Lolita 4K UHD (1962) Coming Soon from Criterion!

[HundredYearLurker]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Love both Lolitas so will absolootelly buy day one, but Adrian Lyne's film is the better adaption and a straight-up masterpiece, IMHO. Jeremy Irons is freakin' incredible in that movie.

Oh dude, no. Lynne (or Schiff, the screenwriter) either failed to comprehend the novel at a fundamental level or simply wanted to film a different story. Which is fine, but I still recall a lot of sentiment around the false notion that it was "more faithful to Nabokov's novel". No. Kubrick's film alters and adds scenes, but nonetheless those alterations and additions more faithfully convey the themes and tone of Nabokov's darkly tragicomic satire than Lyne's lush, gauzy, woozy period piece.

Consider the opening. Yes, Lyne's film begins with a voice-over rearrangement of the famous opening lines from the novel with some omissions. Arguably it's "closer to source" than Kubrick's HH-Quilty confrontation, but look deeper. Aside from omitting the amusing and quintessentially Nabokovian "tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap..." it removes every hint of humor, every self-reflexive contrivance from Humbert's self-serving musings: "You can always count on a murderer for a a fancy prose style" is of course a line that has no place in Lyne's superficial romance nor Irons' grim reading.

And what's the ultimate contrivance? Only the entire motivation for Jeremy Irons' Humbert. "But there might have been no Lolita at all had I not first met Annabel..." (fade to flashback of tragic love).



Yeah, facepalm. Or maybe laugh out loud. If you've read the novel, you know this self-serving bullshit is just that ... a fanciful justification by Professor Humbert, a literary scholar, who is here very directly quoting Poe's famous poem, Annabel Lee. But Lyne simply takes it at face value.

We already know from the forward that the pages we're reading are attributed to Humbert, who wrote them in prison before dying of coronary thrombosis a few days before his trial was to start. He is the ultimate unreliable narrator and mounts his self-defense upon the linguistic and literary games played throughout the novel.

Again, Lyne takes it all at face value, removing all the psychological depth, barbed humor, and dark satire. He either doesn't realize that Humbert is bullshitting or he simply hacked off all those portions of the novel, the elements that are in fact most distinctly Nabokovian.

Yes, we are supposed to realize that Humbert's tragically lost "Annabel Leigh" is really Poe's "Annabel Lee". That Humbert's idyllic "princedom by the sea" is Poe's "kingdom by the sea". That the entire first four paragraphs comprising Chapter 1 are utterly contrived and riddled with allusions to Poe's poem. And that these obvious contrivances set the stage for how the reader is meant to read the novel - beneath, between, and behind the actual lines.

Instead, Lyne takes you now to France, 1921. To adolescence, when a boy's romantic heart is formed. All in soft-focus montages, and so so self-serious. One might even say they loved with a love that was more than love, "[w]ith a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven coveted her and me."

Nabokov, on the other hand, ends Chapter 1 with this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."

[dallywhitty]

It's gonna be another digipack and I'll have to import it and it'll arrive damaged. I'm shitting!

Negativity aside... I'm still glad it's getting a boutique UHD release. It's a brilliant film and WB have treated it like a red-headed stepchild for far too long.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

It's gonna be another digipack and I'll have to import it and it'll arrive damaged. I'm shitting!

Negativity aside... I'm still glad it's getting a boutique UHD release. It's a brilliant film and WB have treated it like a red-headed stepchild for far too long.

I was gonna ask I imagine ordering from the boutique shops to U.K. must cost a lot.

It will be interesting to see what the artwork for Lolita will end up looking like from Criterion.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I was gonna ask I imagine ordering from the boutique shops to U.K. must cost a lot.

It will be interesting to see what the artwork for Lolita will end up looking like from Criterion.

Prayers for poster art a-la Barry Lyndon.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by HundredYearLurker

Oh dude, no. Lynne (or Schiff, the screenwriter) either failed to comprehend the novel at a fundamental level or simply wanted to film a different story. Which is fine, but I still recall a lot of sentiment around the false notion that it was "more faithful to Nabokov's novel". No. Kubrick's film alters and adds scenes, but nonetheless those alterations and additions more faithfully convey the themes and tone of Nabokov's darkly tragicomic satire than Lyne's lush, gauzy, woozy period piece.

Consider the opening. Yes, Lyne's film begins with a voice-over rearrangement of the famous opening lines from the novel with some omissions. Arguably it's "closer to source" than Kubrick's HH-Quilty confrontation, but look deeper. Aside from omitting the amusing and quintessentially Nabokovian "tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap..." it removes every hint of humor, every self-reflexive contrivance from Humbert's self-serving musings: "You can always count on a murderer for a a fancy prose style" is of course a line that has no place in Lyne's superficial romance nor Irons' grim reading.

And what's the ultimate contrivance? Only the entire motivation for Jeremy Irons' Humbert. "But there might have been no Lolita at all had I not first met Annabel..." (fade to flashback of tragic love).



Yeah, facepalm. Or maybe laugh out loud. If you've read the novel, you know this self-serving bullshit is just that ... a fanciful justification by Professor Humbert, a literary scholar, who is here very directly quoting Poe's famous poem, Annabel Lee. But Lyne simply takes it at face value.

We already know from the forward that the pages we're reading are attributed to Humbert, who wrote them in prison before dying of coronary thrombosis a few days before his trial was to start. He is the ultimate unreliable narrator and mounts his self-defense upon the linguistic and literary games played throughout the novel.

