Talk:Lolita (1962 film)

Comment
There is a lot that is not NPOV about this article. I have tried to repair the POV in some places, if this is not adequate, do adjust; I have removed the POV that I could not repair; if some of the POV remarks have sources, feel free to replace them with these sources. Dysprosia 2 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Comments appreciated. It took time but rewrite, with sources made 30 September 2005. Ajarn

Poe, Annabel
The Poe quoted by Humbert was not Annabel Lee, but Ulalume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.150.132 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nymphet" not used?
From the current revision: "Lolita's age is raised to fourteen and Nabokov's term for her of 'nymphet' is never used."

I have watched the American DVD release of the film, and Humbert definately uses the term "nymphet". It was the morning after Lolita returns early from the party, spoiling Charlotte's plans for Humbert. As he's writing in his diary, his naration begins: "what drives me insane is the two-fold nature of this nymphet, or every nymphet perhaps." Was this edited out from the original release, and added back in later releases? four tildes.

Your comment is correct and Nymphet quote is now included, after a major rewrite. Sources quoted. Ajarn 30 September 2005.

The article needs some screen caps
Since every other film by Stanley Kubrick on Wikipedia has a photo from the film, this article deserves/needs one, maybe one or two screen caps would be good, because just one poster isn't enough, and a film as famous as this..it deserves a screen cap!!!!! Jackp 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great to see some new pictures, good job...article is up to date now :)!! Jackp 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * DisABlelite 41.121.77.79 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

14?
"Lolita's age was raised to fourteen..." Is this true? I know I've read that in several places, but I don't think her age is mentioned in the movie at all. Can anyone confirm this? &mdash;Chowbok 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't remember if her age is stated in this film, but in the 1997 remake, a staff member at Lolita's school says whilst talking to Humbert: "...fourteen year old Delores...". Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just watched the film again looking specifically for this, and no, her age is never specifically mentioned. I therefore suggest that the sentence "Lolita's age was raised from twelve to fourteen in the film to meet the MPAA standards", unless someone has a citation for this statement. --190.92.6.88 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm taking your word for it. My understanding is that the MPAA required that the actress appear to be 14. Puddytang (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sue Lyon's age?
On this page, Sue Lyon's age is marked as 13 at the time of filming, but on the Stanley Kubrick page, it's marked as 16. Anyone know the truth on it? Aevangelica 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like both are wrong. According to IMDB, she was born on July 10, 1946 and Lolita was filmed from November 1960 to May 1961, which means she was 14 when it filmed. &mdash;Chowbok 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed the disagreement between her age between the two articles also. As of October 8th, 2006, this problem still hasn't been rectified.  I have no knowledge of this film save for this article, so I don't feel like I could accurately change both articles.  Would someone in the know please correct the age problems?  TheDapperDan 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that she was 16 when it was filmed, to meet with the censors, (andthis was a major cause of complaint to certain Nabokov purists - that she looked far too old), but I cannot find a reputable source.


 * IMDB is a pretty reliable source and I'll trust their dates, which say she was 14. The confusion is probably because she was 16, or close to it, when it was released, but it had been filmed a year-and-a-half earlier. I've edited both articles. &mdash;Chowbok 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Geographically-challenged foreigner or very ignorant American?
New Hampshire is in the Midwest? Why don't you try looking at a map? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satch234 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Wizard mountain
Just to clarify, am I missing something here, or is this merely someone's "stick random crap in a wiki and see how long it stays there" experiment?

"Peter Sellers' performance as Clare Quilty was generally acclaimed at the wizard mountain time."

