Defeating EVIL By LAUGHING At It | Analyzing Kubrick’s LOLITA
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2022
- Evil doesn't always look the way we expect it to.
Lolita is a 1962 dark comedy directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on the 1955 novel of the same title by Vladimir Nabokov.
Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures | Filmmakers Behind the Scenes | Warner Bros. Entertainment: • Stanley Kubrick A Life...
SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS
Instagram: / empire_of_the_mind
Facebook: / empire-of-the-mind-102...
Twitter: / _empireofmind
PATREON: / empireofthemind
Email: theempireofthemind@gmail.com
“Just because we laugh, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t swing the sword when doing so.”
Great line
The blonde is a pre-teen? Good lord she looks 20.
I should probably watch the movie.
😇
I honestly saw Lolita as someone who was told her whole life she was a spiteful little monster, so she became one. I recall for years being told when I was crying when my father shouted at the top of lungs for any - and I really mean any - reason, that I was trying to manipulate him by crying and it was all an act anyways, I wasn't "really" scared. I was just a girl terrified of her father's anger but it was called manipulation. And in my preteens and teens I was manipulative and deceitful, not only because I felt that was my only defense from abuse, but because I was called a little lying manipulator from day one. I didn't consciously think "well if you're going to call me a little liar I'll be one", but it was drilled into my head that's what I was. It took no small amount of therapy to break me out of the cycle of reaching for manipulation first, rather than communicating my thoughts and feelings and needs in a healthy way, and to stop fearing retribution for being honest and upfront.
Lolita was already a victim of her flippant and frankly cold mother calling her a liar and a monster, and Quilty preying on her. it's no wonder Humbert was able to manipulate her so easily - she never had a good example of love at all.
Very good
@@catscratchfever7540 you sound apologetic.
meh, grew up with a single mom that hated my dad, likely hated all males, and she said i looked and acted just like him. grew up being told i'm useless, worthless, a piece of shit, etc etc etc. No matter what, started working when I was 5 years old cutting lawns to bring home money, just a worthless POS, getting spanked every day because someone stole something from me (one of HER boyfriends, i found out later) - went on until i ran away at 18, because she didn't want me to leave the house, even though I was nothing but a fuck up
I'm 43 or 44 now, my wife remembers tht for me, 6 kids, and they know that they're loved, but when they do something wrong, I correct them an explain why. I refuse to be my mom or my dad, and while i carry a lot of anger inside of me, I still see myself as a fuck up. my anger is what pushes me to not be what I was told I was.
I've made peace with my mom, she grew up in a bad household, she was a young single mom and couldn't put food on the table, we've made our peace - but don't become what they want you to be. take your beatings, endure, but choose for yourself who you want to become. Your scars are your past, and no matter how much of you is covered in scars, inside and out, they are just one part of you - they are NOT you.
Find that original, hurting, broken person inside of you, that part that's scared, crying and hurting, and tear down the walls and everything you built up to keep that small part safe, and live a life that you can be proud of, and to hell with what anyone else says!
@@DavidAKZ about what or are you just projecting?
The book is not told from the point of view of Delores Haze, it is told from Humbert's unreliable memory. We are never told how she feels but we are told of her reactions and behaviors and we can only surmise.
Lolita is a book narrated by Humbert Humbert (a pseudonym), written as a defense and justification of himself. He is an unreliable narrator. All of the characters are presented through his lens. Humbert would like the jury, the reader, and himself to believe that Dolores, a 12-year-old girl from whom he has stolen her childhood, her autonomy, and even her name, is his seducer and he her victim. Humbert tells himself he "loves" "Lolita" (a name only he calls her) as he keeps her imprisoned by her dependence on him after her mother's death. Indeed, her only hope for escape comes from another predator.
In an interview with the Paris Review in which the interviewer says that "Humbert, while comic, retains a touching and insistent quality-that of the spoiled artist," Nabokov notes, "I would put it differently: Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching.' That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl."
You don't get it. You are female? Only a man over forty five understands the true meaning. It is not physical...not really.
I am a former major crimes Detective and have conducted far too many investigations of this type of assault with children and adults as victims as well as the suspect interviews and I found this to be an excellent examination of the film and of the subject matter. I found your statement about evil not looking an expected way to be accurate and I even knew a fellow Detective who not only had to leave the squad but left law enforcement all together when he saw a bit too much of himself in a unassuming suspect and it shook him to his core. Law enforcement is difficult but conducting these investigations are too much for most law enforcement.
While people focus on the H.H. and his crimes/bad behavior. No one looks that she left him for a worse person. Had he not been in the story everything bad that happened to her still would have happened… Quilty had already made his impression on her .
This doesn’t take away any guilt on HH’s part but Lo was handing out minor-rape charges. People see the story of a pedophile when it’s really a story of a bad mother raising a bad kid .
I am also a private detective and contractor. What shook me to the core was realizing just how evil and vile my own mother(narc) is. If you were to study her and my family. You would have probably ran a campaign to have her publicly hung. Witchcraft has been punished and burned at the stake in the past for a very legitimate reason. Unfortunately evil has stolen the hearts and minds of far to many people these days. As you may have found out for certain is that God and the devil are very real
@@rppope1006 hanged ..
