Nabokov's Lolita

[fsquared]

I mentioned in the Introduce Yourself thread that I decided to read Nabokov's Lolita after reading some of the lyrical analyses, and I wanted to see if any others had done the same or had thoughts on the book. I figured I'd start another thread.

There was a thread on alizee-forum about this a while back, but it was quite old and there were numerous inaccuracies.

RadioactiveMan indicated he was reading it again. Great! Are you reading the annotated edition? I found the text beautiful, disturbing, rich, and quite challenging. I confess that I had to consult a dictionary on almost every page (not to mention the constant French interjections). Appel's "The Annotated Lolita" edition was very helpful in decoding the numerous literary allusions.

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if perhaps the original Moi...Lolita video pink dress was inspired by Lolita's dress on Nabokov, p. 57 (Appel annotated edition): "She wore that day a pretty print dress that I had seen on her once before, ample in the skirt,tight in the bodice, short-sleeved, pink checkered with darker pink, and, to complete the color scheme, she had painted her lips and was holding in her hollowed hands a beautiful, banal, Eden-red apple."

I recall seeing in some other discussion that the live JEAM black sailor costume was inspired by one of Dominique Swain's costumes in the 1997 movie (I'm guessing the light blue sailor outfit).

[heyamigo]

is the movie (the most recent one from 1997, one with jeremy irons) anything like the book (specifically, the ending and all the stuff he finds out about what was really going on with lola)? i remember seeing the movie, and although it was very twisted towards the end, i enjoyed it very much.

[kdn]

I haven't read the novel. I did a quick search and this is what I found on wikipedia:

The term lolita has come to be used to refer to an adolescent girl considered to be very seductive, especially one younger than the age of consent.
Looks like the novel and the song do have a connection. But maybe it's not a direct one.

Moi...Lolita video pink dress was inspired by Lolita's dress on Nabokov
I read somewhere that it was Mylene's dress, a long time before Moi...Lolita.

[fsquared]

kdn, The song has clear ties to the book (e.g., the whole "Lo-li-ta", Lo, Lola, etc. is all taken from the book; the existing analyses have a lot of detail on this).

heyamigo, I've seen basically all of the 1997 movie except the Quilty death scene, and it's, in my opinion, very faithful to the events of the book, including the last scene with Lolita. The reviews lead me to believe that the Quilty scene is faithful to the events of the book as well. A few movie reviewers (who probably hadn't read the book) complained of the way certain scenes were handled (e.g., cutting away when Lolita finds out her mother is dead, or the way Humbert enters the door with Lolita in a crucified pose, without touching her belly), but I think the point was that they were filmed in ways that were faithful to the way the book handled those scenes.

[Jess]

I've only seen parts of the 2nd movie, but related to it I saw a french movie called Beau Pere. This one in my opinion is done with a lot more taste, even though it's a very delicate subject. Ariel Besse left quite an impression on me, even though she was very young at the time. The music score I think also blended very well with the subject. I really loved the story and the way they sensitively displayed it. ;)

[Edcognito]

I mentioned in the Introduce Yourself thread that I decided to read Nabokov's Lolita after reading some of the lyrical analyses, and I wanted to see if any others had done the same or had thoughts on the book. I figured I'd start another thread.

There was a thread on alizee-forum about this a while back, but it was quite old and there were numerous inaccuracies.

RadioactiveMan indicated he was reading it again. Great! Are you reading the annotated edition? I found the text beautiful, disturbing, rich, and quite challenging. I confess that I had to consult a dictionary on almost every page (not to mention the constant French interjections). Appel's "The Annotated Lolita" edition was very helpful in decoding the numerous literary allusions.

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if perhaps the original Moi...Lolita video pink dress was inspired by Lolita's dress on Nabokov, p. 57 (Appel annotated edition): "She wore that day a pretty print dress that I had seen on her once before, ample in the skirt,tight in the bodice, short-sleeved, pink checkered with darker pink, and, to complete the color scheme, she had painted her lips and was holding in her hollowed hands a beautiful, banal, Eden-red apple."

I recall seeing in some other discussion that the live JEAM black sailor costume was inspired by one of Dominique Swain's costumes in the 1997 movie (I'm guessing the light blue sailor outfit).

I just ordered a copy of the Annotated Edition - Actually been meaning to read this since i first saw the "Moi Lolita" video back in Aug./Sept. of last year... I'll get some feedback to you when i'm done with it. Bye the way - just to brag, i got a "used - Very Good Condition" copy for $5.82 USD... ;)



Ed:cool:

[kdn]

the existing analyses have a lot of detail on this.
You mean someone else's analysis (Anthony's ?). But you read the book, so tell me what do you find?

[fsquared]

Edcognito,
Great! I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

kdn,
I was referring to this translation and analysis:
http://mf-international.com/viewtopic.php?t=1690

I confess I haven't thought of anything to add to it yet.

[Joey_adore_Jung]

i really have nothing to say here so i guess this is considered plain old spam.

[chrelion]

I'm getting my annotated copy for free from BookMooch. I'll have more to say then.

[RadioactiveMan]

I guess I should join the club and get the annotated version. I haven't bought it yet, but I will if I ever remember it next time I'm near a book store. However, I probably wont be near a book store for a long time unless Canadian Tire starts selling books.

[fsquared]

RadioactiveMan,
I don't know where you are located in BC, but just for the sheer ridiculousness of it, I did a Google Maps search for bookstores near a particular Canadian Tire in Vancouver:

http://maps.google.com/maps?near=1625+Chestnut+Street+(Canadian+Tire)+%40 49.271285,-123.146417&q=bookstore&f=l&hl=en&dq=canadian+tire+loc%3A+Vancouver,+BC&ie=UTF8&z=17&om=1

[RadioactiveMan]

Thanks, but you were off by a few hundred kilometers. :p

I know a few bookstores, but they're all across the lake and it is a colossal pain to cross the bridge, plus I rarely have time to make the journey.

[RMJ]

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if perhaps the original Moi...Lolita video pink dress was inspired by Lolita's dress on Nabokov, p. 57 (Appel annotated edition): "She wore that day a pretty print dress that I had seen on her once before, ample in the skirt,tight in the bodice, short-sleeved, pink checkered with darker pink, and, to complete the color scheme, she had painted her lips and was holding in her hollowed hands a beautiful, banal, Eden-red apple."
Pink dress in Moi...Lolita ? :blink:

[brad]

he means the original one like in the music video, it not pink, but ... yeah

[CFHollister]

he means the original one like in the music video, it not pink, but ... yeah

I got that, but still... I don't think that dress is pink :blink:

[Deepwaters]

It's white. The sweater she wears over it in the opening shots is kind of pinkish, though.

[Joey_adore_Jung]

i tend to just stare while watching Alizée videos so i really don't noticed anything, kinda just watch and can't stop staring so peaceful.

Anyways the chat room is really boring right now.

[CFHollister]

It's white. The sweater she wears over it in the opening shots is kind of pinkish, though.

Oh... that outfit. Ok, that makes a bit more sense than what I had in mind.

[RMJ]

Aight... I thot he ment that one she had in disco. :blink:

And I don´t think that other is pink either. It has clearly pink collar but the other parts looks much lighter, likely to be white. Tho I can't check since I dun have the video around...

[Deepwaters]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dDwKPGUIVME

The dress she wears dancing is red. The one in the opening scene is white, with a pinkish sweater.

[fsquared]

I did mean the one in the disco.

http://moi-alizee.us/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=23530&g2_page=4

Maybe 68 or 69, but they're kind of dark.

She wears a similar (though, I think, shorter) dress in several performances, e.g.
http://moi-alizee.us/play/?v=14

By the way, that sentence is the beginning of a rather scandalous scene in the book. What do you all think of it?

[Sir Wood]

I did mean the one in the disco.

http://moi-alizee.us/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=23530&g2_page=4

Maybe 68 or 69, but they're kind of dark.

Good grief, I didn't know Brad updated the Archives section with new content. Thanks!

[RMJ]

Well, that one in disco is red for sure. It's the same she wears during (some of the) performances. It looks bit orange time to time prolly because it's transparent and the skin color make the red slightly change. And all light that goes through it makes it look bit orange.

But surely not pink. :blink:

[fsquared]

Oh well, figured it was worth a try at exploring potential allusions. Thanks!

[Joey_adore_Jung]

no problem! glad to help though i really didn't do much here

anyways i feel like a total idiot for doing this but i went to Dairy Queen and ordered a cheeseburger without the cheese.

[Deepwaters]

Fsquared, I'd be happy to join you in the discussion except I've actually never read Lolita. :o

OK, I guess that needs fixing. I just finished chapter 8 so I can take a break, walk to the library and pick up a copy.

[Edcognito]

I did mean the one in the disco.
By the way, that sentence is the beginning of a rather scandalous scene in the book. What do you all think of it?

I'm just going to have to wait and see. Is this the annotated version? Can you give me an approx. page so that i can anticipate it? ;)


Ed:cool:

[fsquared]

p. 57 of the annotated edition.

[Deepwaters]

Wow. Why have I never read this before? I think it's because the subject matter didn't interest me, and it's still fairly repulsive, but -- just wow. I am so jealous. I wish I could write half that well. The whole thing hangs together like a poem. Change one word, and it's diminished. How would you ever translate Lolita? And Nabokov wasn't even a native English speaker, although he did learn the language as a child.