I don't dare change it, it's so surreal. --boiled_elephant 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile?
Humbert Humbert cannot be called a pedophile on the grounds that he has has a relationship with an under-age but post-pubescent girl. Dirty old man, yes, but pedophile, no.Moletrouser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Film noir?
I think that Lolita (film) is in film noir, Lolita (person) is the youngest femme fatale. Is it wrong? Mikomaid (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) modified Mikomaid (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But she's not a femme fatale in the classical sense who uses sex to get money, power, jewelery, drinks hard, is involved in crime, and such. The girl in Lolita likes sex and boys.  She leaves Humbert because she wants more experiences and not be oppressed by an overbearing (co-dependent) new lover, and dare I say quite an older man.  She's no femme falate.  Femme fatales are in a sense sociopathic, that is, they really don't hold to any any values other than advancing their own self-interests.  Lolita truly seems in love at the end of the film and is happy to be pregnant.  She wants to settle down and raise a family.  Lo is no femme fatale.  So the film from this aspect in not a neo-noir. Do you have any critical reception references that mention the film is a neo-noir. As such, I will revert, in due course. Luigibob (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think hardly that Lolita is in femme fatale like Carmen (also in femme fatale). The film is made black-and-white in 1962 and darkly on dark novel. She depraved Humbert, and he made fatal crime. Mikomaid (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) modified Mikomaid (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) modified again Mikomaid (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See List of film noir. Film noir has wide range (crossovered on crime, thriller, suspence, love romance, sci-fi, comedy, etc.) Mikomaid (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This artilce is not about the novel (is the novel hard boiled?) but the film. It does not matter if it's in B&W (see The Unholy Wife which I edit and in color). Argue to what I discussed, please.  The Film Noir List is not a reference.  There are many mistakes there.  Please make a better case for your inclusion.  How did she deprave Humbert?  She fooled around with him and then left him when he became possessive.  Again, she's not evil, but a young girl who wants to date boys, like any normal, yet super sex charged girl. He was possessive, incredibly possessive.  That hardly makes her a femme fatale. Please, do find some sources that include the film as a neo-noir.  Best-- Luigibob (talk)


 * Humbert had life driven mad by having met Lolita. And it was ruined. Lolita is in femme fatale, hardly. Mikomaid (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Humbert was driven mad, not by Lolita, but by HIS lust for her. It was not her fault that he was an idiot and a possessive fool (take responsibility, Humbert). That does not make her a femme fatale.  Remember the end of the film? She seemed a pretty normal young wife with normal expectations for life. Oh yes, while the film is in B&W, it does not have the of look of a John Alton B&W noir, let's say like the The Big Combo (yet not all film noirs or neo-noirs have to have the chiaroscuro look).  Another B&W neo-noir made about the same time is The Naked Kiss, the theme of a mature woman, who makes decisions herself and is a prostitute, who decides to go straight. Luigibob (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The notion of Lolita as the "youngest femme fatale" is certainly an interesting one, and personally I'm undecided. Whether that makes the movie a film noir is another question, and on that point I'm personally inclined to think not. But let's remember that this is Wikipedia and not a chat room. What any of us personally think doesn't matter as far as the article is concerned. Whether any of this belongs in the article depends entirely on whether some WP:Reliable source has put forth such a notion in print. And even if some such source has, there would be the question of whether this is a minority view being given WP:Undue coverage. RedSpruce (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I don't mean to be snide or insulting in saying "this isn't a chat group," and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I'm just trying to frame my opinion in terms of what ought to be done with the article. RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay fine. It does not matter what I think.  I have found no credible sources that include it as a neo-noir.  I will revert. Luigibob (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * TOO FAST TERMINATION!!!! Ought to be discussed for 1 week, and terminate. Mikomaid (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find cite. Look here.Mikomaid (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You realize that you are quoting a summary about the novel. This is not a film critic analysis, not about the film proper, nor is that summary written by an expert in film noir or neo-noir.  And see RedSpruce note: "And even if some such source has, there would be the question of whether this is a minority view being given WP:Undue coverage." Luigibob (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is (neo-) noir, as is the remake. Even if the title character is not regarded as a femme fatale, it is still noir, because both film versions fit the definition of that genre. Though a high proportion of noirs contain a femme fatale, it is not a requirement for inclusion in the noir genre. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, this film has some elements of noir, but only fits the category in a very broad sense. Would you consider Charly (about an experiment turning a mentally slow man temporarily into a high IQ person) or 1984 science-fiction? In a very broad sense, yes. Is Ken Branagh's Dead Again or Alice Walker's Temple of my Familiar fantasy because they involve re-incarnation?

