Lolita 1962 (Kubrick) vs. Lolita 1997 (Lyne) Watch

Poll: So, which one's your favourite?
1962: dir. Stanley Kubrick, Lolita: Sue Lyon (5)
50%
1997: dir. Adrian Lyne, Lolita: Dominique Swain (5)
50%
I like both (0)
0%
meh, they were both rubbish (0)
0%
Angelil
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
I've just been watching some clips on youtube of these two film versions as I keep meaning to rent the film but haven't got round to doing so yet. In fact, I didn't realise until I got on youtube that there were 2 versions, as the Kubrick version is the most famous.

However, having been planning on renting the Kubrick version, I'm now thinking I won't bother as the 1997 version seems way better, mainly in terms of its more faithful adherence to the novel's plot, and in terms of the choice of actress for Lolita herself. Sue Lyon (who played Lolita in Kubrick's film) seems way too old to play Lolita, whereas Dominique Swain (the 1997 Lolita) seems to comply far more with how I'd imagined Lolita to be while I was reading the novel.

So, what do you all say? Any preference? If so then what are the reasons for your preference?
0
reply
Reverie.
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
I prefer the 1997 one for the same reasons as you think you will (if that makes sense :p:) i.e. more believable Lolita actress, more faithful to the novel etc. The Kubrick one is kind of adapted to make it more like other films of the day, rather than like the book. It is interesting to watch if only for the fact that Nabokov did the screenplay (though it was changed a lot by the producers, I think).

So yeah, I vote for '97.
0
reply
Hedger
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
My loyalty lies with Kubrick.
<3
0
reply
Angelil
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#4
(Original post by loadmalz)
My loyalty lies with Kubrick.
<3
Why?
0
reply
Clubber Lang
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
ppl prefer the originals usually - and kubrick is the big name director here so its easier to side with him..

i have seen the first one (kubrick) and didnt think it was particlualry great.
0
reply
Laevis
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
I would have to say the Stanley Kubrick version too. It's much more implicit, more suggestive and, therefore, more powerful whereas the Lyne version is more denotive.

The Lyne version takes advantage of the absence of censors/societal reactions that prevented Kubrick from screening what he really wanted to.
0
reply
Kater Murr
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
Only seen the recent one. thought it stuck to the book very well; it's my favourite novel. And jeremy irons is a bonus, eh?

i cried at the end, even though i already knew everything that was going to happen... how sad.

Although - i'm not sure, can't quite remember, i don't think they give you the details from the foreword and afterword in the film, do they?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (40)
26.67%
No (110)
73.33%

Watched Threads

View All