[Deepwaters]

OK, now although I haven't finished the novel I feel I can at least answer the original question.

If the dress in the video was patterned after Dolores' dress in that scene, it was a very loose, inexact patterning, much as the role played by Alizée in that video and depicted in the song lyrics is not quite the same as that of Lolita in the novel. From Nabokov's description, I did visualize something lighter in color than Alizée wears in the club.

Also, her behavior and situation are quite different from that of Dolores, whose behavior is seen through the haze (no pun intended ;) ) of Humbert's obsession. The character Alizée plays in the video is a complete minx. That small girl, whom I thought was her sister the first time I saw it, is actually her daughter. She plays on the feelings of the older man in the opening scene in a way that shows her to be in total control, which Dolores really wasn't, and which shows a great deal more maturity than Lolita exhibits. (Of course, that character is a few years older -- she might conceivably be Lolita plus a few years. But not really, I think. I think Mylène did something different here, one genius grafting onto the work of another.)

Obviously the song is based on the novel, but what's interesting is that while the novel is completely written from Humbert's point of view, the song turns it around and takes it from Lo's. But it also transforms Lo, because if you can step outside of Humbert's twisted viewpoint and soberly consider his Lolita as described, as if you were viewing her yourself, with untwisted vision, she would not be very appealing at all, while the Lola played by Alizée in the video is bewitching, and repels only by her callous and selfish attitude. One would not need to be a pervert to fall under her spell.

[Ernest]

your post so nice . . . thanks Deepwaters

[lefty12357]

Great post Deepwaters. Its funny, when I ask friends to describe to me what a Lolita is, they describe a character much like Alizée played in the video. As you pointed out, its different from the novel. I wonder when and how this perception changed.

[Joey_adore_Jung]

wow deepwaters that was interesting.

[fsquared]

Deepwaters,
Thanks for the interesting comments. I have to say that I don't think that girl in the video is Lolita's daughter, for several reasons. First, the age difference seems too small for this to be biologically plausible. Second, making that girl her daughter rather than her sister doesn't seem like it would add anything to the video's narrative. Three, I think of the little girl as representing the gradual slippery slope into the video Lolita's current life (e.g., she's dancing along in imitation, thereby precociously developing the skills that the present video Lolita has)...so it kind of makes more sense in my mind for her to be a little sister, lined up in a parallel position.

The other thing is that someone in another thread noted that the dialogue at the beginning of the video is inspired by a French movie from 1985 called L'Effrontee, which I have not watched.

Thanks!

[Deepwaters]

The reason I think that the kid is her daughter is that it is in keeping with the parallels between that Lolita and Humbert's. Alizée at that time was about 16. The little girl is, I'd say, about 4. This would mean she was born when the Lolita figure was 12, which is the same age as Humbert's Lolita in the novel. That's quite biologically possible for some girls. It also makes more sense for Lola to grab the child and take her with her to the club if in fact it's her daughter than if it's her little sister.

Also, it's the kind of warped thing one expects from Mylène Farmer. :)

I had also heard about the origin of the first-sequence dialogue, but what I was getting at was that the personality of this Lolita was far more beguiling than that of Nabokov's original, who could really only appeal to a pederast.

[fsquared]

I suppose sister/daughter is one of those things open to interpretation. I don't know much about Mylene's other work so I'm not sure how high to dial up the warp factor :-).

It would be kind of interesting to catalog in what ways you consider the video Lolita to exhibit a "beguiling" and "minx-like" personality (I'm not disagreeing; I just think an enumeration and analysis of personality-revealing actions might be enlightening). There's the request for the 200 francs. There are the faces she makes in the conversation with her mother. There's the fleeing on the bus. There's the dressing room and wiping her lip gloss on her cheeks. There's the dancing itself. What details of each of these are relevant in your mind?

[Deepwaters]

All of those, actually. She comes across as rebellious, manipulative, and well aware of her power over men. Far, far less naive than Humbert's Lolita. Her power is very real, too. You can feel it. If you're a normally-motivated, heterosexual, non-pederastic male, and you were there in that club, you just know you would be drawn to her. (I'm talking about the Lolita character, now, not Alizée; remember she was playing a role.) I don't feel that way about Lolita (from the book) at all.

There's another theme in the video, too, and that's rebellion against society's hypocritical standards. One of the things the maman yells at her is "you dress like a whore!" But in that scene she wasn't dressed like a whore. One gets the impression that she's behaving the way she does partly because her mother is such a tyrant, and very jealous of her daughter because she has the beauty the mother has lost.

There's a little of that in Lolita as well but it gets so overshadowed by the fact that, by any reasonable standard, Humbert really is a sicko. It was set in late 1940s America, with plenty of hypocritical prudery around, e.g. Dolores' mother, yet Humbert would be condemned by today's standards as well. Where does society's hypocrisy leave off and reasonable condemnation begin? There's some of the same ambiguity in the video, too, since Alizée's version of Lolita really is a manipulative little cocquette, but not as much. You get the sense that some of what she does is justified by desperation of circumstance, which changes the dynamic.

[fsquared]

Deepwaters,
Very interesting comment. The video does make it a point to show several lecherous glances from men in the club...though, is the video Lolita actually actively attempting to invite them? Or...... is it that she's just trying to have a little innocent fun, play grown-up, and blow off some steam dancing in the club, and her natural dancing skill and allure draws these uninvited leers? ("C'est pas ma faute", as she says). Note that, in my opinion anyway, she doesn't actually dance *with* anyone in the video....she's kind of dancing by herself next to several men and (and a few women). (It's probably deliberately ambiguous in this respect.)

By the way, I finally watched L'Effrontee (mentioned earlier in this thread, and also a while back at alizee-forum:
http://www.alizee-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14695&highlight=l%27effrontee&page=6)
)

In my opinion, the little girl is a clear allusion to the character of Lulu, the little-girl sidekick of 13-year-old Charlotte in this movie. Lulu follows Charlotte everywhere and has a number of dry rejoinders in the style of the final "Je suis tre's fatiguee'" (apologies for the spelling). Furthermore, Charlotte lives in a rather ramshackle place with a front garden a lot like video Lolita's house (but that's pretty generic), across the street from a nightclub called Roule Roule. In the movie, she has a plan to go to Roule Roule but never does (she befriends a 20-something man, a metalworker, who clearly has a thing for her, but she doesn't seem to be quite aware of his intentions. He was going to take her there, but invites her to his hotel room first and then attempts to force himself on her. Luckily she escapes.)

I envision Moi...Lolita's video story as partially inspired by this story, where the character does end up going to this forbidden club.

Strangely, despite people mentioning how the first scene of the video was lifted from this film, I did not see any scene that really paralleled it. She received a coin from someone and tried to give it to the guy...but I didn't quite see anything so overt where she was really trying to use precocious feminine wiles to get her way with him, aside from putting on some lip gloss and choosing a new camisole. Maybe I missed something though.

Regarding Nabokov's Lolita, Humbert makes a point to describe her allure to other (presumably non-pederastic) men on p. 159 (annotated ed): "Oh, I had to keep a very sharp eye on Lo, little limp Lo! Owing perhaps to constant amorous exercise, she radiated, despite her very childish appearance, some special languorous glow which threw garage fellows, hotel pages, vacationists, goons in luxurious cars, maroon morons near blue pools, into fits of concupiscence which might have tickled my pride, had it not incensed by jealous". For little Lo was aware of that glow of hers, and I would often catch her coulant en regard in the direction of some amiable male, some grease monkey, with a sinewy golden-brown forearm and watch-braceleted wrist, and hardly had I turned my back to go and buy this very Lo a lollipop, than I would hear her and the fair mechanic burst into a perfect love song of wisecracks." Of course, it's hard to tell whether it's an accurate depiction of the situation, or his paranoid jealousy asserting itself.

[thats amazazazing]

i doubt the connection between the song and the book is anything significant, even thought the song was inspired by the novel, what does it matter?

anyways, on a side note, read part of the book, never finished it, saw the movie though, the recent one, I thought it was alright.

[fsquared]

thats amazazazing,

Well, since The_Honorable's lyrical analysis indicated that the text was full of Nabokov references (without actually giving most of them), it seemed like an interesting exercise to try and find some of them in the text and video. The only downside of course is that one is forced to undertake the onerous and thankless burden of having to watch the Moi...Lolita video over and over again :D.

I can't tell if this discussion still belongs off-topic or not. I think this whole thing with L'Effrontee merits some discussion. If the allusion in the beginning of the video really isn't to any scene in this movie, then is it perhaps to some other movie? Who else out there has watched it?

Regarding "lolitas" (as a general term, rather than the Nabokov character), there is a whole literature regarding this, including the recent trend of "media Lolitas". I think there was even a French book about this in that A-Z series, right?

[Zack -Alizee Lover-]

Deepwaters,
Thanks for the interesting comments. I have to say that I don't think that girl in the video is Lolita's daughter, for several reasons. First, the age difference seems too small for this to be biologically plausible. Second, making that girl her daughter rather than her sister doesn't seem like it would add anything to the video's narrative. Three, I think of the little girl as representing the gradual slippery slope into the video Lolita's current life (e.g., she's dancing along in imitation, thereby precociously developing the skills that the present video Lolita has)...so it kind of makes more sense in my mind for her to be a little sister, lined up in a parallel position.

