How wrong "The_Wood" is about this film... The previous commentator's jibe of "dull performances" so completely misses the mark I do not balk at laughter! To think he was watching the same film as I, is an odd thought, or more pointedly, the same magnificent performance from Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty. While I admit the film isn't entirely successful, I would say it is at least reasonable in most regards. Well shot and composed by Kubrick, I don't see how anyone could doubt its mounting. The opening scene, with Sellers riffing off Mason extraordinarily, is one of the greatest, oddest openings to a film ever. All sorts of proto-Pinteresque psychological mind games are deployed in this oddest of "confrontation" scenes. Maybe, one might say, the film doesn't generally match this inspired quality in the main body of the picture. The scenes which unquestionably do invariably involve Sellers. His portrayal and embellishment of Nabokov's more minor player, Quilty, is an outstanding success; for all the magnetic subtlety of "Being There" and high-octane comic mastery of "Dr Strangelove" I feel this performance to be the most magnetic, unnerving and ingenious of Sellers' career, such as I have seen it. The scenes between Sellers and Mason, the incalculably more sedate, classical actor, are like eras and mindsets shifting, uncomfortably and compellingly. Sellers plays Quilty as an amoral jokester, a daunting genius alter-ego of Humbert, uninhibited and unrestrained in his game-playing. I ought to make mention of the party scene early on, with Quilty dancing diffidently and cynically with some dame or other. Moments such as this scene in the film are pure acting subtlety demonstrated by Sellers, and he practically maintains the compelling interest embodied by this character throughout. Wonderful. Who could forget, or indeed ignore as the two previous reviewers have, the sublimely tense and comic scene at the hotel with Sellers' and Quilty's "policeman" probing Humbert in a simultaneously precise and absurd manner. Where some critics have said Sellers' Quilty is over-used, I would say quite the opposite; he could have been used even more, although the irregularity and unpredictability of his appearances is tangibly effective.
Mason is dependable as Humbert, and this mere "dependability" proves perhaps insufficient in a film dominated by one of the finest performances. The character's passions and motivations are quelled rather than exacerbated by Mason's mannered English gentleman playing of the part. However, his bearing and style of acting prove an irresistible counterpoint to Sellers. Kubrick evidently realized, on set, Sellers' genius for both precise comedic timing and subtle character acting, and rightly indulged these attributes. Other players in Nabokov/Kubrick/Sellers' comedic human pyschodrama are a mixture. Shelley Winters, an often unremarkable actress, portrays a hilariously unlovely lady very well. A victim, as in the majestic "The Night of the Hunter", Winters proves an elusively cursory actress. The scene where Mason is in the bath, and she subsequently dies, without the "aid" of Humbert is a master class in comedic acting from Mason and Winters. Sue Lyon, importantly, is maybe not quite the Lolita that is required. She's certainly alluring, but never quite the right mix of seductive innocence and dispensed nonchalance. She plays the part with maybe an over-emphasis on desultory petulance. Full marks, though, to Kubrick for the influential shots when Humbert sees her for the first time; brilliantly done. It is however, in the final analysis, a mistake, or cop-out, of casting to have Sue Lyon, a girl of around sixteen, rather than someone of the age Nabokov specifies in the novel. It misses, or rather skirts around, the point of "Lolita" somewhat.
For all the film's faults, it's an entertaining, provocative (more in the sense of Humbert's guilt than in his desires) drama with an irreverent, thoughtful edge provided by the frighteningly good Sellers. As a film it is far from "obsolete", as user Hugh comments, it is an essential, if flawed adaptation of a literary classic. And I'm not being in the least bit "sentimental" in saying that.
Rating:- ****/*****
Mason is dependable as Humbert, and this mere "dependability" proves perhaps insufficient in a film dominated by one of the finest performances. The character's passions and motivations are quelled rather than exacerbated by Mason's mannered English gentleman playing of the part. However, his bearing and style of acting prove an irresistible counterpoint to Sellers. Kubrick evidently realized, on set, Sellers' genius for both precise comedic timing and subtle character acting, and rightly indulged these attributes. Other players in Nabokov/Kubrick/Sellers' comedic human pyschodrama are a mixture. Shelley Winters, an often unremarkable actress, portrays a hilariously unlovely lady very well. A victim, as in the majestic "The Night of the Hunter", Winters proves an elusively cursory actress. The scene where Mason is in the bath, and she subsequently dies, without the "aid" of Humbert is a master class in comedic acting from Mason and Winters. Sue Lyon, importantly, is maybe not quite the Lolita that is required. She's certainly alluring, but never quite the right mix of seductive innocence and dispensed nonchalance. She plays the part with maybe an over-emphasis on desultory petulance. Full marks, though, to Kubrick for the influential shots when Humbert sees her for the first time; brilliantly done. It is however, in the final analysis, a mistake, or cop-out, of casting to have Sue Lyon, a girl of around sixteen, rather than someone of the age Nabokov specifies in the novel. It misses, or rather skirts around, the point of "Lolita" somewhat.
For all the film's faults, it's an entertaining, provocative (more in the sense of Humbert's guilt than in his desires) drama with an irreverent, thoughtful edge provided by the frighteningly good Sellers. As a film it is far from "obsolete", as user Hugh comments, it is an essential, if flawed adaptation of a literary classic. And I'm not being in the least bit "sentimental" in saying that.
Rating:- ****/*****