Again, Lyne takes it all at face value, removing all the psychological depth, barbed humor, and dark satire. He either doesn't realize that Humbert is bullshitting or he simply hacked off all those portions of the novel, the elements that are in fact most distinctly Nabokovian.

Yes, we are supposed to realize that Humbert's tragically lost "Annabel Leigh" is really Poe's "Annabel Lee". That Humbert's idyllic "princedom by the sea" is Poe's "kingdom by the sea". That the entire first four paragraphs comprising Chapter 1 are utterly contrived and riddled with allusions to Poe's poem. And that these obvious contrivances set the stage for how the reader is meant to read the novel - beneath, between, and behind the actual lines.

Instead, Lyne takes you now to France, 1921. To adolescence, when a boy's romantic heart is formed. All in soft-focus montages, and so so self-serious. One might even say they loved with a love that was more than love, "[w]ith a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven coveted her and me."

Nabokov, on the other hand, ends Chapter 1 with this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."

Your post is giving me ‘school writing assignment’ flashbacks. My own particular literary hell was ‘5000 words on John Steinbeck’s Of Mice And Men and its various screen adaptions’.

The horror…. The horror….

[MTRodaba2468]

I'm always down for more Kubrick in 4K.

[HundredYearLurker]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Your post is giving me ‘school writing assignment’ flashbacks. My own particular literary hell was ‘5000 words on John Steinbeck’s Of Mice And Men and its various screen adaptions’.

The horror…. The horror….

Dead puppies make me sad. (A+)

For whatever reason, I was never assigned "Lolita", even by the creepy adjunct with the weird hips-forward walk. Right, that guy.

I do really like Kubrick's version, but it's not like it nails Lolita.

Yes, Sue Lyons is too old but she embodies the conniving trickster element better than Swain but perhaps loses some of the wistful longing that's also part of the character.

I'm not sure that anyone quite knows how to portray Quilty, who is part actual character and maybe mostly literary device. Sellers' arch slapstick is an interesting take, but his well-known and outsized persona perhaps overwhelms the character. That also makes him feel like something inserted from outside the bounds of the novel/movie, and that's not exactly wrong. But I do think it can take folks out of the narrative and this is where many critics part ways with Kubrick's approach. On the written page, from an unreliable narrator, it works as artifice. But in a film, even one where we understand we're seeing through someone else's eyes, it can feel too artificial or too removed or just too Peter Sellers.

[White Dang]

Lynn's version with the Morricone score, hope that gets some love eventually. I recently rewatched both and was surprised that my preferred version switched.

But this is great as well!

[traths]

I’m guessing a November release.

[Jay H.]

Excellent novel, and the 1997 movie is great, too.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Prayers for poster art a-la Barry Lyndon.

Anything you ovule be better than the Criterion LD, which was one of the laziest cover efforts of that era.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by HundredYearLurker

Oh dude, no. Lynne (or Schiff, the screenwriter) either failed to comprehend the novel at a fundamental level or simply wanted to film a different story. Which is fine, but I still recall a lot of sentiment around the false notion that it was "more faithful to Nabokov's novel". No. Kubrick's film alters and adds scenes, but nonetheless those alterations and additions more faithfully convey the themes and tone of Nabokov's darkly tragicomic satire than Lyne's lush, gauzy, woozy period piece.
C.[/I]"

Just (finally!) read the book (the annotated edition with excellent supporting material by Alfred Appel) and for me your comments are dead on. If anything even Kubrick's version (which I love) still humanizes, sentimentalizes and takes Humbert more seriously/literally than the book.

[Cvalda]

Well I guess this means there won't be any big tat-riddled Warner Bros Kubrick 4K set in the future lol, unless they make their own discs for Barry Lyndon, this, and (presumably also coming to Criterion) EWS.

[poisonmail]

Well, leaving out specific titles never stopped WB in the past; their big initial 2007 Kubrick drop on BD left off this and Barry Lyndon.

[Snicket]

Finally Criterion is releasing a totally normal movie that people will have totally normal feelings about.

[BluProofie]

Will get this day one and I’m really happy about it but i desperately need EWS . At least Lolita’s blu is acceptable, EWS doesn’t deserve to be trapped on that old disc forever.

[Urizen200]

This is great news. Just like Barry Lyndon, I anticipate a disc release shortly after the screening. Then, what I think most of us have been waiting for: EYES WIDE SHUT. The momentum has been building. LFG!!

[aladdin123]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Your post is giving me ‘school writing assignment’ flashbacks. My own particular literary hell was ‘5000 words on John Steinbeck’s Of Mice And Men and its various screen adaptions’.

The horror…. The horror….

What Steinbeck books have you read, and what is your favorite?

[yoloswegmaster420]

Originally Posted by Driver78

Never seen the Kubrick film but I love the '97 version. It's a gem but apparently we may never see a 4K. The KL Insider responded to someone who asked about it that the Owners wanted too much money.

I'm fairly certain that WB has the '97 version as well, since it was listed on that WB survey from last year (alongside the '62 version). Either it gets added to the Criterion release of the original film or WB releases a standalone version.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by yoloswegmaster420

I'm fairly certain that WB has the '97 version as well, since it was listed on that WB survey from last year (alongside the '62 version). Either it gets added to the Criterion release of the original film or WB releases a standalone version.

Interesting! It was with Samuel Goldwyn previously, Pathe internationally. I don't recall WB going for any of SG's or Pathe's library so that'd be a fascinating development.