she was wanting to get away from her over-controlling, competitive Mother and saw a way out by playing the flirty prey. Humbert ends up in jail. Quilty, he dead. And she settles down in the burbs with a nice lawyer man and has kids. Nabakov's wife, Vera, re-wrote and fine-tuned a lot of the book because Vladimir was about to burn up the ms. He didn't feel up to conveying the female side of things. Wink wink. She also had a permit to carry a handgun which was unusual at the time in Europe/Russia/USA. She also did all the driving as Vladimir didn't know how or want to drive...wink,wink.
There’s a reason debaucherous daughters get excommunicated. Talking about it will do nothing but ruin your reputation.
It's kind of senseless to say Kubrick made this movie with humor, or made any part of the "story turned movie" script because the story is by Nabokov. He's the one that wrote the humor and every other part of it.
The first movie was more mentally revealing.
Hube.was a narcissist genius.
Did Kierkegaard not write “you can’t play with part of the animal without becoming all of the animal”.
I never believed the actress that played Lolita was pre teen. She looks in her 20s.
At first I thought you were limiting yourself with dogmatism, but you made very clear how it is Quilty and Humbert can be seen as equally "evil" -- this was was instructive to me.
Excellent.
PS I leave my earlier comment below as evidence of my error! In the intervening time, as the faults of liberalism become floridly apparent, I have in response become more open to a radical critique of liberalism. (I do, however, continue to dread illiberal-ism.)
You keep saying “evil people.” Most often, there are no evil people, but evil behavior. Judge behavior till the cows come home, but declaring people evil can be arbitrary. 14:17 Does Lolita belong to Charlotte? This doesn’t sound like your world view. Why not make a video about these things?
I liked this, particularly the invocation of Bible verses at a time in the "culture" when hardly anything could be more unWoke.
This movie did not destroy any evil.
Such promiscuity is more likely to be seen in richer families, but in this case, one wonders how she became so poor later in the film as to need the money from her former crush?
However, once she became poorer, she would rather stick with her husband - which syncs with reality
@6:34 What is the scripture quoted? Is it psalms or Hebrews? Thank you!
“Should a film like this even be made?” What a weak minded thought. Should artists be afraid to make films, books, etc.. about things that are taboo? Should documentaries not be made about negative things? Kubrick isn’t glorifying or celebrating predatory behavior. He is telling a story. That’s it.
When I first time watched I haven't thought Lolita is even close to a comedy. But I watched in in dubbing, where Clair Quilty intonations were not even close to original.
I think it was a good idea to make him a bit funny. He definitely is kind of the same as Humbert Humbert, but Quilty is not serious person. He's like the wind in the field. Today he wanted one thing and got it, then got tired of it and wanted another. He is spoiled by female attention. Lolita could be interesting to him just as a trophy to get.
Is the table tennis table a reference to an earlier "Pizzagate" ?
Empire, where are you?
Was the painting Quilty was shot through an actual painting reproduction or was it created for the film?
A real painting. Mrs. Bryan Cooke by George Romney, now in the Met.
@@EmpireoftheMind Are you able to unflag the comment I wrote about George Romney and his muse? I hate youtube's content system.
@@MadJustin7 I don’t see any other comments by you, even in the ‘held for review’ section. Maybe UA-cam just didn’t post it? The comment system is just awful sometimes.
@@EmpireoftheMind No worries. I'll reiterate in more youtube friendly terms. The painter's muse Emma Hamilton, had a history with older men as a teenager. Most likely why kubrick used that painting. He is known for his detail in setting a scene.
@@MadJustin7 Interesting! No matter how much you explore Kubrick’s films, it seems there’s always more to uncover. Thanks for pointing that out.
I did see the movie pretty baby.
what exactly is the "evil" here you are talking about? Is it:
- the emotion that drives a grown up, well educated, well behaved man into an unhealthy desire for a young girl?
- the naivety of a middle aged woman failing to recognize the true intentions of this man and seemingly ignoring natural facts?
- the intentions of other people involved which range from envy or jealousy to a false sense of "righteousness"?
- the utter gall of the "victim" who later as an expecting Mother from another man still has the nerve to ask the supposed "Predator" for Money?
or the one and only "evil" there is, the ignorance of the masses?
There were times in human History where girls were married to grown man when they were as young as 12. In fact, if a girl wasnt married when she was 14, her parents would start to worry. This is unthinkable, unacceptable in todays World and in fact, many try to erase this from History simply to be not confronted by it anymore.
Somewhere along the way, we decided that sexual intercourse of older man with younger girls were "taboo" and to be fair, this makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons (at least one of which can be seen in the Movie), however, all of those reasons are completely and solely bound to humans and human societies. In our infinite hubris, arrogance and ignorance, we expect Nature to follow suit, to bend its rules to accommodate to ours. We expect Nature, an infinite power of indifference, to follow our rules...after all, we are the "image of God" are we not?
It is no secret that man like young woman, not necessarily Teenagers mind you but still young. A womans overall "worth" in the eyes of men fall rapidly starting from their 30s and most definitely after 40. We know that but as usual, we try everything we can to "forget" it because we dont like it, because it does not fit into our dream of a "perfect society". Yet this has been part of a process of reproduction that goes for who knows how long, we can only count a couple Millions of years because everything beyond that completely short circuits even our brightest minds. To think we could just write some words on a sheet of paper, call it "Law" and expect the whole order of the Universe to bend to it cannot be just called presumptuous or foolhardy, for no words can describe the utter insanity of this kind of expectation.
But what am I even trying to say? that it is ok for an old man to seek for intercourse with a Teenager? if that is what you understand from my comment, then you better check your own subconscious for hidden "desires" because that is certainly not what I am trying to convene here. In fact, the story "Lolita" perfectly explains why grown man should better not get involved with Teenagers. Not for society, not for "morals", not for the Church but in their own Interest......but that is easier said then done!
With all the scandals, the organized Crime Rings selling young people and even the Church, the "bastion of morality", stooping so low to have intercourse with young BOYS, one should finally realize that what we are going up against is not simply some "deranged individuals" not some cartoonish "evil" but a Force of Nature we simply dont understand...let alone control. Make of this what you will.
Is that you, Humbert?
We shouldnt become anything other than ourselves.
Not one single mention of JE or his airplane. I see what you did there.
Why can’t we devote this level of intelligence to the interests of our nations?
I believe the slapstick scene in the hotel with the cot is a take off of an old-time comedy routine where a man energetically tosses around a woman who appears to be unconscious and is floppy as a rag doll. So, imagine the two actors were doing that to a drugged Lolita. Really disturbing.
This is one of my favorite movies because it seems real and true.