Guess RP was full of poop
You're not alone, I was repeatedly handling aspects of the Dutroux case, and it just grinds on and on. Weinstein's main thread dives back through history, and it's pervasive. That leaves me unable to see the humour, not because they're far from what they think they are, but from concern it's still going on, which is heartbreaking.
Poor Sue Lyon, who was so great in this movie, was preyed upon by James B Harris, the producer. He groomed her and had some sort of affair with her. In later years, she said her experience on Lolita essentially derailed her life, which ended up being very chaotic and unhappy. Such a tragedy.
She was a better match for the part than the girl in the 1997 version.
It's not the mummy, it's Frankenstein's monster. The difference is extremely important: "The curse of Frankenstein" is a story about power and corruption told in first person by an insane individual. "The Mummy" is a love story.
"I love Mummy and I love Hummy"
Though the Hammer mummy films (and any Universal films after the original) always had a person controlling a mummy. Although there are elements to the love story in the Hammer mummy, he still murders a lot of people not out of love but because his controller has a strong vendetta against those that removed artifacts and mummies from Egypt. The love story is only a strong presence in the Imhotep mummy. I think for the rest of the films is Kharis. Comparing the Universal films to their Hammer equivalents is like comparing fruit to vegetables.
So he is technically right about control, he is still very wrong about the monster.
Great observation!
"Evil often wears kind and friendly face" so true. 😇
Indeed it does. As an ex-police officer I can attest to that.
And screams loudly about how kind, compassionate and inclusive it is.
I want to thank you for making this video, although it was obviously uncomfortable to do. I'm a survivor of long term sexual abuse at a young age and I was around a number of different predators of this type into my teen years. I believe Kubrick did the right thing by making this film because for some of us, this topic is not just an issue to be occasionally pondered, but a day-to-day fact of life, and the lack of public acknowledgement of it is actually very disconcerting and makes it easier to confuse and gaslight victims. If people outside your abusive situation don't understand the dynamics of grooming and abuse, it's very difficult for them to recognize that it is happening, especially since many abusers are very glib and charming, and can often make people's concerns disappear with a smile and a friendly comment. I saw it happen in my life again and again and again, because my abusers we're intelligent, friendly and funny people, at least in public. This film outlines how it is possible for this to happen, and even if it's painful to watch, it's just as important as an anti-war film or anti-corruprion film for educating and informing the public of the harsh realities of life.
At least that's my take on it. Thank you again for addressing this topic so thoughtfully, and I have really enjoyed all your videos on Kubrick's films. Keep up the stellar work!
@Ariel Holden @Empire of the Mind It's foolish of this site to talk about evil in this context, as that's not remotely what Nabakov thought of his grim subject matter. Nor is Lolita a comedy. Just a bizarre misapprehension by this site of everything that was going on. We can certainly decide sex abuse is evil (I believe it is evil) but like it or not, that's not at all what either the writer or the director thought about it in its primary sense.
@@johnstrawb3521 so what did Nabakov think?
@@johnstrawb3521 I disagree the book made the predators look like predators some may relate to humble but I fantasized his murder the whole way through. I feel it was intentional on the writers part. People will see it how they see it .
@@johnstrawb3521 Has Nabokov ever discussed his intentions in Lolita?
@@Asehpe yes.
Personally, I think that every Kubrick films is about control, in every considerably form.
They are about other things as well, of course, but control is always a theme.
And pedophilia
Yep
Nailed it
I watched the 90's version as a teenager because I like Jeremy Irons. Made me feel dirt and uncomfortable at the same time. The amount of pain created by a false love that predators use to reel it their pray.
Oof Frank Langella
Why would it make you feel dirty and uncomfortable unless you share some wretched fantasy of your own? Did you read the book? Lolita seduces Humbert and he is not her first lover. The book is beautifully written and has everything from rich prose to Greek mythology to entomology. I recommend the annotated version. The additional information might just quell your misgivings.
@@thomaspeters5889Nabokov himself said that the Nymphet Lolita was just in Humbert mind and that he was the monster.
I watched it in my teens as well but I felt like Lolita was the predator and Humbert was the victim.
@@Reprodestruxion That scene of him running around naked was memorable.
Excellent analysis of a film that's intriguing yet always leaves me with a very cold and queasy feeling. Watching the teenage Lolita character go from a scheming child to manipulative too soon adult was what I always picked up on. Especially in the car scene where Humbert tells Lolita that they're on an extended vacation. She has a knowing look that says 'I've been here before but got away before it got serious' and she's weighing the cost of taking that step she never took before. I always took it as she's been surrounded by predators most of her life an decides that Humbert may be easier to manipulate and control then Quilty.
I keep learning Kubrick was even more brilliant than I previously realized.
There is a reason why he is my favorite director. I also like Tarantino, but Kubrick blows him and everyone else way out of the water. Hitchcock is also up there with Kubrick.
@@pandakicker1 I would add Akira Kurosawa. Masterful filmmaker as well.