The other thing is that someone in another thread noted that the dialogue at the beginning of the video is inspired by a French movie from 1985 called L'Effrontee, which I have not watched.

Thanks!

Yep, snatchet said something about that movie
here is
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089072/
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4411/filmleffronteeposter01pnq6.jpg


Must be a pretty cool movie...

She also wore that in an early hit machine performance (http://vdb.alizee.cz/browse.php?nid=132). I like it. It's based on the outfit a Lolita-ish character wore in a French movie, the name of which escapes me at the moment. I can look it up as soon as AF is back online. The dialogue in the Moi Lolita music video, the stuff about paying back the money, is also lifted from there. In the movie, the girl means that she'll "repay" the guy by sleeping with him once she's older.

Uhm repay the guy... uhm interesting...

[fsquared]

Zack,
In a later posting, I indicated that I watched the movie (last night, in fact) and did not find a scene that corresponded to the opening of the ML video, though I did find several other elements that made sense as allusions (e.g., the nightclub itself, the little girl sidekick).

The girl has a single father, who is almost comically laissez-faire. The girl returns home (after she narrowly escapes being raped by a drunken sailor, whom she subdues by smashing a huge glass globe on his head). She asks her dad (paraphrased from the French), who has dozed off in front of the TV, "Dad, if you hit someone on the head with a big glass object and he doesn't die right away, can he still die the next day?" He sort of grunts that he didn't hear her. She repeats the question. He thinks for a minute and goes "...Yeah, sure." And that's it. Never occurs to him to ask why his 13-year-old daughter might be asking such a question, etc.

[Zack -Alizee Lover-]

Zack,
In a later posting, I indicated that I watched the movie (last night, in fact) and did not find a scene that corresponded to the opening of the ML video, though I did find several other elements that made sense as allusions (e.g., the nightclub itself, the little girl sidekick).

The girl has a single father, who is almost comically laissez-faire. The girl returns home (after she narrowly escapes being raped by a drunken sailor, whom she subdues by smashing a huge glass globe on his head). She asks her dad (paraphrased from the French), who has dozed off in front of the TV, "Dad, if you hit someone on the head with a big glass object and he doesn't die right away, can he still die the next day?" He sort of grunts that he didn't hear her. She repeats the question. He thinks for a minute and goes "...Yeah, sure." And that's it. Never occurs to him to ask why his 13-year-old daughter might be asking such a question, etc.

Cool, i must see that movie... Ill download it! :blink:

[fsquared]

So, Snatcher42 indicated that the scene he was referring to was the coin-giving scene in the pianist's house. So, I reviewed this scene in some detail. (But I don't know French well enough to listen to the French dialogue, so I am going by the subtitles mostly. It's at 38 mins into the film.)

The metalworker and Charlotte take a fixed piano stool to the pianist. On the way out, the servant gives the metalworker a tip. Then he gives a tip to Charlotte. She stares at the tip. She says "I'm staying...I won't leave with him, I'm staying, I must...." (She wants to talk with the pianist girl.)

Then, outside, he's getting into his truck. He says to her "Don't get so upset. We could meet again. Doesn't matter."
Then she says "Okay..." ("D'accord.") Then she offers him the coin and says "Want it...?" ("Voulez-vous lui?", she says.)
Then it cuts to her returning into the house. (He departs.)

I guess I don't quite get how it's related to that scene. Maybe it's something in the French dialogue itself.

[Jess]

Ok, since no one has made any comments over my post I will asume that no one has seen this movie yet. So here is a another post and this time I have backup. Beau Pere in a nutshell.... Remy is a lounge pianist who loses his wife in a car accident. His fourteen-year-old step-daughter, Marion (Ariel Besse), wants to continue to live with him, but her biological father, a drunken clubowner, doesn't feel that this is right. She tries living with her father, but misses the comfort of Remy and eventually runs back to him. Her father relents and accepts her wish to live with her step-father. What begins as a simple reunion of father and daughter quickly takes on a whole new meaning when Marion confesses her love for Remy one night.

Beau Pere - A Film Review by James Berardinelli

France, 1981
Running Length: 2:03
MPAA Classification: Not Rated
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Patrick Dewaere, Ariel Besse, Maurice Ronet
Director: Bertrand Blier
Producer: Alain Sarde
Screenplay: Bertrand Blier
Cinematography: Sacha Vierny
Music: Philippe Sarde
In French with subtitles

As I watched Bertrand Blier's Beau Pere, I was strongly reminded of the controversy surrounding the release of Adrian Lyne's 1997 adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's landmark novel, Lolita. Because it deals with one of society's strongest taboos - pedophilia - in a straightforward manner, the film was blackballed by American distributors. Only after sitting on the shelf for more than a year did the picture receive limited theatrical release in this country. After viewing the movie, which features nothing exploitative or graphic, I was frankly dismayed at the forces aligned against it. To be sure, this Lolita is not without flaws, but its content does not warrant such extreme treatment.

In Europe, Lolita's reception was far different. The film was widely shown, and with minimal contention. An obvious inference can be drawn from the contrast between the reaction to the movie here and there. While pedophilia is rightly condemned on both sides of the Atlantic, the puritanical foundation of American society creates so much discomfort about the subject of sex that a movie which intelligently confronts such difficult issues is immediately subject to censure. It's depressing to consider how few people in this country can distinguish between art and exploitation. In a sensitive arena like this, the latter is grotesque and unacceptable, while the former is desirable because of the greater understanding and insight that it hopes to promote. Lolita does not seek to titillate; it tries (and mostly succeeds) to present a study of an unhealthy obsession and its pernicious effects on all involved. To classify it as "pornography" or "smut" is to display a shocking degree of ignorance about the material and its presentation.

And that brings me to Beau Pere, the 1981 French film that tackles the same subject matter as Lolita, albeit in a less melodramatic manner. There is no question that this movie could never be made in the United States. It offers a frank and unflinching portrayal of the sexual relationship between a 30-year old man and his 14-year old stepdaughter. So, not only is pedophilia an issue, but the picture also raises disturbing questions about incest. Yet, while Blier is clearly not an advocate of the main character's sexual proclivities, he nevertheless portrays this man sympathetically. He is not a one-dimensional villain, a lecherous scoundrel who lurks in the shadows. Instead, he's a rather pathetic individual who, were it not for his obsession, would easily earn the viewer's pity.

Beau Pere begins by introducing us to Remy (Patrick Dewaere), a sadsack restaurant piano player whose marriage is falling apart. For the last eight years, Remy has been married to Martine (Nicole Garcia) and has cared for her daughter, Marion (Ariel Besse), as if she was his own. But Martine is fed up with his lack of earning power and ambition and is ready to leave him. Then, as she's going to work following an argument, she is killed in an automobile accident. Remy is left to care for Marion alone. His initial reaction is that the girl should live with her alcoholic father, Charly (Maurice Ronet), but she resists the idea. And, although Charly pays lip service to wanting his daughter with him, he eventually allows her to remain with Remy.

It soon becomes apparent, however, that Marion's reasons for wanting to stay with Remy have little to do with the affection of a daughter for her father. He has become the object of her sexual fantasies, and she makes it apparent that her feelings go far beyond what is proper. Equally attracted to her but unwilling to admit it, Remy puts up token resistance, but his attempts to ward off Marion are halfhearted at best. (After all, if he really wanted to put a stop to the situation, he could demand that she live with Charly.) Eventually, he gives in and a sexual relationship is consummated.

In the end, Blier does not give us an overwrought conclusion featuring histrionics, threats, recriminations, and police action. In fact, the resolution is handled with chilling civility, and the last scene - which strongly hints that history may repeat itself - is Beau Pere's most disturbing moment. It's clear that both Remy and Marion have been damaged by their sexual encounters, although neither seems willing or able to recognize that any aspect of their personality has been distorted. Marion's social development has been retarded; it is clear that she holds boys her own age in the lowest regard. Meanwhile, by crossing a dangerous line, Remy has taken the first steps down a slope that may lead him to become the stereotypical predator of young girls.

One often-neglected aspect of this kind of relationship that Blier focuses on is how the introduction of sex destroys the natural boundaries between father and daughter. Remy loses his place as an authority figure, and, when he tries to assert himself, he is shown to be impotent (even in something as seemingly innocuous as requesting that Marion return home by midnight). Indeed, as the film progresses, it becomes increasingly apparent that Marion has all the power in the relationship. Both emotionally and practically, she pulls the strings. At one point, after being caught in a compromising position with Marion, Remy admits to being scared. It's a natural reaction; one visit from Marion to the police and he would find himself in jail.

Marion is consistently shown to be the more mature of the two. In addition to initiating the changes in their relationship, she's the breadwinner and shows a keen intellect. Her outlook on life is surprisingly sophisticated for a girl of her age. Remy, on the other hand, is a loser with little self-respect and less self-control. He can't keep a job and relies on Marion's earnings from babysitting to pay the rent. When it comes to the seduction, her methods are awkward and inexperienced (as might be expected from someone her age); the only reason she succeeds is because Remy is willing.