Historically, it seems to me that critics and literati do allow an extremely broad definition for science-fiction, but the application of the definition tends to tighter when it comes to film noir. The basic elements of noir are moral ambiguity and sexual motivation according to are own WP. Those are present here, but almost all noir also involves organized crime and/or detectives and police, which are absent from this drama. Film noir is usually considered to be a subset of the genre of crime thriller, which this film certainly is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein meets Lolita
The film that Humbert, Charlotte and Lolita see at the drive-in (both women grab Humbert at a scary moment) is The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Matt BG 119.11.8.175 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised more has not been made of the selection of this film clip (Hey, nothing in a Kubrick film is arbitrary). Lolita IS the "monster," and Humbert is clearly Frankenstein in the process of "creating" that which will destroy him. The Hammer Films clip sums up Kubrick's impressions and tells the audience what to expect, if they haven't caught on already from the opening Quilty episode.

LOLITA was a Seven Arts production, the company which co-financed CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN through its president Eliot Hyman.

On another topic entirely-- Good Lord there's a lot of chaff in this article. The section on the characters dribbles on indefinitely with only a rare mention that this article is supposed to be about Kubricks movie, not Nobokov's novel (or the assorted adaptations since... or the comments by a dozen different literary mavens.) A good, hard weeding session is indicated. The entry on LOLITA (novel) is the place for this stuff. Ted Newsom (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ted Newsom