@@LoneCloudHopperbergman and tarkovsky
Wonderful analysis. My nana's favorite movie was Kubrick's Lolita and she was always so frustrated that it was so iffy to talk about. She knew laughing evil in the face all too well, my grandfather hated her and her family because they were raging antisemites, laughing through the divorce instead of giving into it was the solution in her eyes, I think that's why she connected to this movie so much. She also really loved Kubrick's interpretation of Dolores, she figured that a child being treated like an adult WOULD be sassy and quick-witted. It was her first Kubrick film and it remained her favorite til she passed away. Again, amazing insight- I've never made the spartacus connection before, thats interesting
When compared to the book, this movie tends to fall short. However, it tells the same message and is equally haunting....but in a way only film can be. Thanks for letting me see that
Movies usually fall short of the book and lack the details of the plot and sub-plots.
I recently tried to read Lolita. But I only managed about ten pages before I felt physically sick, so I imagine that this video is the closest I'll come to actually reading this story or seeing this movie. I do think that it's a good word of caution - that evil can come in unexpected forms and that sometimes, whether by laughing with it or otherwise, we might be closer to it than we think. We might not be predators, but we do all have dark places within us. And it is our duty to resist and overcome it.
I get why this was a hard video to make. Make sure to treat yourself and detox for the next couple of days - you deserve it!
I haven’t read the book either, and I think I can probably live my life pretty contentedly without ever reading it… Thanks for watching the video, even though it was a tough one!
It’s easy to see how a person could not make it through more than a few pages of the book .. but it is a masterpiece of literature as well as its beautifully written using the English language as an instrument to make beautiful music.
The novel is not graphic at all with any description of what they do together . There are no details other than the thoughts of love in his mind . You only think it’s bad because you know how young she is .
The video shows that the author did not read the book or he would have a better grasp for the story and their motivations. It’s a good movie but the book is spectacular and one of the best telling of a story in the history of novels .
I would not suggest reading it to anyone that is uncomfortable with it though. Broke back mountain might be a super good movie but I’ll never see it . I had friends that could not make it through “ the rocky horror picture show “ . I hear that Michelle Angelo’s David has his junk out , I guess that perverse so that out too .
totally understandable. definitely comes off as a smut novel written by an actual p3d0. if it weren't a well-written literary classic, I wouldn't have bothered. as it were, I felt very gross just for reading it, which I guess was the point. it was an important study of the horrors of s3xu@l abuse, the damaged minds of the people who do it, and the lives it can destroy.
For pleasure, read one chapter of Nabokov. For punishment, two.
@@milestonowheres - WELL SAID! | Thank you, for deflating these pompous, andti-intellectual fellows and their cocktail-party postures of moral superiority, BECAUSE they have not read the novel.
Somewhat like the character Alex in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (not the Anthony Burgess novel) a person who is utterly loathsome and morally repugnant, Humbert Humbert, also happens to be brilliant, witty, and hard to not enjoy. It's easy to portray a monster and invite condemnation from the reader or viewer. It's far more challenging - and disturbing - to make a monster somehow appealing, in spite of our condemnation, because we are now left with the uneasy feeling of complicity. When art portrays evil in all it's complexities and contradictions the viewer or reader is more likely to perceive the morally gray territory that all of us have in ourselves. As with the cinematic Alex, we like Humbert Humbert on some level and because of this we're not afforded a comfortably rightous distance from the evil we experience.
In fact, the possibility of doing this -- creating a monster that is appealing -- calls into question the very concept of 'monster'. Not that I am pleading for moral relativism, but if monsters can be appealing, even vey appealing, does it ever come to a point in which you simply can't tell if someone is a monster or not?
Peter Sellers improvised a lot of his lines. And yes, with Kubrick's blessing
To improvise when your source is Nabakov is quite as bad as improvising during the middle of a performance of Lear. It's past ridiculous to the point of being intellectually and artistically repulsive.
Actually, while Sellers is an always engaging actor, his scenes in this movie go on way too long, especially the Dr Zemph scene.
@@johnstrawb3521 What Nabakov was to literature, Peter Sellers was to comedy.
Quilty's "normal" dialogue with Humbert is absolute comedy genius. It's no wonder Kubrick was enthralled with him.
Found this guy content yesterday. I subbed in just 3 minutes in and I'm watching all his videos
Same except I went through this process over a year ago
Came across this channel a day ago. Great content.
I admire your videos, anticipate and appreciate them. Keep going man.
I love that you coincidentally starting doing Kubrick movies a month after I rewatched and was mesmerized by them - although - I still haven’t seen this one 😅
Another great video, EotM. And yes, this movie deserves to exist.
What's truly remarkable is how Kubrick, way back in 1962, or even before, understood the corruption of Hollywood and academia and how they preyed on the minds and bodies of young people and infected the dreams of all. He is kind of a prophet, after all.
@@shimbro7610 eyes wide shut is way deeper than kubrick saying hollywood and the elite bad
the movie represent lust and desire in all of us not just the elite
Loved eyes wide shut, while taking about the elite and their secret it also talks about marriage infidelity, Christmas and consumerism and just sexual obsession.
