Movies from the Heart—Lolita

Last week we looked at a terrific film in the genre of romantic drama. As I said, this is a genre that’s particularly hard to write when your characters lead quiet, kind of repressed, little lives, as such films work to dramatizes repressed love. That film, Remains of the Day, looked at a situation in a grand old English house from the point of view of the servants who lived there. The only thing that film has in common with Lolita is the repressed nature of the main character.

There are two versions of the film I’d like to look at—Lolita [1962] by Vladimir Nabokov and Lolita [1997] by Stephen Schiff. Made 35 years apart, it’s interesting to look at how they treated this delicate story.

Because the story? Well, it’s about a professor who finds he has feelings for a 14-year-old girl. Now, in some people’s eyes, these films glamorized or even legitimized the life of a sexual predator. In fact, distributors saw the 1997 version and refused to distribute it theatrically in the United States, where it was only seen on pay-TV services. But the film did get distribution abroad.

Take a look, first, at the trailer for the 1962 version.

Notice how the whole story is kind of played for fun. Even the music is perky and fun. And you even have funny characters like Peter Sellers in it! You really wouldn’t know that this was a film about a sexual predator. And watching it? It seems weird to say, but for me it’s true—it has an almost comic book vibe about it. I’m not saying that the attempt was to legitimize relationships between middle-aged men and 14-year-old girls, but this film is sort of Lolita-lite when you compare it to the 1997 version.

Now, take a look at the 1997 version in its trailer.

Notice, first, the music. How much more dramatic and edgy is the music in the 1997 version? It’s like two different stories were being dramatized when you look at the 1962 and 1997 versions. You’d never think these two films were telling the same story. And in many ways, they aren’t.

Ironically, the author of the novel from which the film was taken wrote the screenplay for the 1962 version [along with the help of a couple of uncredited screenwriters] and yet that version isn’t at all faithful to the book. But the 1997 version is. Just like the novel, it takes us inside the mind and soul of a sexual predator and lets us see his perversion from his point of view. Of course, he doesn’t want to believe it’s perversion and therein lies the dissonance of the story.

If you’re only able to see one of these films, I’d encourage you to see the 1997 version. It is truly beautiful cinema. When it came out I saw it at a film festival and was devastated to learn no one would give it distribution in America. As the director, Adrian Lyne, and I were represented by the same talent agency, I was able to send him a personal note—where I told him how disheartened I was that a film that I though was genius wasn’t getting the attention it deserved. I’ve never written such a note to a director—but I was so moved by the film that I felt I just had to.

Difficult subjects may be difficult to sell for a screenwriter, so give that some thought as you choose what to write—but follow your instincts, and even if something is tough to tackle, if you’re passionate about it, give it a shot.

Let’s lighten it up next week with a film that falls into the genre of a romantic musical—in fact the first romantic musical I can remember—Meet Me in St. Louis.

Copyright © Diane Lake

20Oct24

Email Diane a question to Diane@DianeLake.com