Slightly less interesting, but no less important to the overall plot, is Marion's relationship with Charly. They are obviously not close, but he cares about her. Nevertheless, his every decision is clouded by guilt. He puts on blinders and chooses not to see what is obvious. The best illustration of this comes late in the film, when he observes a passionate embrace between Remy and Marion. He musters the courage to ask whether they're sleeping with each other, but, when Remy feigns outrage and denies the accusation, Charly skulks away apologetically. He lacks the will to intervene, and thus loses his claim to moral superiority.

Beau Pere's success results from a combination of a provocative script featuring well-defined characters and a pair of powerful performances. In particular, Ariel Besse is stunning. Her portrayal of Marion is unfeigned; she effectively mixes the innocent girl and the tempting, seductive woman - the perfect Lolita. In fact, she's so good that at times it can be unsettling to watch her aggressive sexual behavior. When this film was released in 1981, Besse received a number of enthusiastic plaudits from critics, all of which were deserved. (Interestingly, this is her only acting credit. Beau Pere was her debut, and she never appeared in another picture.) Working opposite her, Patrick Dewaere has the difficult task of not being upstaged by his young co-star. For the most part, he avoids that pitfall. His Remy is a sad, psychologically tortured individual with virtually no confidence. Dewaere's performance also hints at a monster lurking deep beneath the mild-mannered exterior. Beau Pere was the actor's penultimate screen appearance. After having appeared in nearly 30 films (including two of Blier's previous efforts, Getting It Up and Get Out Your Handkerchiefs), he killed himself in 1982.

Beau Pere is obviously not for everyone. For a variety of legitimate reasons, many intelligent, discriminating movie lovers would prefer not to watch a film about pedophilia, no matter how well-made or careful its approach is. However, for those who are not offended or otherwise put off by this subject matter, Beau Pere offers a compelling psychological exploration that is highlighted by two exceptional performances and a script that refuses to descend into melodrama or resort to manipulation. Beau Pere is not an easy film to watch, but it is undeniably rewarding.

[Zack -Alizee Lover-]

Ok, since no one has made any comments over my post I will asume that no one has seen this movie yet. So here is a another post and this time I have backup. Beau Pere in a nutshell.... Remy is a lounge pianist who loses his wife in a car accident. His fourteen-year-old step-daughter, Marion (Ariel Besse), wants to continue to live with him, but her biological father, a drunken clubowner, doesn't feel that this is right. She tries living with her father, but misses the comfort of Remy and eventually runs back to him. Her father relents and accepts her wish to live with her step-father. What begins as a simple reunion of father and daughter quickly takes on a whole new meaning when Marion confesses her love for Remy one night.

Beau Pere - A Film Review by James Berardinelli

France, 1981
Running Length: 2:03
MPAA Classification: Not Rated
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Patrick Dewaere, Ariel Besse, Maurice Ronet
Director: Bertrand Blier
Producer: Alain Sarde
Screenplay: Bertrand Blier
Cinematography: Sacha Vierny
Music: Philippe Sarde
In French with subtitles

As I watched Bertrand Blier's Beau Pere, I was strongly reminded of the controversy surrounding the release of Adrian Lyne's 1997 adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's landmark novel, Lolita. Because it deals with one of society's strongest taboos - pedophilia - in a straightforward manner, the film was blackballed by American distributors. Only after sitting on the shelf for more than a year did the picture receive limited theatrical release in this country. After viewing the movie, which features nothing exploitative or graphic, I was frankly dismayed at the forces aligned against it. To be sure, this Lolita is not without flaws, but its content does not warrant such extreme treatment.

In Europe, Lolita's reception was far different. The film was widely shown, and with minimal contention. An obvious inference can be drawn from the contrast between the reaction to the movie here and there. While pedophilia is rightly condemned on both sides of the Atlantic, the puritanical foundation of American society creates so much discomfort about the subject of sex that a movie which intelligently confronts such difficult issues is immediately subject to censure. It's depressing to consider how few people in this country can distinguish between art and exploitation. In a sensitive arena like this, the latter is grotesque and unacceptable, while the former is desirable because of the greater understanding and insight that it hopes to promote. Lolita does not seek to titillate; it tries (and mostly succeeds) to present a study of an unhealthy obsession and its pernicious effects on all involved. To classify it as "pornography" or "smut" is to display a shocking degree of ignorance about the material and its presentation.

And that brings me to Beau Pere, the 1981 French film that tackles the same subject matter as Lolita, albeit in a less melodramatic manner. There is no question that this movie could never be made in the United States. It offers a frank and unflinching portrayal of the sexual relationship between a 30-year old man and his 14-year old stepdaughter. So, not only is pedophilia an issue, but the picture also raises disturbing questions about incest. Yet, while Blier is clearly not an advocate of the main character's sexual proclivities, he nevertheless portrays this man sympathetically. He is not a one-dimensional villain, a lecherous scoundrel who lurks in the shadows. Instead, he's a rather pathetic individual who, were it not for his obsession, would easily earn the viewer's pity.

Beau Pere begins by introducing us to Remy (Patrick Dewaere), a sadsack restaurant piano player whose marriage is falling apart. For the last eight years, Remy has been married to Martine (Nicole Garcia) and has cared for her daughter, Marion (Ariel Besse), as if she was his own. But Martine is fed up with his lack of earning power and ambition and is ready to leave him. Then, as she's going to work following an argument, she is killed in an automobile accident. Remy is left to care for Marion alone. His initial reaction is that the girl should live with her alcoholic father, Charly (Maurice Ronet), but she resists the idea. And, although Charly pays lip service to wanting his daughter with him, he eventually allows her to remain with Remy.

It soon becomes apparent, however, that Marion's reasons for wanting to stay with Remy have little to do with the affection of a daughter for her father. He has become the object of her sexual fantasies, and she makes it apparent that her feelings go far beyond what is proper. Equally attracted to her but unwilling to admit it, Remy puts up token resistance, but his attempts to ward off Marion are halfhearted at best. (After all, if he really wanted to put a stop to the situation, he could demand that she live with Charly.) Eventually, he gives in and a sexual relationship is consummated.

In the end, Blier does not give us an overwrought conclusion featuring histrionics, threats, recriminations, and police action. In fact, the resolution is handled with chilling civility, and the last scene - which strongly hints that history may repeat itself - is Beau Pere's most disturbing moment. It's clear that both Remy and Marion have been damaged by their sexual encounters, although neither seems willing or able to recognize that any aspect of their personality has been distorted. Marion's social development has been retarded; it is clear that she holds boys her own age in the lowest regard. Meanwhile, by crossing a dangerous line, Remy has taken the first steps down a slope that may lead him to become the stereotypical predator of young girls.

One often-neglected aspect of this kind of relationship that Blier focuses on is how the introduction of sex destroys the natural boundaries between father and daughter. Remy loses his place as an authority figure, and, when he tries to assert himself, he is shown to be impotent (even in something as seemingly innocuous as requesting that Marion return home by midnight). Indeed, as the film progresses, it becomes increasingly apparent that Marion has all the power in the relationship. Both emotionally and practically, she pulls the strings. At one point, after being caught in a compromising position with Marion, Remy admits to being scared. It's a natural reaction; one visit from Marion to the police and he would find himself in jail.

Marion is consistently shown to be the more mature of the two. In addition to initiating the changes in their relationship, she's the breadwinner and shows a keen intellect. Her outlook on life is surprisingly sophisticated for a girl of her age. Remy, on the other hand, is a loser with little self-respect and less self-control. He can't keep a job and relies on Marion's earnings from babysitting to pay the rent. When it comes to the seduction, her methods are awkward and inexperienced (as might be expected from someone her age); the only reason she succeeds is because Remy is willing.

Slightly less interesting, but no less important to the overall plot, is Marion's relationship with Charly. They are obviously not close, but he cares about her. Nevertheless, his every decision is clouded by guilt. He puts on blinders and chooses not to see what is obvious. The best illustration of this comes late in the film, when he observes a passionate embrace between Remy and Marion. He musters the courage to ask whether they're sleeping with each other, but, when Remy feigns outrage and denies the accusation, Charly skulks away apologetically. He lacks the will to intervene, and thus loses his claim to moral superiority.

Beau Pere's success results from a combination of a provocative script featuring well-defined characters and a pair of powerful performances. In particular, Ariel Besse is stunning. Her portrayal of Marion is unfeigned; she effectively mixes the innocent girl and the tempting, seductive woman - the perfect Lolita. In fact, she's so good that at times it can be unsettling to watch her aggressive sexual behavior. When this film was released in 1981, Besse received a number of enthusiastic plaudits from critics, all of which were deserved. (Interestingly, this is her only acting credit. Beau Pere was her debut, and she never appeared in another picture.) Working opposite her, Patrick Dewaere has the difficult task of not being upstaged by his young co-star. For the most part, he avoids that pitfall. His Remy is a sad, psychologically tortured individual with virtually no confidence. Dewaere's performance also hints at a monster lurking deep beneath the mild-mannered exterior. Beau Pere was the actor's penultimate screen appearance. After having appeared in nearly 30 films (including two of Blier's previous efforts, Getting It Up and Get Out Your Handkerchiefs), he killed himself in 1982.

Beau Pere is obviously not for everyone. For a variety of legitimate reasons, many intelligent, discriminating movie lovers would prefer not to watch a film about pedophilia, no matter how well-made or careful its approach is. However, for those who are not offended or otherwise put off by this subject matter, Beau Pere offers a compelling psychological exploration that is highlighted by two exceptional performances and a script that refuses to descend into melodrama or resort to manipulation. Beau Pere is not an easy film to watch, but it is undeniably rewarding.