@Shim Bro Eyes Wide Shut was his magnum opus on how are society really functions - each level of power let’s us have or perceived freedom & desires as long as it serves them & we are there to serve their desires - the second we get out of place - we are sent back down swiftly
He was able to see the lessons of history devoid of political lense, and portray those lessons in allegory and metaphor, right under the noses of the very people germinating the seeds for the death of free society. A true auteur genius. It is a shame they caught on.
I think the lesson he's drawing from in Lolita is the lesson of the German state. Before it collapsed after WW1 and later was seduced by Adolf Hitler and the Reich. It's purely conjecture on my part, but I think the allusions are there.
Everybody in Hollywood knew that.
I as well had some misgivings about watching this review but, you handled this subject in a very elegant manner. And I agree with you about "laughter." Laughter, I think, is the antidote that neutralizes evil!
I just found your channel last night and I haven't stopped watching your works of art, about those incredible cinematic works of art. For me, your movie reviews or analyses, that I watched so far, are simply spot on. You take those, so called, "movie reviews" to a completely different level, my friend! You've inspired me to watch some these movies again and to enjoy them but from a different perspective. Thank you for sharing.
I'd like to thank you for the reminder, that there always could be a jolly looking psychopath trying to toy with us - and if you're smart enough, you could subvert his game against him.
But Dolores/Lolita ends up dead in the end, while the monsters write their memoirs.
@@Badficwriter i'd consider it as a lesson by example.
I dont know about humbert being a psychopath in the film he couldnt get himself to shoot charlotte quilty though seems to be a sociopathic character
This is the 3rd video of your I've watched and your insights are fantastic! Thank you sir!
A whole new way of looking at a film I've watched for years. Many thanks!
Just discovered your channel a couple of days ago and have been binge watching your Kubrick series. Absolutely phenomenal work brother. Love that you use Kierkegaard as a fulcrum for your analysis - super underrated Master right there.
And I particularly love your bravery in pointing out that all the main characters - even the victim - express the singular human flaw...self absorption...and thus treat others in ways they would not want to be treated, by dehumanising and objectifying those they seek to control.
I practice The Way of Mastery a Non Dual liberation pathway and it is extremely rare for me to hear an essayist on CZcams (or anywhere else) describe the incredible balancing act required to live as an authentic self actualised being in an illusory dualistic world.
You did exactly that when you called us to be innocent like a doves and shrewd as serpents.
This is the very definition of a Master or self realised being - innocent as a child, wise as a sage.
If you or your audience understand both the necessity and difficulty of achieving this balance you may enjoy my channel.
Either way keep up the great work 👋
Your Channel is such a wonderful thing; so glad I came across it!
I’ve always loved Peter Sellers. I think this is his best performance. Kubrick cast the film very well and insightfully in picking him.
This video was a graceful dance through very dangerous subject matter. Brilliantly done. There are certainly different levels of evil in this world and this is surely up there towards the top. I think it's uncomfortable to think about for very obvious reasons but it's also insightful to the human condition. I think by getting a glimpse of evil it can often times, if we look carefully, reflect a little of our own, perhaps not the same kind, but our own flaws we carry.
I definitely think he was taking a shot a Hollywood elite - the timing of the film was right after Spartacus where he really became disenfranchised by working with studios in Hollywood - maybe he himself felt preyed upon - I think in this line it’s also a warning about who we look up to and idealize in this community - especially in the early days of Hollywood young girls, even men were quite exploited…… even today I find it quite odd these people are put on such high pedestals- Harvey Weinstein was just the top of the ice berg - very much like the neighbor saying she hears every word - instead of reporting or confronting the abuse - she just asked can you keep it down - no one in that community really wants to do anything about the abuse as long as it’s kept quiet as not to disturb them or run their face in it - this exploitation has been known for years and years - it’s even explored in Pinocchio of all places - I dare say the reason many in that community may have liked the book and the movie was they identified with it, missing the point that it was aimed at them - last observation, a critic mentioned that they made Humbert more likeable than the book component, I wouldn’t use the word “likeable”, towards the end of the movie I used the word “palatable”, I told my wife the way the made him semi-charming & vulnerable made this very uncomfortable movie more watchable, if he came off more creepy (realistic) I’m not sure many of us could make it through, it may have amplified the creepiness to a level that was unwatchable - Probably going to comment a few times - having just watched with my wife and taking time to digest - I think as you lay out - multiple related things were being explored…..
Kubrick wasn't that great a man. He was party to abusing actresses like Shelley Duvall and did he mention the producer groomed the actress playing Lolita in this film?
This essay reminds me of another book I had a devil of a time getting through, American Psycho, talk about dark. You did an excellent job reviewing Lolita, maybe I will take another look at it.
I saw the movie decades ago and have not seen, nor had the inclination to see, it again because I found it so deeply troubling. By the same token, I hesitated and very nearly didn't listen to your essay; only bringing myself to do so by admitting how wonderful your essays are, and remembering just how much I have enjoyed them.
