Ryan Vlastelica. Oops. I guess Lolita is easily seen as a less than a full-on stunner from Stanley Kubrick considering what Kubrick did after, but when you say that Peter Sellers ruined the film--and mean that as a bad thing--then you are shouting to the world that you have absolutely no business discussing Lolita, Kubrick, or films in general. Sellers did "ruin" the film with his performance in exactly the same way Quilty ruined Humbert's, and Lolita's, life. That's like symbolism and film criticism 101, dude. What Kubrick retained most from the book was the absolute disgust for every character. Kubrick could not--and probably did not want to--show Humbert as an evil, sweating, leering child rapist, but Sellers' Clare Quilty was one method Kubrick could use to show how disgusting Humbert truly was.
And not for nothing, but Peter Sellers also ruined the film for James Mason. Mason was led to believe he was the star of the movie, but Kubrick underlined the nastiness of repulsive introvert Humbert Humbert by having Sellers create a raving, evil Clare Quilty to steal the film from a brooding James Mason. Pretty fucking funny. And if you think that "ruins" the film, you're a fucking dope who should just sit there quietly picking his nose and/or ass while the rest of us enjoy the flick.
No comments:
Post a Comment