 * Please be more specific. The cast list has character descriptions of 4 characters, and Quilty's character is greatly expanded from the novel, so it would seem something needs to be said. There's a very very longggg section on differences between the novel and the movie. Perhaps that is what you are referring to.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Zempf: a developmental precursor to Dr. Strangelove?
Does anyone find it extraordinarily, uhh, thick to cite Dr. Zempf as "that neo-Nazi monster, who will roll out of the cavernous shadows of Dr. Strangelove" the way we do in the Cast section of our article? Isn't it just Sellers doing his standard German? Does it undercut the article's credibility to go so far out on a limb to draw such a dubious comparison? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed it before (even though I've worked on other parts of this article), but would be inclined to say that since we are not claiming this ourselves but instead citing a very well-known and reputable Stanley Kubrick scholar, I think it can stand, though I personally agree it is a dubious comparison. (If anyone saw Nazi implications in Sellers' Zempf, it was probably Kubrick in his directing of Sellers, rather that PS himself).--WickerGuy (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Six months later, this contention still bothers me. Zempf stands without difficulty, delivers half a dozen lines on his feet, is tactile with Humbert, patting his shoulder, is far more convivial than Strangelove, the voice is different and even the accent — though German — is different. It's just too dubious a claim, despite its source, and if we're both dubious, WickerGuy, then I think it's a disservice to the article (and to readers) to leave it in. I'm seeking consensus for the two sentences' removal. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the catch is that TWO cited film critics (and even more to come- stay tuned) have made this comparison, one of which is among the most well-known Kubrick scholars around, Thomas Allen Nelson. His book Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze is probably among the 10 most well-known studies of Kubrick's work & we already cite it.
 * Listing our two sources as A and B, then NOT in our article is the same comparison having been made by
 * C) Michel Ciment who ranks with Alex Walker as only one of two authors of books on Kubrick who actually interviewed Kubrick extensively for his book (not to mention exclusive access from SK directly of film stills.) Ciment has even higher credibility than Nelson. Ciment writes, "Peter Sellers prefigured his creation of Dr Strangelove, particularly in the role of Dr Zempf, the school psychologist whose thick German accent recalls that of the mad professor (note Kubrick's ambiguous feelings towards Germany:...".
 * D) Geoffrey Cocks author of a controversial book on the impact of the Holocaust on Kubrick's work actually claims that Kubrick himself retroactively saw a comparison on p. 114 "Dr. Strangelove himself, whom Kubrick lumped together with Lolita's Dr. Zempf, as "parodies of movie cliches about Nazis,"[footnote 39] is the mechanical chimera of modern horror."
 * E) David Hughes in The Complete Kubrick writes (p. 94) "Sellers would later put the German accent affected for the bespectacled Dr Zempf to good use in his next collaboration with Kubrick, Dr Strangelove".
 * F) Julian Connelly in The Cambridge Companion to Nabokov p 220 writes of "Quilty's visit to the house in Beardsley, masquerading as Dr. Zempf, a German psychologist (a Sellers character that prefigures Dr. Strangelove in Kubrick's film of 1964)."
 * Frankly, I think with this many sources, it's worth breaking out into a separate section of the article. (Sorry Harrington)
 * Given that: 1) Dr. Zempf is ENTIRELY a creation of Stanley Kubrick (Quilty does no such masquerade in the novel- this has superceded a scene in Nabokov in which Humbert talks with a real (& female) high school counselor), and 2) Kubrick had a weirdly ambivalent love-hate attitude to all things German, I am inclined to think this a somewhat legitimate comparison even taking into account the obvious differences between Zempf and Merkwürdigeliebe (Strangelove's name before becoming a US citizen you may recall).--WickerGuy (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unconvinced but acquiescent; it's hard to argue against a lineup like that! :-) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's of course the question of just what does it indicate? You could draw both strong and weak conclusions from the same evidence. I think the article should simply state that certain critics think without stating it as established fact. To say Zempf prefigures Strangelove is a very vague and open-ended statement. Precisely how? IMO, the most you can say is that Zempf and Strangelove are both German intellectuals of a sort to which Kubrick had ambivalent feelings. At any rate, I will shortly break this out into a subsection of the Cast.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind also that, unlike Strangelove, Zempf is not a genuine character: he's a three-minute cameo sketch played by Quilty for Humbert's benefit. I just think it's an invalid comparison that diminishes our article. Still acquiescent, though. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Zempf however embodies elements of Clare Quilty evidenced in other parts of the film- a sort of demon trying to claim Humbert's soul through exposing his conscience as bad- a sort of demonic Jiminy Cricket. Zempf is in this respect a variant of Quilty's policeman at the hotel and Quilty's anonymous phone caller after Lolita leaves the hospital- all pulling the strings of Humbert's bad conscience. Zempf is separate from these other two persona of Quilty insofar as he is like Humbert a European intellectual, whose intellectuality is itself rather decadent, a trait he certainly shares with the actual Quilty. Zempf is IMO a sort of "tip of an iceberg" that pivotally reveals a great deal about the Quilty-Humbert dynamics that dominate the whole movie. The compelling dramatic character of Zempf is shown by the fact that although a he is a "character" created by Stanley Kubrick (not Nabokov), he resurfaces in playwright Edward Albee's stage adaptation of Lolita.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points — however — I still think that presenting Zempf as a formal precursor to Strangelove is a considerable stretch. They have similar — but not matching — accents and they play most of their screen time seated — period. The physical characterizations are different, the voice characterizations are different, Strangelove is icily remote while Zempf is collegial and almost jocular. In fact, when Zempf tells Humbert they'll join forces together to thwart the other psychologists, he's far more akin to Mandrake telling Ripper they'll join forces together than anything Strangelove says or does. Sorry, but I just feel that telling novice readers that the two are part of some continuum is just, well, irresponsible. :-) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all your points. I think we need to add more qualifications. I'll get to it this weekend.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Gee, WickerGuy, your new section gives it even more weight, more notice — and, to the novice, more creedence. Kinda sorry I brought it all up :-(  — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you've got to go with the sources, and believe me if there was a source disputing the connection, I think I would have found it by now. Obviously, Stan K's seeing a connection is kind of a clincher. What is odd, I've had two very acrimonious debates over the past year re the content of other WP Kubrick film articles, and in both I (partly) backed down, while here, we have a friendly cordial dialogue and we get an overwhelming win on one side (though I didn't really have much personal investment in this so it's not really "my" side).
 * BTW, I don't know if that was a typo or a 'spello', but although there is a music group entitled Creedence Clearwater Revival, and beliefs are often called a "creed" the only correct spelling of the synonym for believability is "credence"- only one 'e' in the first syllable, please.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That transistor radio plastered to my head in 1969 must've shorted out some of the cells in my Spelling Department nearby. :-) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag on "Differences" section