While that troubling feeling did return, you have managed, in part, to exorcise the demon and I am thankful to you for that. The film's black view that everyone manipulates and strives to control had defeated me. But you point out that all this results from a lack of virtue and that we can escape such a life by consciously examining our motives; and those of others. While there is much more in your essay, on its own, that is enough for me.
Thanks for being brave and finally facing it, and thanks for shifting something in my own perspective.
You're right that the film is hard to re-watch. Every adult is despicable, and there's an undercurrent of evil everywhere behind the smiling faces and manicured lawns. The sexual innuendos probably number over a hundred. The opening ping-pong scene with Quilty is probably my favorite Peter Sellers performance, though. I can watch that 100 times.
I'm glad I found your channel, definitely good content my friend
Wow- just found you today! Superb analysis and you literally quoted what I said yesterday about CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. Evil needs to be revealed but its horrible to dissect and focus on. Subbed!
Brilliant analysis thanks for this
fantastic insights - i've avoided this movie and the confusing meaning behind Lolita in general ... this shed a lot of light on how to approach the work, ty
I logged in wondering if there were a review of clockwork orange, came to this channel first, and see you've just uploaded this on kubrick. Thank you...
amazing... wonderful work.
Life on earth is an immersion in the knowledge of both good and evil. And based on this truth the video essay is essential viewing.
*Yes, you missed something:* @26:30 by writing off as "evil" Lolita's self-defense mechan-isms from being sexually groomed at a _very_ young age, you are guilty of making the sad mistake of blaming the victim. Charlotte may never wanted to have children in the first place, but is that Lolita's fault? No, it shouldn't. Does Lolita deserve what's happened to her just because she doesn't have "a winning personality" as a result of all that abuse? Of course not. Honestly...
Thank you for this remarkable video. It was a deep journey into a forest filled with darkness. In my ideal world, education would include a compulsory 1-year high school course examining the films of Stanley Kubrick.
I’m surprised they would let you watch Lolita - based on an often banned book.
What a great channel!
I fully understand your feelings with regard to addressing the subject matter of this Kubrick film, (perhaps more personally than many), but in comparison to the more recent rendition of the novel in film ( very well done in a more serious vein)…I find the Kubrick version more expository of the multiple viewpoints expressed.
Your insight into the application of comedy to the distasteful subject, and it’s ability to provide points at which the relentless pressure of attempting to relate to any of its characters, (not one of whom can be seen is a positive moral light) can be partially relieved is brilliant.
I am about to watch this a second time, as I feel the quality of this essay will provide deeper meanings yet, on a second pass. Thank you.🖤🇨🇦
Admittedly, I don't think about any of these things when I watch Kubrick films.. but, since Im totally engrossed in these vids, I get to pretend I'm a smart/deep-thinker for a little while 🤓
Interesting connection between the Lolita furniture line and the moving furniture repressing ghosts in the Shining.
In the animal kingdom, predators DO love their prey. Really more than anything else. That's the thing. And human lust gets tricky in the same way. Perhaps it's when one person tries to control another (or others) that can we start talking about "evil." And this control can take the form of sex, power, money or whatever. But it's the intent to manipulate, deceive, and control that's the differentiator in all this.
That's not true bro wanting to mate and "love" doesnt equal the same thing lol wanna take that up with dolphins or lions? Sh!t, some birds even lol
Brilliant! Thank you.
I still love Lolita through and through its just done so well you don't know who to feel bad for
Another great review, Thanks! And I see Master and Comander as one of the best movies ever made, your review was great.
Children can't control adults unless the adults allow it for their own twisted purposes.
We're all jolly little predators because in the end we lack the stamina to face reality and take personal responsabiity. It's such fun.
You seem to confuse escapism with violence. The former requires only not watching the news and reading novels, comics, and watching movies. The latter requires striking, grappling, stabbing and shooting others. If we lacked the stamina to face reality, we wouldn't read newspapers, encyclopedias or textbooks, nor watch news or documentaries--or fictional movies about child molesters!
The realization of all evil a man has done in his life would lead him insane. Luckily we do not fully realize all wrongdoings we have done- many of it was unintentional, many of it was opportunistic, fun and finally justified in our mind- so we could maintain our sanity.
Fantastic discussion! New subber.
Lolita was my first girlfriend's favorite book. I really should have seen that as more of a red flag than I did....
Why, because it gave her more understanding of how predatory men operate?
@@radicalcartoons2766 Have you watched the film? She was the one manipulating and using the men. All the way through. She was also in love with the older actor. She was not a victim, by any means.
Perhaps she identified with a girl defiled by a pedophile. As a child, she has to be the victim.
@@rnt45t1in Kubericks film, yes. In the book? Hell no, she's a 12 year old child who's kidnapped by her step father and abused for years 🤦♀️ as the narrator of the story he tells the reader and Jury she seduced him because thats what many predators do.
'Have you watched the film?'
Have you read the book? 😂
Great closing line.