Looks like a god damn it great movie!
Where can i get it? or download it or anything! i wanna watch it! :eek:

[Jess]

I don't think you realized my post was kind of long, so I'll appologies for the both of us. Brad this is my first time for long posts, I'll try to keep them short next time.... This is one of those hard to find movies. You can buy the DVD at Amazon for $78.00 or try renting it from somewhere if you find it.

[Zack -Alizee Lover-]

I don't think you realized my post was kind of long, so I'll appologies for the both of us. Brad this is my first time for long posts, I'll try to keep them short next time.... This is one of those hard to find movies. You can buy the DVD at Amazon for $78.00 or try renting it from somewhere if you find it.

$78.00? :eek: The dvd is made of gold or something like that?
I guess ill have to look around or download it :(

[fsquared]

It's a little cheaper on VHS at Amazon. Couldn't find it on Netflix or Blockbuster online. I guess it must have had a pretty limited US video release. Do the people who have watched it see any direct allusions of ML's video to this film?

[CFHollister]

Do the people who have watched it see any direct allusions of ML's video to this film?

That's probably not gonna be a very large group of people...

[Ernest]

I don't think you realized my post was kind of long, so I'll appologies for the both of us. Brad this is my first time for long posts, I'll try to keep them short next time.... This is one of those hard to find movies. You can buy the DVD at Amazon for $78.00 or try renting it from somewhere if you find it.

I need links . . .is it available? . . .

[mal]

old lolita movie was better. new one was kinda overly graphic.

[Ben]

old lolita movie was better. new one was kinda overly graphic.
I dunno, so is the novel. I really liked the new movie. It took the book too seriously, made Humbert too sympathetic, and missed most of the humor... but at least it's a faithful adaptation. Unlike Kubrick's, which I felt was a bit of a mess (Peter Sellers, for example, seemed to have dropped in from another movie, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I love his films (Strangelove, Shinning, etc.), but I don't think Lolita's one of his best.

[Jess]

Off topic, Snatcher did you ever see "The Bobo". This is one of my favorite Peter Sellers movie. I think Britt Ekland was pretty hot in that flick, what do you think?......... (Did you know that she was married to Peter Sellers at one point & had a daughter with him?)

[Ben]

Off topic, Snatcher did you ever see "The Bobo".
No, I haven't, though I've heard of it. Will have to check it out. :)

[Topaz]

old lolita movie was better. new one was kinda overly graphic.

I think the 1962 one is best. Nabokov wrote the screenplay. Who better to adapt the novel, than the author of the novel? :)

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/alizee_1984/332.gif

[fsquared]

Actually, Nabokov wrote the original screenplay, but it was significantly changed by Kubrick and others, to the point where he ended up publishing his screenplay as a separate work in the early 70s. Kubrick said something to the effect that it was unfilmable and would have run 7 hours.

[Ben]

Nabokov wrote the screenplay. Who better to adapt the novel, than the author of the novel?
Yeah, but he was quite displeased with the end result, for the reasons fsquared mentioned (not that I think he'd like the '97 any better, but...).


Kubrick said something to the effect that it was unfilmable and would have run 7 hours.
And he was probably right... though I don't think what he did to it was much of an improvment.

[fsquared]

I've been rereading Lolita and the more I read it, the more disturbing it becomes. The parenthetical descriptions of the sexual abuse of Lolita in second part particularly are quite chilling, precisely because of the matter-of-fact, almost elliptical way he perceives (and reports) them.

It seems very interesting to me how the book splits into two parts (well, of course it does, Part One and Part Two). The first seems to be based on an old story of his, Vulshebnik (The Enchanter). In Part One, it seems that (aside from Humbert's criminal culpability as the adult in the situation), Humbert and Lolita are portrayed as on somewhat parallel footing and that they're basically toying with each other. The balance of power changes completely when Lolita finds out her mother is dead and she has nowhere to go. The second part, interestingly, makes an explicit reference to the crime of Frank La Salle against Sally Horner from 1948, but it seems that only in the last 15 years, scholars went back to the original news reports and realized how extensive the allusions in Part Two are to this crime. In my mind, I see Part Two's genesis as Nabokov being haunted by Frank's crime, and inspired to reconstruct an exegesis of this crime and his psychopathic mind, as well as a poignant tribute and memorialization of Sally's horrible suffering. She was kidnapped for the same length of time (21 months) as Lolita, and also died horribly about 3 years later (in a car crash). Her story was never major news though apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Sally_Horner

[Deepwaters]

Fsquared, I'm running into the same problem. I started out just loving the book, but I realize now it was purely because of Nabokov's style and his truly impressive ability as a crafter of language. What I'm running into now, though, is that I simply don't like, respect, or care about either Humbert or Lolita. They are fully-developed and believable characters, but I have no sympathy for either one of them and don't really give a damn what happens to them.

[fsquared]

*****************SPOILER ALERT*****************











*SPOILER*

Lolita's death haunts me the most....especially in the final scene, where she's so happy about the money, and how things are finally going to go right for her, when you know that in a few weeks she'll die horribly...

[Zack -Alizee Lover-]

Lolita's death haunts me the most....especially in the final scene, where she's so happy about the money, and how things are finally going to go right for her, when you know that in a few weeks she'll die horribly...

God damn it...
i wanted to read that book....

[fsquared]

Sorry about that, Zack. I edited my post to put a spoiler alert, and if you edit my quote, then maybe that will help.

********SPOILER ALERT*****************















*SPOILER*

On the other hand, one can read the book from cover to cover and easily miss that fact.

[Fansinchina]

Whats the story about MV:moi lolita?Alizee looks very young in the video.
The movie 1997 touch me,tears running.

[Joey_adore_Jung]

^ hello welcome to the Forum glad you joined 900th member cool,

anyways that really got to suck i still need to see it i think it will be a good movie but when i read the topics i thought was the heck is this rated. i mean everything is awesome then she dies horribly damn!

[Ben]

One of my favorite articles about Lolita - specifically the pros and cons of the 1997 film adaptation, though through these bringing up some interesting points about the novel:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/reviews/1998/05/cov_29review.html

It summaries one literary critic's explanation of why one may want to read a novel about two thoroughly unsympathetic characters...

"Lolita is about love ... Almost every page sets forth some explicit erotic emotion or some overt erotic action and still ... it is about love." The twist is that Humbert's pedophilia makes it easier to see love's constant potential for possessiveness and monomania. Nabokov achieves rapture without denying Humbert's ruthlessness. But he never slights Humbert's bliss, either, and he never, from the first incantatory utterance of her name, tries to keep us from sharing a taste of that bliss. Just as Humbert drugs Lolita with sleeping pills, Nabokov drugs his reader with narcotic descriptions of his nymphet's brown skin and musky, tomboy odor. The moralist denies that intoxicant; the artist, the sensualist, can't. Humbert's rapture is both a parody of the artist creating in solitude and a celebration of the glories that solitude brings forth. Nabokov might be asking if life is too high a price to pay for art.

If you read to the end of the book, it's almost impossible not to shed a tear for Humbert and Lolita, and I think that's the work's greatest accomplishment: humanity exposed raw, twisted, and pathetic... yet somehow still beautiful.

[fsquared]

**********************SPOILERS********************





^ hello welcome to the Forum glad you joined 900th member cool,

anyways that really got to suck i still need to see it i think it will be a good movie but when i read the topics i thought was the heck is this rated. i mean everything is awesome then she dies horribly damn!

Heh, the 1962 version had movie posters saying something like "HOW DID THEY EVER MAKE A MOVIE OF .... LOLITA?" The 1997 version couldn't find a distributor in the US for the longest time. It's just too hot a topic to handle (in America anyway).

I'm sorry if I spoiled the ending for anyone; I attempted to edit my post to include a spoiler alert.


One of my favorite articles about Lolita - specifically the pros and cons of the 1997 film adaptation, though through these bringing up some interesting points about the novel:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/reviews/1998/05/cov_29review.html

It summaries one literary critic's explanation of why one may want to read a novel about two thoroughly unsympathetic characters...



If you read to the end of the book, it's almost impossible not to shed a tear for Humbert and Lolita, and I think that's the work's greatest accomplishment: humanity exposed raw, twisted, and pathetic... yet somehow still beautiful.

Thanks for the link; I also liked that article very much. It's true, Humbert's eloquence as he writes is very seductive, very rapturous, and I had your reaction too. I found it took several re-readings to begin to feel the horror (that Humbert himself felt and expressed) of his actions, and to perceive how the self-loathing and his psychopathic self-justifications (e.g., "blaming the victim" by identifying Lolita with a demon) translated into how he framed his descriptions of his interactions (particularly the sexual ones) with Lolita. At first, you could almost miss them, they are so parenthetical (e.g., "her morning duties", "her basic obligations"), but on subsequent readings, I found them more and more disturbing. And I think they were intended to be that way.

[fsquared]

Following up on my previous post, I realize now why the infamous scene on p.57 of Humbert grinding himself against Lolita on his lap was cut from the 1997 film (it exists as a deleted scene). It's because what's important in the scene is what is happening in the mind of Humbert; precisely because that is concealed from an outside observer, an attempt to depict it on film with an impartial eyewitness like a camera will miss much of the point of the scene.