 * Transcript of material on User pages of User:Sottolacqua and User:WickerGuy
 * Further editorial comments welcome.

Thanks for tagging the "Differences" section on the Lolita article. Currently about 25% of what is in there is by me. I suspect most all of it has been noted by previous critics of the film, but most of the literature on this film is in hardcopy book form rather than online (far more so than other Kubrick films) so references will be harder to track down. I suspect that at least 90% of it is WP:Verifiable although WP has rules that in comparing books and films you need both to avoid synthesis, and are encouraged to give a context for the changes. For some of this, it would be extremely hard to provide context regarding the reasons for the changes (such as the slightly later time-frame of the novel) and I would think that that material would be the first to get deleted. IMO, the most important stuff to retain is the massive expansion of Quilty's role in the film, and the changes in the characterization of Lolita.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Without implying that I am challenging your tag, it might be good if you could indicate a little more specifically which sections you view as the most problematic.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of the unreferenced material that is sourced from the novel but not cited in the article can be tagged with the page & reference using Template:Cite book. Page numbers would address the unsourced tag as well.


 * The section would be better suited written as a narrative rather than a bulleted list. For example, with regard to Lolita's age and appearance, the following change could be made:


 * "Lolita's age was raised from twelve to fourteen in the film to meet the MPAA standards, and Kubrick had been warned that censors felt strongly about using a less-developed actress to portray a sexually active girl that was to appear at least fourteen. . In addition, Sue Lyon was chosen for the title role partly due to her more mature appearance.


 * In the novel, Lolita's name is frequently referred to simply as 'Lo', 'Lola' or 'Dolly' by the other characters, as 'Lolita' was Humbert's personal name for her. Her hair color was also changed to blonde in the film from brunette in the novel. Sue Lyon portrays Lolita as attractive girl, but in the novel, both Charlotte and Humbert comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness."


 * Comments about what's "hinted at" regarding suspicion related to Lolita's appearance sounds like it's left open for the reader's/viewer's interpretation. What hints were made by the author, or other characters in the novel? Also, the hair color really doesn't have as much weight as the other items in the description of differences, but it may play a part in her "attractiveness", so leaving it in or taking it out wouldn't make much difference.


 * The other sections can be rewritten to remove some of the trivial notes (e.g., "The first and last word of the novel is 'Lolita'. The first and last word of the screenplay is 'Quilty'.") and all of the bulleted formats. All of the differences related to Humbert should be included in one single section instead of the three presently used.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the section about the term "nymphet" could use some work, but since the term is not used throughout the film as prevalently in the novel, it's use within the article should be limited to that section.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we move this to the talk page of the article? I'm happy to work on it with you or with another editor, but input from some casual contributors might also be beneficial. What are your thoughts?  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to move all of this to the talk page. I agree with everything you say, except I think we can place some context to the fact that the first and last word of novel/film are respectively Lolita and Quilty. It has at least been noted by published notable critics that the film could virtually be retitled "Quilty".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * End of transcript. Once again, further editorial comments welcome.