A very good take on an often very misunderstood movie. Turning Nabokov's almost unendurable book into a deeply black comedy elevated it into Kubrick's very own personal take on men-made evil (similar to what he did with King's "The Shining") and not into some mushy, semi-erotic psychological hodgepodge like Adrian Lyne's version which is said to be much closer to the literary template. I believe this is a film about the evil that is by nature and inherently a part of every human being and not a general evil in the broader biblical sense (so your images of hell could be slightly misleading). For example, when you state that the shot of Lolita in the garden cuts to "the mummy" you are mistaken as it is a scene from Hammer's "The curse of Frankenstein" from 1957, indicating that she too (Lolita) is kind of a man-made "monster" that will finally destroy it's maker. But through this important comparison Kubrick implies that it is NOT Lolita who is the true monster of this story by "seducing" a "weak fallable intellectual" as Humbert (and Quilty before him) but Humbert himself which is sometimes easy to forget as the story is told from his perspective. I'm quite frankly shocked whenever someone attributes the evil intend in this film to Dolores as a lot of pedophiles adopt this kind of reasoning for their own frightful motivations. So what the film does so brilliantly is turn us, the spectators, into fellow perpetrators of Humbert and this is what makes it such an incredible hard watch...
Nabokov wrote the screenplay for this film.
Technically he did. A famous 400 page draft that Kubrick condensed and used very little of, very much to Nabokov‘s chagrin (although he sometimes said he liked the film)
This was excellent. You should be proud.
This movie , and this commentary on it, most definately should have been made. You did a keenly insightful job of breaking down the dynamics happening within the film. And its important because this most closely depicts what its like to be an actual human living in the actual world. There are no purely good or bad characters. Noone completely hero or villain., or victim. But we all are all of these. Time and circumstance and self examination, and decision affecting us and acting upon us as we act upon others. Desire, and fear are the prime movers in our lives. Love is what we have come to call it. But theres little actual love in it. " wise as serpents, harmless as doves" ..yeah right.
The evil mind is a road Kubrick sometimes takes in this film and in A Clockwork Orange.
One can feel dirty afterwards. I also experience that after watching Seven.
All Stanley kubrick films are funny, I think he uses humour in all of his films even the shining...Paths of glory is a serious subject but he makes it ridiculous and hilarious. Eyes wide shut is very funny, lolita is very funny He had a great sense of humour , some might call it a dark sense of humour. James Mason is hilarious. I'm going to watch it again. The female mannequins scene is similar to the masked ball in eyes wide shut.
You're just one big ball of laughs.
I also have a dark sense of humor and Kubrick is my favorite.
ive had a Kubrick DVD boxset for decades now and ive NEVER watched Lolita. I popped it in the other day really dreading a 2 and a half hour movie about a creep but i ended up absolutely loving it. It was so...SMART. i dont know WHY i expected any less from the master. What an amazing film.
Now I understand why Epstein's plane was called "Lolita Express". 🤔
The reformed orthodox rabbi Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer.
Lolita is the nickname of the story's character Dolores.
"Dolores" = 34 in the Full Reduction of gematria
"Epstein" = 34 in the the Full Reduction of gematria
"Dolores" = 88 [ordinal]
"Epstein" = 88 [ordinal]
"Trump" = 88 [ordinal]
"Bill Clinton" = 88 [ordinal]
"St. James Island" = 88 [ordinal]
"Dolores" = 31 [Chaldean]
"Epstein" = 31 [Chaldean]
"Dolores" = 333 [Satanic cipher]
"Epstein" = 333 [Satanic cipher]
"Dolores" = 528 [Sumerian cipher]
"Epstein" = 528 [Sumerian cipher]
"Trump" = 528 [Sumerian cipher]
"Dolores" = 101 [Reverse Ordinal]
"Epstein" = 101 [Reverse Ordinal]
"Dolores" = 666 in Reverse Sumerian
The Lolita Express Jet's registration number belongs to the State as a "State Department Plane".
@@elkstereidolon3523 okay.. thanks.
But, that word/number thing..
I can't think of a worse way to waste ones time and thoughts.
Trump met Epstein at Mara largo.
After he left he called him a creep.
He later warned authorities that Epstein was into human trafficking and pedophilia but they ignored him.
He was about to sign an executive order to release the client list as POTUS.
But please keep the number thing to yourself unless you want people to know you're a whack job.
The kind of people who think that's an actual thing are the same that believe in psychics and read National Enquirer.
I see one of the comments were deleted (about Trump and his past perversions). That definitely means it was all truth. And truth that certain people do not want seen. Quite right?
@@elkstereidolon3523 There were no comments deleted. There were no such comments made. There were no such perversions. They wish there were something...anything they could pin on Trump. Because they're terrified of being brought to justice.
The last 5 years have been a desperate struggle to find anything at all to save themselves.
Also involved are the communist rats of the CCP.
They've gone so far as to place hundreds, even thousands of bots, like YOU all over social media. To do basically what you have done here.
To give the false impression that there's dissenting opinions on Trump, and to do as you attempted to do, which is make up complete lies. If anything gets said about any sort of "corruption" then that's a red flag for most of us. Means it's made up. He's squeaky clean. If there was anything in his past they'd have found it already believe me.