[Ben]

Following up on my previous post, I realize now why the infamous scene on p.57 of Humbert grinding himself against Lolita on his lap was cut from the 1997 film (it exists as a deleted scene). It's because what's important in the scene is what is happening in the mind of Humbert; precisely because that is concealed from an outside observer, an attempt to depict it on film with an impartial eyewitness like a camera will miss much of the point of the scene.
Yeah. They try to include as much inner monologue as possible through narration, but there's only so far you can take that in a movie compared to a novel. It's a major reason why this, like some other books, is kind of of un-filmable. The various problematic versions of Dune is another example that comes to mind.

[Edcognito]

This is one sick disturbed MF'r!

I keep reading various descriptions (I'm on page 257 of the Annotated, Alfred Appel edition) of him watching other "nymphets" at the school, at Beardsly etc., - and that really made me twitch! Reading of him "teaching Lolita 3 about Grandfathers"..... AAAAAAAAACH!

I can't put it down, but i hate to pick it up! And to think that this is based (maybe) on the account of what happened to someone back in '48? S I C K!

Yes, its a great book, and i can understand why it got banned for so long in the US (don't agree with that) because of the subject matter. It did have to go a long way towards getting the whole child/sexual abuse discussion going.....

Very disturbing book.

Ed:blink:

[Edcognito]

Fsquared, I'm running into the same problem. I started out just loving the book, but I realize now it was purely because of Nabokov's style and his truly impressive ability as a crafter of language. What I'm running into now, though, is that I simply don't like, respect, or care about either Humbert or Lolita. They are fully-developed and believable characters, but I have no sympathy for either one of them and don't really give a damn what happens to them.

Humbert I can understand not liking - that man has a VERY deep cut, right through ethics, morals and honor.

But NOT liking Lo? Yes she was a problem child (or so we are led to believe). However, it looked to me more like her mother just sucked at being a responsible mother! She also sounded like she was jealous of her daughters appearence - and jealousy is NOT a good parenting emotion! Also - After a year of rape - how could someone's mind NOT be bent?

Day after day, (GROSS) night after night, endless, hopeless - how could she NOT do what she had to? Remember, there were no cell phones when this was written - there was no internet, most people had party lines (if they had phones at all) except for the big cities, and some towns still had local (village or town-wide) operators for connecting calls! Lo would NOT have felt comfortable discussing anything over the phone!

(F'rinstance - my village of Spencer, NY got rid of our last "operator" when i was 6 (1967) - I know because it was my aunt.

So there are LOTS of reasons to dislike (disgust?) Humbert - but i just feel pity for Lo........

Ed:blink:

[fsquared]

This is one sick disturbed MF'r!

I keep reading various descriptions (I'm on page 257 of the Annotated, Alfred Appel edition) of him watching other "nymphets" at the school, at Beardsly etc., - and that really made me twitch! Reading of him "teaching Lolita 3 about Grandfathers"..... AAAAAAAAACH!

I can't put it down, but i hate to pick it up! And to think that this is based (maybe) on the account of what happened to someone back in '48? S I C K!

Yes, its a great book, and i can understand why it got banned for so long in the US (don't agree with that) because of the subject matter. It did have to go a long way towards getting the whole child/sexual abuse discussion going.....

Very disturbing book.

Ed:blink:
To the Americans' (sort-of?) credit, it was never actually "banned" in the US, though 4 publishers in the US refused to publish it before Olympia in France did (where it WAS banned after publication).

Also, regarding "teaching Lolita 3 about grandfathers", I recall a news report a couple years back of catching some guy who had done something like that in real life. Ick ick ick.

[Edcognito]

Ok - i'm just a stupid New York Redneck with an IQ of 64, but i just got done reading this, and there is no Lolita Death Scene. As far as i can tell from the book i have - Dolores gets some money out of the old perv, and is never heard from again!

As i said before, i have the Annotated Lolita, by Nabakov, Edited by Alfred Appel, Jr.

Am i that tired that i really cannot find something there? Or has there been a "fake" spoiler set up? I'm lost and confuzzled! I don't believe they would have edited out his ending, but that is what its sounding like!

Any assistance would be gratefully appreciated!


Ed:cool:

[Deepwaters]

Humbert I can understand not liking - that man has a VERY deep cut, right through ethics, morals and honor.


He's also a friggin' pansy-ass coward. I mean seriously, except for some intelligence and erudition, there's just nothing about the man to like.

A part of that is I've never come close to being a pederast. To be perfectly and somewhat ridiculously honest, even the Gourmandises video makes me feel a little weird (Alizée was sexier than any 16-year-old has any right to be and it's a relief she's a grown-up now. :o ) So anyway, I just can't identify with that side of his personality, and it dominates everything else about him. He's sneaky, sly, nasty, furtive, and just plain disgusting.


But NOT liking Lo? Yes she was a problem child (or so we are led to believe). However, it looked to me more like her mother just sucked at being a responsible mother! She also sounded like she was jealous of her daughters appearence - and jealousy is NOT a good parenting emotion! Also - After a year of rape - how could someone's mind NOT be bent?


Well, to start with, it's pretty clear it wasn't rape. She had the hots for Humbert from the first time he showed up, and SHE was the one who made the first move. Granted, that's still pretty twisted. But let's not make it out to be worse than it was.

OK, I hear what you're saying about her parenting between her mother and Humbert, but there are always reasons why anyone is the way they are and the fact remains she's thoroughly selfish, and for me not likeable at all. It's possible that, if she'd gotten away from Humbert, she'd have developed differently, but she didn't even want to. She was fixated on him and had no interest in boys her own age, or in being a normal kid. So it's really as much on her as on the adults. Or at least that's my reading.

Maybe if Nabokov had depicted her as just a little more appealing as a person, I might have felt sorrier for her situation. But she's such an awful little brat that I can't. I almost feel she and Humbert deserve each other.

[Ben]

Ok - i'm just a stupid New York Redneck with an IQ of 64, but i just got done reading this, and there is no Lolita Death Scene. As far as i can tell from the book i have - Dolores gets some money out of the old perv, and is never heard from again!
I think you need to go back and re-read the beginning. Or I should say, the beginning is the end. ;)

...Oh, and also the first sentence of the last paragraph. :)


He's sneaky, sly, nasty, furtive, and just plain disgusting.
He also, by the end of the novel, has fallen in love. :(

[fsquared]

...

Well, to start with, it's pretty clear it wasn't rape. She had the hots for Humbert from the first time he showed up, and SHE was the one who made the first move. Granted, that's still pretty twisted. But let's not make it out to be worse than it was.
...
It's possible that, if she'd gotten away from Humbert, she'd have developed differently, but she didn't even want to. She was fixated on him and had no interest in boys her own age, or in being a normal kid. So it's really as much on her as on the adults. Or at least that's my reading.



Well, I feel that there's a huge gap between what happened in Part I, and then what happened in Part II. Humbert documents it in Part II, where he talked about how he coerced her with various reform-school threats, cajolings, etc., and, e.g., p. 149, when he addresses her with "In former times, when I was still your dream male..." He makes it clear that she's not into it anymore (and he knows it) and he's cooking up whatever means he can to persuade her to pleasure him (e.g., p. 147, "it would take hours of blandishments, threats, and promises to make her lend me for a few seconds her brown limbs...") I tend to think of the brattiness, etc. in Part II as what little passive-aggressive retaliation she can muster in her trapped situation. There's one place where he talks about a session of "adoration and despair", and always found the ambiguity of his turn of phrase very interesting: was it his adoration and her despair, or was was it his despair too, or both? And another passage really strikes me on p. 176, about how their trip was no more than "... ruined tour books, tires, and her sobs in the night--every night, every night--the moment I feigned sleep". The way this parenthetical hyphenated phrase somehow conveys his bitter, knowing guilt is, in my mind, very emotionally ingenious writing on Nabokov's part.


***SPOILER****

Regarding the ending, it's rather tricky; Lolita's death is buried in John Ray, Jr.'s Foreword. On p.4, about halfway down, he discusses the fates of several of the pseudonymized characters, and includes offhandedly

Mrs "Richard F. Schiller" died in childbed, giving birth to a stillborn baby girl, on Christmas Day 1952, in Gray Star, a settlement in the remoest Northwest.

Most people are almost certainly not going to catch that the first time around since you don't find out who that is until the end of the book.
The thing on the last paragraph is that he has earlier said that he made arrangements (with Clarence?) for the book not to be published until Lolita is dead. So, elsewhere, he tells the reader something like "you're probably reading this in about 2000 AD, long live my love", which is all the more poignant when you know she's going to be dead in a few weeks (relative to the timeline when he's writing).

Actually there is some interesting scholarship related to these dates. He says it took 56 days for him to write the book. But there are only 56 days between Sept 22 (when he gets the letter) and Nov. 16 (the date he dies, according to John Ray Jr.) So some scholars have argued that this doesn't leave the necessary 3 days' time for his last meeting with Lolita and his murder of Quilty, thus those two incidents are fabricated by Humbert for the book. I don't buy that, and another scholar says that the most likely explanation is that a typesetter error put a 6 instead of a 9, making it Nov. 16 instead of Nov 19 (which would be the missing 3 days). Nabokov is usually pretty meticulous about chronology, but that scholar argued that he's sloppy enough to have missed this (rather than making this "error" on purpose in order to nullify the last two big scenes of the book).