Have just confirmed what I guessed at in edit summary two minutes ago.
The last two edit summaries (the second of which is mine and reverts the first) involved the order of the actors in the Infobox. When I made the edit, I had checked the film credits, but not yet the preview and was guessing about the latter.I have now confirmed my guess was correct by looking also at the preview. The edit-summaries read (in reverse order)


 * 06:21, 19 September 2011 WickerGuy (talk | contribs) (50,252 bytes) (Undid revision 451216505 by Bluerules (talk)You may be confusing previews with the film opening credits. In the latter, Lyon is billed above Sellers)


 * 21:40, 18 September 2011 Bluerules (talk | contribs) (50,252 bytes) (Sellers is billed above Lyon.)

I have now confirmed my guess about the trailer. Sellers is indeed billed above Lyon in the preview trailers, but Lyon is billed above Sellers in the film opening credits. Reversion to original order in Infobox therefore stands with Infobox reflecting film credits, not preview trailer.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of Actors in Infobox for this article
Although Peter Sellers has higher billing than Sue Lyons in both the poster and preview trailer, going with the billing order of the film credits (where Lyons billed above Sellers) is preferable for the following reasons.

Sellers was probably given higher billing in the poster and preview (but not the actual film credits) because he was a well-known star (at least in England) at the time, and Lyon was a complete unknown. This was similar to the logic behind giving Christopher Reeve third billing in Superman, except there it was third billing in posters, previews, AND the film credits proper (hence, WP article on the Superman movie lists Reeve third in Infobox). However, in the case of Lolita, the higher billing of Sellers was in advertising/publicity only (preview and poster), and Lyons got higher billing in the actual film credits. Once the audience had already paid money to see the film, there was no need to pander to commercial interests by giving Sellers greater prominence.

Lyons has far more screen time than Sellers and is indeed in virtually every scene, while Sellers has about half an hour of screen time in a 2 & 1/2 hour movie, although admittedly his scenes are highly memorable, pivotal, and he is prominent in both the opening and closing scenes of the film. There is no policy at Wikipedia for preferring the billing order of a film poster to the billing order of the actual film credits, if they conflict (contrary to what is implied in recent edit-summary by User:Bluerules). Rather, if they conflict one should go with what seems more sensible and appropriate to whatever film is being discussed. In this case, it seems the film credits order is more sensible (this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional publicity engine).--WickerGuy (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Drome Cigarettes
I noticed this while watching the movie, but I'm not sure it qualifies for more than trivia; but for what it's worth here's what I found. In one scene, which I'm pretty sure is not based on the novel, the camera pans to a poster in Lolita's room and shows the Clare Quilty character, played by Peter Sellers, endorsing 'Drome' cigarettes. (Actually it is mentioned in the novel, Part One, 16. 188.135.220.201 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)). This is an apparent double pun. 'Drome' could be short for 'dromedary', another name for 'Camel', a famous cigarette brand. 'Drome' is also the Dutch word for 'dream.' The caption on the poster has the Clare Quilty character saying "I can write without a pen, but not without a Drome", which presumably could be interpreted as "I can write without a pen, but not without a dream." See: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=310790348934863&l=8a259d556c. In a later scene, Clare Quilty posing as "Dr. Zempf" expesses his concerns about Lolita's "sexual repression" to Humbert Humbert and taps out one of his Drome cigarettes. Dwight Burdette (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary length
Anon has repeatedly edit warred to increase the length of the plot summary with superfluous details. The plot summary already is more than 850 words (and that's after I trimmed it), significantly in excess of the standard maximum of 700 words (and 400-500 is closer to the norm). See WP:FILMPLOT. I tried compromising with 64.183.48.206 by leaving part of his edit but removing the most superfluous parts. I also trimmed other parts of the plot summary, but it is still too long. 64.183.48.206 does not respond to requests for discussion about this issue or warnings about edit warring on his talk page. This needs to stop. Cresix (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * IPs have been blocked, article has been semi'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nabokov's opinion of the film
From a letter from both Vladimir and Vera Nabokov to Peter and Joan de Peterson, dated July 24, 1962 (p. 338 of Nabokov's Selected Letters, 1940-1977):

"Vladimir had been worrying about the picture but already after the preview they arranged for us before the premiere he felt completely reassured. The picture might have ben somewhat different had he made it himself but it certainly was excellent anyway and contained nothing whatsoever that he could find offensive, false or in bad taste. He liked the performance of all the four actors and even found some of the deviations from his script were very fortunate."