Oh.... And remember that Stormy Daniels? Remember her lawyer on every daytime talk show levelling all sorts of accusations against trump, swearing he had all this "indisputable evidence" ? Remember?
Yea, because that clown is sitting in prison for all of that fraud. Ms. Daniels suing him for making her lie then not paying her the money he promised if she did.
So, anyway.... You are a pathetic LIAR. Not one single American believes a single word of anything you've said.
Donald Trump WILL BE POTUS.
All the Washington pedos will go down.
The CCP will go down.
And heads WILL roll down the capitol stairs. And there's nothing you commies can do about it.
Lolita was such a weird comedy. It was genuinely hilarious.
I just found your channel today through the algorithm. I've really enjoyed this review as well as your hour-length one on Barry Lyndon. As a Christian, I thoroughly agree that we shouldn't be spending most of our time in tree in the tree of knowledge.
This movie might be hard to see. But I have only read the book, by Nabokov. It's disturbing and brilliant, each in its own way . If you really want something to think about, read Lolita. I agree with your assessments on the video, because the novel will make your skin crawl.
It's a hilarious book. Kubrick adapted a black comedy novel written by Nabakov into a black comedy film with a screenplay by Nabakov.
The belief that the novel is text for sexual criminality is like believing Blatty's _The Exorcist_ is text for Satanism. Nabokov states clearly in the forward that Humbert is garbage:
_"I have no intention to glorify "H.H." No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness."_
The book is a continuation of Edgar Allen Poe's _Annabel Lee_ (1849) & is about far more than it's subject's crimes - it's about the human condition, it's universal pains, deviant horrors, & absurdities, as well as the barbarism of a post-war America.
There's a reason _Lolita_ is recognized as one of the best novels of the 20th century.
At 19:25, Women are called "furniture" in the book and movie, Soylent Green.
26:06 if that was even true half of the time, we'd all be child predators due to the huge numbers they have. Also- Lolita is told from HIS twisted perspective, in which is he is the lovesick victim, so of course he tells it like she's the manipulative one, which is part of the rationalizations and delusions certain types of predators use to justify and excuse their actions. There's also a psychological phenomena in which people start to blame victims when they feel powerless to help-probably because it then becomes less painful for the observer because if both parties share some responsibility, then the true horror doesn't have to be dealt with- the world isn't so bad after all, and you can rest easy. You avoid looking into the abyss, so it doesn't look back into you.
Not an easy video to make, but you did it with great taste and sensitivity.
Laughing and embarrassing preds is what made Chris Hansen so famous
Lolita, jump a little higher! Seniorita, come sit by my fire!
5:30 to laugh and cry without pause , as if one were playing a musical instrument… is the mark of madness, which is the very least evil would have us be.
Really interesting movie, this video has presented me with new insights I'd not before considered.
idk why ppl say stuff like it was the hardest script i wrote for a video ect ect like bro the movie is about predatory and abuse but it doesn't have any crazy scene that take the subject to another level ppl act as if someone took a dumb on them such overreaction to a story that is not the most disturbing when it comes to this subject
Great video! What's the name of the painting at 6:20?
This is one of those rare instances where I have read the book but not seen the movie. I should watch it.
This movie had a liberation effect back then I was 16 In 76
Let us imagine that man has no natural enemy he must continually be on the lookout for. But then this could mean that man is his own natural enemy. He is the supreme apex predator because he also preys on his own kind.
Well done
Sickening.but very well done thankyou
Lolita is a great look into the experience of the “shared fantasy” in NPD.
"Lines" NEED to be crossed so we can learn where the line is, and more importantly, when weve crossed it.
You are spot on about the knowledge of evil being a curse and that we are better of eating the fruit of the tree of life rather than the tree of knowledge (ie be as innocent as doves) however than is not a reason the film shouldn't have been made. There are no shoulds in life.
The reason it is a mistake to pay too much attention to evil is twofold.
From a dualistic perspective the reason is what you alluded to and what Nietzsche outlined with his quote about the abyss staring back at you if you stare at it too long.
But there is a deeper Non dual reason not to fixate on the evil in the world and that is the fact that the world is a mirror.
It reflects the inner world of human consciousness.
Simply put everything we see "outside" is a symbolic representation of what is "inside"
This is so because Non Duality means that there is no "out there" out there.
ALL is Awareness and ALL appears within Awareness.
So when we fixate on the evil out there we are missing the most pertinent fact - the one required for growth healing and awakening - the fact that the evil we see in the world is a reflection of our own unowned shadow.
This is the "shrewd as serpents" part of the balancing act I mentioned in my previous comment.
In short the only evil we need to be knowledgeable of is our own.
As Solzhenitsyn put it...
“The line between good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart.”
Excellent presentation. Your summation would seem to cast doubt on Iago, Richard III and Edmund as characters to be presented to an audience for fear their evil would rub off on them
ahhaha Kierkegaard is hilarious
Excellent to find a thoughtful breakdown of S.K’s Lolita with good parallels of message from other commentators and thinkers. Locations of where control is found and trying to peek into their objectives is a reasoned attempt to understand. Reasoning is the golden key I guess. Watching this recently and thinking about it, another question I had was regarding the female that accompanies Quilty. Is she there solely so that Quilty is not portrayed as a lonely presence like H.H ? or does she represent something shared in Quilty’s hidden practice? She is clearly not a conventional romantic partner. Improved respect for both Shelley Winters and James Mason’s abilities as actor and actress.Mediocre for P.S. S.K continues to provoke questions.