[Edcognito]

He's also a friggin' pansy-ass coward. I mean seriously, except for some intelligence and erudition, there's just nothing about the man to like.

A part of that is I've never come close to being a pederast. To be perfectly and somewhat ridiculously honest, even the Gourmandises video makes me feel a little weird (Alizée was sexier than any 16-year-old has any right to be and it's a relief she's a grown-up now. :o ) So anyway, I just can't identify with that side of his personality, and it dominates everything else about him. He's sneaky, sly, nasty, furtive, and just plain disgusting.

I agree with you, Moi Lolita and Gourmandises disturbed me too, until i figured out how old she was now, then i could look at the videos without that under-age component, and look more to the art/symboligy of what i was seeing!

Agreed on so many levels - this guy just twisted slowly through his life - then twisted soooo many others....

P.S. - Thanks Squared - i totally went right over that last night


Ed:cool:


Well, to start with, it's pretty clear it wasn't rape. She had the hots for Humbert from the first time he showed up, and SHE was the one who made the first move. Granted, that's still pretty twisted. But let's not make it out to be worse than it was.

Sorry man - its my belief that your missing quite a few things here. She was 12 yrs. old - even now, with the internet and early (possible) exposure to adult material, I think consensual sex is a HUGE leap. I am at home, and the book is at work, but what was quoted earlier about the crying every night, makes it obvious it was rape. Lolita even says (when they are going back near the Enchanted Hunters Lodge area on their trip back across the country) "the place where you raped me the first time" - or words to that effect.

OK, I hear what you're saying about her parenting between her mother and Humbert, but there are always reasons why anyone is the way they are and the fact remains she's thoroughly selfish, and for me not likeable at all. It's possible that, if she'd gotten away from Humbert, she'd have developed differently, but she didn't even want to. She was fixated on him and had no interest in boys her own age, or in being a normal kid. So it's really as much on her as on the adults. Or at least that's my reading.

I don't have a psych degree - but after 14 yrs working as a security guard, i've been exposed to a lot (sometimes FAR more than i wish i knew). Not being interested in boys her own age WHILE she was going through this type of thing is a fairly typical response. As for her fixation on Humbert, that was in the beginning, Nabakov makes it fairly obvious (imho) that Lo' had totally gotten over that after the first rape. Also - she ends up with someone (iirc) MUCH closer to her own age when Humbert finds her again - and all things considered, for the short time we're exposed to her at the end of the book, seems like she came out fairly well. Again, imho.

Maybe if Nabokov had depicted her as just a little more appealing as a person, I might have felt sorrier for her situation. But she's such an awful little brat that I can't. I almost feel she and Humbert deserve each other.

Sorry - i've met some evil, vicious little biyotches - psychotic, drugged and just generally fuggered up! I still wouldn't want an ADULT to meet Humbert, let alone put someone completely into his control....

[Edcognito]

I think you need to go back and re-read the beginning. Or I should say, the beginning is the end. ;)

...Oh, and also the first sentence of the last paragraph. :)



He also, by the end of the novel, has fallen in love. :(

Fallen in love - what a disgusting idea - with the person he abused for 12, 13 months? UGH!

I don't think he ever came close to understanding love, he may have looked at her differently, but he was still incapable of looking a woman (not for sale) in the eye and talking - which, as far as i'm concerned, shows he was still a LOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away from being healthy, or even healthier! :O


I, personally, am against the Death Penalty. Except in cases of Rape, Incest, and Child Molestation...... :mad:


Ed:cool:

[Deepwaters]

I agree with you, Moi Lolita and Gourmandises disturbed me too


Actually ML doesn't bother me, and her stage performances of Gourmandises don't either. It's just the video clip. Way back when, I said that I had never felt seduced by ma petite sorciére corse, but I was forgetting about that video, which is an exception. The closeups of her mouth, and the camera running along her leg, with the orgy developing among the other people in the clip . . . oh, God . . . lock me up, please! Quick! For my own good! :D


Sorry man - its my belief that your missing quite a few things here. She was 12 yrs. old - even now, with the internet and early (possible) exposure to adult material, I think consensual sex is a HUGE leap. I am at home, and the book is at work, but what was quoted earlier about the crying every night, makes it obvious it was rape.


Here's the relevant passage:


Frigid gentlewomen of the jury! I had thought that months, perhaps years, would elapse before I dared reveal myself to Dolores Haze; but by six she was wide awake, and by six fifteen we were technically lovers. I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me.

. . .

But my Lo was a sportive lassie. I felt her eyes on me, and when she uttered at last that beloved chortling note of hers, I knew her eyes had been laughing. She rolled over to my side, and her warm brown hair came against my collarbone. We lay quietly. I gently caressed her hair, and we gently kissed. . . . Her cheekbones were flushed, her full underlip glistened, my dissolution was near. All at once, with a burst of rough glee (the sign of the nymphet!), she put her mouth to my ear -- but for quite a while my mind could not separate into words the hot thunder of her whisper, and she laughed, and brushed the hair off her face, and tried again, and gradually the odd sense of living in a brand new world, where everything was permissible, came over me as I realized what she was suggesting.


Now, in terms of the law, which does not permit a 12-year-old to give meaningful consent, yes, it was rape, but there's a reason why the term "statutory rape" exists. It's because we treat some things as rape under the law while acknowledging that in the ordinary sense they are not rape. This is an example. She was too aggressive, too much the initiator, for "rape" to apply outside a law court.

I believe she cried at night not because of sex with Humbert, but because her mother was dead. A perfectly natural response, even if she had loathed her for years.


Lolita even says (when they are going back near the Enchanted Hunters Lodge area on their trip back across the country) "the place where you raped me the first time" - or words to that effect.


She did say that, but it's clear from the description of the first time between them that it wasn't true, and that she was saying that to put the screws to Humbert. She did that kind of thing often, which is yet another reason I don't like her much.


Not being interested in boys her own age WHILE she was going through this type of thing is a fairly typical response.


Of course it is. All I'm saying here, though, is that their bizarre relationship was as much her doing as his.

[fsquared]

Actually ML doesn't bother me, and her stage performances of Gourmandises don't either. It's just the video clip. Way back when, I said that I had never felt seduced by ma petite sorciére corse, but I was forgetting about that video, which is an exception. The closeups of her mouth, and the camera running along her leg, with the orgy developing among the other people in the clip . . . oh, God . . . lock me up, please! Quick! For my own good! :D


I believe she cried at night not because of sex with Humbert, but because her mother was dead. A perfectly natural response, even if she had loathed her for years.

All I'm saying here, though, is that their bizarre relationship was as much her doing as his.


Deepwaters,
Regarding the Gourmandises video, I just wanted to make sure you'd seen my Introduce Yourself story about that, which you might find amusing:
http://moi-alizee.us/forums/showthread.php?t=707&page=65

I find that I have to disagree with your assessment of the situation, again citing the large gap between Part I and Part II. Leading up to the end of Part I and their first encounter, my reading is that, at that point, Lolita sees the whole thing as a big game; she's being a big tease (e.g., referring to them as "lovers", talking about how "revoltingly unfaithful" she's been) and, I think, acting out as teenage rebellion against her mother (p. 119 "Because, my dahrling, when dahrling Mother finds out she'll divorce you and strangle me".); How much more rebellious against your mother could you get than seducing your stepfather? But I think the whole thing blows up in both their faces emotionally that day. She gets sullen, he realizes what an horrible thing he's done (and, even worse, that despite knowing it's horrible, he wants more). However, I think that the first time when she talks about how she should call the police because he raped her, she's trying to get his goat (p. 141); she's smiling sweetly....I speculate that she knows that she's got the goods on him, because now she's got a secret that could get him in lots of trouble, and she could use it to her advantage when she gets home.

But the power dynamic changes completely in that half page. Once she finds out her mother is dead, she has no home to go back to. She's stuck with Humbert. She cried about her mom on p. 142. But the sobs every night in part II, I believe, are about her desperate situation (particularly because I believe that Humbert insinuates, with his emphasis on --every night--, that he knows deep down that it's his fault that she's crying). The second time that she refers to the "first time you raped me", I think she is passively-aggressively trying to get his goat, but also now (and I think Nabokov intends this with a sense of irony), the first time, it was a joke, but now, in part II, it is indeed perceived as the beginning of the current relationship (which could be described as a series of rapes).

Regarding "as much her doing as his", my question to you is what alternatives you think she had to make the relationship different. Clearly he was able to hold intellectual influence over her and persuade her that if she didn't stick with him, she'd end up in reform school with 39 other girls in a dirty dorm. (This is exactly what was done to Sally Horner in 1948; she had tried to shoplift a 5-cent notebook from Frank La Salle, and he used these sorts of threats to keep her under his sway.) On p. 151, he says, "By rubbing all this in, I succeeded in terrorizing Lo, who despite a certain brash alertness of manner and spurts of wit was not as intelligent a child as her I.Q. might suggest."

I still think that the Humbert's power dynamic over Lolita in the second half is rather obliquely described (and artfully so), and it took several re-readings for me to start getting really creeped out.

[Deepwaters]

I find that I have to disagree with your assessment of the situation, again citing the large gap between Part I and Part II.