In other words, HE LIKED IT.

Here's more from a Paris Review interview:

"Another project I have been nursing for some time is the publication of the complete screenplay of Lolita that I made for Kubrick. Although there are just enough borrowings from it in his version to justify my legal position as author of the script, the film is only a blurred skimpy glimpse of the marvelous picture I imagined and set down scene by scene during the six months I worked in a Los Angeles villa. I do not wish to imply that Kubrick's film is mediocre; in its own right, it is first-rate, but it is not what I wrote. A tinge of poshlost is often given by the cinema to the novel it distorts and coarsens in its crooked glass. Kubrick, I think, avoided this fault in his version...."

(http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4310/the-art-of-fiction-no-40-vladimir-nabokov) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

American English
I have added an  tag near the top of this page, per MOS:ENGVAR. Although more of the film was shot in the UK, and Kubrick was a UK director, it was set and first released in the US, and (per MOS:RETAIN) the article was primarily written in US English when it had advanced beyond stub status.

The main usage differences I have seen in this article involve quotation marks. US English strongly favors double-quotes around quotations (with apostrophes as single-quotes to indicate the inner level of nested quotations). In UK English, single-quotes seem somewhat more common around quotation marks (with double-quotes around inner-level quotations), though that doesn't seem as strong a rule as the US-English preference for double-quotes.

Glamor or glamour?
The English variety question came up as a result of a discussion about whether to use the spelling "glamor" or "glamour" in the article. My first guess would be that "glamor" is favored in US English and "glamour" is favored in UK English (similar to "color" and "colour"), but my US spell-check red-marked "glamor" and approved "glamour". I checked a couple of on-line dictionaries, which endorsed both and seemed to favor "glamour", but they didn't seems strongly prescriptive. I searched further, and found a Grammarist blog entry Glamour vs. glamor which said that, "glamour" is an exception to the pattern of words that are spelled with "o" in US English and "ou" in English-English; "glamor" is a much less popular alternate spelling even in US English (about one-fifth as common). I don't know how authoritative "Grammarist" is, but the fact that it makes a claim about relative frequency of use at least implies that the author has done some research.

— Steve98052 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to correct a misapprehension: Kubrick was an American director. Although he spent a significant amount of time as an expatriate resident in the UK, he never gave up his American citizenship, and he is not, therefore, a "UK director".  Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a Kubrick fan, I feel silly that I may have implied that Kubrick's long-time standing as a UK resident meant that he was a "UK director". One might reasonably have described him as a "UK-based director" for much of his career, but you're certainly correct that he was a "US director" in every sense except for his residence later in life.
 * So, given that Kubrick's Lolita had a US director, a US setting, a US first release, and some US second-unit shooting (and was only a UK film to the extent that it was made mostly with UK money and shot mainly in the UK), this article certainly deserves the  tag.
 * — Steve98052 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2
This is my personal overall comment of the Wikipedia article. This story is a complex story. For me, my interest in reading it was some some clarification on the 1962 film version. I found the information I was looking for, but I noticed there is some wordy sections in general that were confusing to me as a reader. The film is very different than the book from what I can tell. I noticed there is a separate article written for the book. This is a comment from a reader with a passing interest. I think that parts of the Wikipedia article could be simplified.The Budzone guy 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

A few minor problems

 * The line 'In a 1972 Newsweek interview (...), Kubrick said that had he realized how severe the censorship limitations were going to be, he "probably wouldn't have made the film."' is copy/pasted from the source and needs rewriting/removing.
 * The Cast notes are sourced to the IMDb which, even if it was a reliable source, only supports the fact that Bishop was an uncredited ambulance attendant in the film.
 * The named reference is never defined and produces an ugly red error in the References section. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits of July 21
Dear User Ken. "Mincing", yes. And yes, you know me from many exchanges in the past, scores, typically collegial, and are aware of my command of English. As well as my prior post on your Talk page seeking to head off this unfortunate outcome (where he who reverts first wins, since the burden is inherently on the editor making a change, no matter Wikipedia's injunctions to "Be bold" and all that).