Ghislaine Maxwell...
Extending what this video says, Quilty and her could also be another example of the controller being controlled. Quilty says when talking to the hotel receptionist: "she's a yellow belt, I'm a green belt, that's the way nature made it" (green belt is a higher rank), but then he says that she throws him all over the place. So, even though he is naturally a controller, he still is controlled by her.
@6:34 What is the scripture quoted? Is it psalms or Hebrews? Thank you!
@20:00, the quote.
This is NPD. That is a narcissists artistic journey
The narcissist is an artist and he is the art and you are the canvas.
this is a good review, of a tremendous film. I don't agree there is doubt the film should have been made it is quite relevant, deep, and tho disturbing, important lessons are in it and social observations, a cautionary tale.
You pretty much summed up why Mel Brooks always had Nazi jokes in his movies. He wanted to make Hitler such a laughingstock that nobody could ever take him seriously again.
But we need to take the monsters among us seriously. Making comedy about them is a way of desensitising you towards them.
@@radicalcartoons2766 Just because people use comedy to mock evil figures doesn't mean they're not taken seriously. Brooks was a soldier in WW2. He fought nazis. He was a radio operator who spread mocking jabs in German across the airwaves to piss of nazis and their sympathizers. He knew the evil inherent in their ideology and he wanted to expose that evil as petty, cruel and self-defeating. He did the same thing with Blazing Saddles.
The problem comes when people are poorly educated and miss the forest from the trees.
Our deepest darkest secrets and desires on display, how quiet we become, how we turn away.
It's always stunned me how this movie snuck so many hints at degenerate things going on behind the scenes at a time when they would have been unthinkable in the cultural zeitgeist, besides the obvious one of lust for an underage girl of course. If you have a relatively uncorrupted mind and/or aren't paying attention, you wouldn't even notice this movie referenced swinging, voyeurism, and mentioned what at the time would have been the fledgling pornography industry.
Kubrick was known to be a porn addict.
@@radicalcartoons2766 boy, you sure like telling us that.
It is true that evil can mask itself with great cunning.
I think this film short changes who gross this movie actually is for a couple of reasons. First, in the book Lolita is 12 years old and Nabokov goes to great lengths to make it clear she was not yet a woman and still appeared to be a child. This makes Humbert's act disgusting in a way that doesn't come though in the movie. Kubrick cast Sue Lyon specifically because she was very developed physically for her age and looked and acted a lot older than she was. Lyon was 15 at the time but could easily have passed for 20. She was a beautiful young woman who no longer looked like a child. This makes Humbert's lust for her much less shocking and more palatable than it was in the book. And Kubrick did that intentionally.
Second, the really sickening thing about this movie that doesn’t get mentioned here is that Sue Lyon, who played Lolita and was barely 15 at the time of the filming ended up having an affair with the producer of the film presumably with Kubrick’s knowledge. Lyon ended up deeply harmed by the affair and in later years described Lolita as “the film that ruined my life “. Lyon ended up throwing away a promising career in Hollywood and spend her life going from one bad relationship to the next and finally dying in poverty a few years ago.
Given what happened to Lyon during the filming, I have a hard to believing that Kubrick saw Hubert as particularly evil. It is a gross film and frankly not worth watching. I wished I had never seen it when I later found out about what happened to Sue Lyon during the filming
Something to be said about what Kubrick was and Hollywood as a whole. Rules for thee and not for me.
Interesting. It will not surprise you to learn that Kubrick was known to be a porn addict.
Kubrick chose a 15-year-old rather than the book’s 12-year-old because the Hays Code forbade those things. With the young but sexually developed Lyons it became a more conventional tale of a young woman and an older man. The audience would therefore be more sympathetic of Hubert with a sexy actress than with Nabokov’s child. There was also a rumor of a relationship the producer had with her. at 15 she was probably victimized by the experience. She had five husbands and a career that faltered
You can also tell when someone has only watched this film and not read the book/watched the 90s adaptation of Lolita when they insist Dolores was the seductress/predator and Humbert was the poor defenceless victim 😏🫤
28:20 Well said, my friend, well said, said someone …’who is not yet dead.
I’ve yet to see it; Lolita.
Nice video. My main criticism is it seems to imply the artistic choices were Kubrick's. The prose in the novel was hilarious at times. Kubrick is an amazing filmmaker but the artistic genius here came from Nabakov
Did you ever read "Weathercock" by Glenn Duncan? The theme of laughing at evil is a defense against it is explored in that book too. A most uncomfortable read it has to be said.
People wanted to cancel Stanley Kubrick in 1962
"Now alien atmosphere of Atomic Dread"... 1 month is all it took to make that concept not so alien.
Lol, I was about to write a similar comment.