Well, all I'm saying is that it was at her instigation that the two of them first had sex. Also, I find the implication that she wasn't a virgin before Humbert. The power balance between them did shift when she discovered her mother was dead. (And the fact that Humbert kept this information from her initially again shows what a dishonest slimeball he was.)


Regarding "as much her doing as his", my question to you is what alternatives you think she had to make the relationship different.


Not to seduce him in the first place. It couldn't be clearer that, no matter how much he wanted her, he didn't have the balls to do anything without her encouragement. That night with the pseudo-pills, and Humbert thinking he was going to be playing with her in her drugged sleep, was absolutely pathetic!

She would still have been dependent on him, of course, but nothing would have happened between them sexually. Remember, Humbert was not a man with a history of molesting little girls, only with a history of wanting to. Lolita was his first actual conquest.

I feel like I need to say something else about that Gourmandises clip even though it's a bit off-topic, because it's easy to misunderstand something like that. My only difficulty with it comes from the way it made me feel towards a 16-year-old girl, which I don't normally do. It has nothing to do with Alizée either at 18 or now, nor with the music from her first album, which is all good.

[fsquared]

Well, all I'm saying is that it was at her instigation that the two of them first had sex. Also, I find the implication that she wasn't a virgin before Humbert. The power balance between them did shift when she discovered her mother was dead. (And the fact that Humbert kept this information from her initially again shows what a dishonest slimeball he was.)

It was pretty clearly stated that Humbert wasn't her first "lover"; in fact, she spends an inordinate amount of time that day in the car, and etc. trying to "confess" how bad a girl she's been but not quite ever getting to it, and then the next day, she discusses in great detail how Barbara and Charlie were going at it every day behind a bush and, out of "curiosity and camaraderie", she got into the action.


Not to seduce him in the first place. It couldn't be clearer that, no matter how much he wanted her, he didn't have the balls to do anything without her encouragement. That night with the pseudo-pills, and Humbert thinking he was going to be playing with her in her drugged sleep, was absolutely pathetic!

She would still have been dependent on him, of course, but nothing would have happened between them sexually. Remember, Humbert was not a man with a history of molesting little girls, only with a history of wanting to. Lolita was his first actual conquest.

I suppose, but he was still plotting to take her around the country as some sort of not-quite-free person with the intent of molesting her in her sleep and perhaps doing worse things gradually. I guess when you say "her as much as him", I was thinking that you were referring to an ongoing pattern of behavior in Part II, rather than to one, essentially isolated, incident at the beginning of their relationship (which could, as we've both noted, be considered to have happened under false pretenses).



I feel like I need to say something else about that Gourmandises clip even though it's a bit off-topic, because it's easy to misunderstand something like that. My only difficulty with it comes from the way it made me feel towards a 16-year-old girl, which I don't normally do. It has nothing to do with Alizée either at 18 or now, nor with the music from her first album, which is all good.

Well, that gets into the whole phenomenon of the "media Lolitas" and media-driven sexualization of teenagers. Heck, a lot of the supermodels get their start at that age (or even younger).

[Ben]

Fallen in love - what a disgusting idea - with the person he abused for 12, 13 months? UGH!
Precisely, and that's what makes it such a tragedy. It in no ways means he's healthy, nor does it downplay or color his perversity at all. The end wouldn't be so crushingly sad if it did. It's the fact that Humbert has developed this human emotion without loosing any of his vileness - without being redeemed - that gives the ending so much power. He didn't start out in love (despite what he may have said otherwise), but he ended up that way. Because it grew out of such sickness, however, it and he were utterly doomed.

Again it's like that quote I had earlier: "Lolita is about love ... Almost every page sets forth some explicit erotic emotion or some overt erotic action and still ... it is about love." The twist is that Humbert's pedophilia makes it easier to see love's constant potential for possessiveness and monomania."

I think you're looking at the novel a bit over moralistically too, deciding what's right and wrong as if it were something that actually happened. Lolita is definitly not Nabokov's attempt at being a moralist. Again, not that Humbert nor Lolita for that matter are supposed to be nice characters, but it's not the main point of the story to judge them. Also as I said before, it's more an exposure of many aspects of humanity both good and bad... though admittedly more bad

Edit: Isn't it amazing that a book that deals with so much darkness contextually is also one of the most amazing pieces of writing ever created? And keep in mind, it's attributed to Humbert. Nabokov could have easily written it less fantastically if he felt that would fit the story. But it's part of the world of "Lolita" that this hateful person created something beautiful.

[fsquared]

Snatcher,
I was reading the article that you were referring to: it's by Lionel Trilling, "The Last Lover: Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita", and he makes the point that the concept of "passion-love" was, in the old medieval days and glorified in that literature, totally disjoint from marriage, and and its heart was the "scandal" that it generated, and the intensity of the love was measured by the intensity of the scandal.

Then he goes on to posit that we in the modern age are inured to the kinds of things that provoked scandal in the old days. Infidelity? *shrug*. He's a Montague, she's a Capulet? *shrug* (He didn't use that one explicitly, I'm tossing that in). So, to really make a tragic, hopeless situation, it had to be a situation "beyond the pale of society".

I guess part of the point is to force the reader to ask him/herself the appropriate questions: What does "love" mean? Can Humbert's feelings at the end, as he realizes the moral horror of his actions, be described using those terms? Is it possible for him to feel love for the "real" Lolita, as opposed to the "safely solipsized" construct that he creates for himself and imposes upon this flesh-and-blood girl (who can never love him back after what he's done to her)? Or is he just deluding himself?

[Ben]

So, to really make a tragic, hopeless situation, it had to be a situation "beyond the pale of society". I guess part of the point is to force the reader to ask him/herself the appropriate questions: What does "love" mean? Can Humbert's feelings at the end, as he realizes the moral horror of his actions, be described using those terms?
Right, and as you can tell I think they can be. Maybe not that he loves the "real" Lolita, but that isn't necessarily important to the fact that when he sees Lo for the last time she's no longer a child, so his reaction then isn't from pedophilia-driven fantasies. At that point it's something more of us would recognize as "love". Without knowing their past history, we probably wouldn't even question it. But of course because it's grown out of Humbert's sickness, and like I said hasn't changed that, it can't be seen as a good thing... only as sad and tragic.

BTW, I think this is something the Adrian Lyne film really nails. Jeremy Irons is superb in those reunion scenes. If only they'd saved it for the end where it's appropriate, instead of spreading it throughout the entire movie! Hey Ed, have you seen this version? I think it would be interesting for you because it pretty much takes the exact opposite approach to the material compared to your reactions. I think it goes way too far in fact, but I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts.

[fsquared]

Right. I suppose one should also appreciate how the story is intended as a send-up of classical love stories, particularly Prosper Mérrimée's "Carmen". (Not that I've read it.) There are all these allusions where he calls her Carmen, etc. (glossed in the annotated version), teasing the reader to suspect that Humbert will gun Lolita down in their last meeting when she refuses to go with him (as Jose did to Carmen).

[fsquared]

Does anyone else call her Lolita, or just Humbert? If so, is that intended to imply that the name "Lolita" really refers to the artificial nymphet construct that Humbert has built around little Dolores Haze?
***SPOILER***
If only they'd saved it for the end where it's appropriate, instead of spreading it throughout the entire movie!
You mean having Jeremy Irons play the cruel Humbert earlier in the film and only get love-mushy in the last scene?

Actually I read an interesting analysis where they make the point that in the Lyne movie, in the last moment of the last reunion scene (and also in the last last scene), he sees her as she was, the little nymphet, which could be interpreted as being the exact opposite conclusion as that of the book (i.e., he still envisions and loves her as she was, not as she is now).

The one line that I didn't think came out right in the movie reunion scene was when Lolita says something like "you mean you'll give us the money if I go with you to a motel?" She says it so nonchalantly....I thought it would have to be hissed with sharply rising disgust (and the book says she rose like a snake about to strike, or something like that).

[fsquared]

Does anyone else call her Lolita, or just Humbert? If so, is that intended to imply that the name "Lolita" really refers to the artificial nymphet construct that Humbert has built around little Dolores Haze?
***SPOILER***

You mean having Jeremy Irons play the cruel Humbert earlier in the film and only get love-mushy in the last scene?

Actually I read an interesting analysis where they make the point that in the Lyne movie, in the last moment of the last reunion scene (and also in the last last scene), he sees her as she was, the little nymphet, which could be interpreted as being the exact opposite conclusion as that of the book (i.e., he still envisions and loves her as she was, not as she is now).

The one line that I didn't think came out right in the movie reunion scene was when Lolita says something like "you mean you'll give us the money if I go with you to a motel?" She says it so nonchalantly....I thought it would have to be hissed with sharply rising disgust (and the book says she rose like a snake about to strike, or something like that).

Sorry to self-bump, but I think I changed my mind about that review. mainly because the book itself talks, in that last scene with Lolita, about how Humbert had the image of the 12-year-old girl throwing pebbles at a can burned into his retinas....so I guess the movie was faithful to the book at that point as well, it seems.

[Jess]

Apperantly this subject has been discused before, in connection with Alizée's character as a Lolita.....

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4654/egeriemagpage2fz5.th.jpg (http://img105.imageshack.us/my.php?image=egeriemagpage2fz5.jpg)