Stuff

Have you ever read Nabokov’s book? Don’t be put off by the subject matter. It’s a great book.

How did they ever make a movie of Lolita? the posters ask. Well, easily actually.

Remove even the vaguest suggestions of any kind of sexual encounter. Tone it all down and make it a farce.

Sue Lyons, as Lolita, looks much older than the book suggests. She’s apparently a late teen. A relationship between a middle aged Humbert and her would be possible, if unlikely, even in those times.

She’s a late 1950s early 1960s American gum chewing spoilt brat from a single parent home, and it’s hard to imagine any chemistry between her and Humbert. Of course there isn’t, it’s just his infatuation.

James Mason is great, of course. He’s educated, polite, quiet and considered, a far cry from the Haze people.

The beginning of the film, set in Ramsdale, is a great study of American small town life. This is Trump country. But, when the road trip begins, it gets boring rapidly and outstays its welcome.

But what really spoils the picture is Peter Sellers who plays the role of Quilty as a Goon Show character, with silly voices and stupid disguises to match.

The film has its moments, but read the book.

The newer version, with Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons, is more faithful to the book, but it’s still a bore.

You don’t often hear people saying nice things about Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s last film.

Yes, it does have big names: Cruise and Kidman.

Yes, it was eagerly anticipated: this came out in 1999, and since Barry Lyndon in 1975, Kubrick had made just two films (Full Metal Jacket and The Shining).

Yes, Kubrick did die just days after its release.

Cruise plays a medical doctor who learns from his wife that she has had sexual fantasies and nearly had an affair. So he decides he’d like that, ambles round Islington, sorry New York City, not much happens and then they all go to Hamleys.

It’s a pretty unsubtle film in many ways. We saw it when it first came out and my companion remarked on the clunky photography, the unsubtle use of colours and the dodgy acting, Cruise especially.

Watching it recently to remind myself what it’s like, it’s a tough watch. What it means is not clear. There are reports of hundreds of takes of particular scenes, suggesting Kubrick was worse than ever and had no clue quite what he wanted to get.

Everyone was bored and dispirited by the end.

It’s hard to criticise, because it was Kubrick’s last film. Other Kubrick films were shortened or edited after release (eg The Shining and 2001) and maybe something would have been done to help this, but it’s unlikely it would have helped.

Some people have said the film as it is is a masterpiece. We’re not agreeing with that, but see it for yourself.

In the 1950s, cinema had a big rival. Rather than spend money to watch a movie, the new fangled television became the choice. Well, OK, it wasn’t new fangled, and it was a long time since 1927, but it (tv) became popular after the war.

People loved it. They could stay home, watch something mindless for ‘free’, not have to dress up and could even eat while it was on and be nude.

Cinema fought back. It’s the period when the gimmick hit Hollywood bigly. 3D was popular, Smell-O-Vision, vibrating seats, stereo sound…

The big push was to a larger screen. Many techniques were invented to fill the big screen: Cinerama, VistaVision, Todd-AO, Super Technirama 70 and so on.

But what for content? Well, so many produers and directors turned to the religious, quasi-religious or historic epic. Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, King Of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told and more (into the 1960s).

Spartacus falls into this class. It’s set in Roman times, pretends to be a true story and is long. It was shot for the big screen. It is, as they say, and epic.

Kubrick was brought in by producer and star Kirk Douglas as the director. It’s a big starring vehicle for Douglas and his mate Tony Curtis. But there are real actors, like Laurence Olivier.

We are sure the set pieces look fantastic on a really big screen. And if you like that kind of historical stuff, maybe you will enjoy it. But boy is it boring. And at one point in its history, 23 minutes was removed, but this has been restored.

Kubrick tried his best to make something of it, but by all accounts hated it. It sticks out like a sore thumb in Kubrick’s filmography, and he would probably have made a better film if he had tackled it ten years later.