Mince. To dice into tiny pieces, used also to describe reducing a point or argument to fineness beyond proportion, roughly analogous to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

You have persistently forced the 3 Revert rule outcome on an absurdly insignificant point. There are significant changes throughout the movie from the book, many of which can be interpreted as "events", many of which events - whether changes in locale, timeline, or introduction and/or actions of characters that had either much reduced roles in the book or were invented out of whole cloth in the movie - have the effect of changing "events" as they unfold. To try to maintain that they are en toto insignificant enough to have to cling to "exactly" to delineate their substance is specious; we're not talking about the shifting of a morning to an afternoon, or the same town or place just given a different name in the movie.

While the movie more or less follows the book "in broad strokes", to use your characterization, it is inaccurate to portray the many differences between the two in whether and how events unfold and if they even take place at all in one or the other as so minor as to demand the contentious adjective "exact". Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Material
In 1962, Kubrick and Harris made the decision to film Lolita in England, due to clauses placed on the contract by Warner Brothers that gave them complete control over every aspect of the film, and the fact that the Eady plan permitted producers to write off the costs if 80% of the crew were English. Instead, they signed a $1 million deal with Eliot Hyman's Associated Artists, and a clause which gave them the artistic freedom that they desired. Lolita, Kubrick's first attempt at black comedy, was an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Vladimir Nabokov, the story of a middle-aged college professor becoming infatuated with a 12-year-old girl. Stylistically, Lolita, starring Peter Sellers, James Mason, Shelley Winters, and Sue Lyon, was a transitional film for Kubrick, "marking the turning point from a naturalistic cinema ... to the surrealism of the later films", according to film critic Gene Youngblood. Kubrick was deeply impressed by the chameleon-like range of actor Peter Sellers and gave him one of his first opportunities to wildly improvise during shooting while filming him with three cameras. The two got on famously during production, displaying many similarities; both left school prematurely, played jazz drums, and shared a fascination with photography. Sellers would later claim that "Kubrick is a god as far as I'm concerned". An extensive casting search was made for Sue Lyon, who played Lolita, a character whom Nabakov called the "perfect little nymphet". Kubrick gave Lyon the opportunity to improvise, and as a result she made a "considerable contribution to many of the scenes".

Lolita was shot over 88 days on a budget of $2 million at Elstree Studios, between October 1960 and March 1961. During the production, Kubrick often clashed with Shelley Winters, who he found "very difficult" and demanding, and at one point he almost fired her. It was Kubrick's first film to generate controversy because of its provocative story, even though he was forced to remove much of the erotic element of the relationship between Mason's Humbert and Lyon's Lolita which had been evident in the novel, to comply with the censors. The film was not a major critical or commercial success upon release, earning $3.7 million at the box office on its opening run. It has since become acclaimed by film critics and holds a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes as of August 2015. Social historian Stephen E. Kercher documented that the film "demonstrated that its director possessed a keen, satiric insight into the social landscape and sexual hang-ups of cold war America", while Jon Fortgang of Film4 wrote: "Lolita, with its acute mix of pathos and comedy, and Mason's mellifluous delivery of Nabokov's sparkling lines, remains the definitive depiction of tragic transgression". Kubrick and Harris had proved that they could adapt a highly controversial novel without interference from a studio. The moderate earnings allowed them to set up companies in Switzerland to take advantage of low taxes on their profits and give them financial security for life.

Contradiction
In an early paragraph it state it was uncut in Britain but still received an X rating. In one of the last ones it states it was cut to receive one2001:8003:407D:B400:4502:F253:1CDE:7289 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolita (1962 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108215717/http://www.terrysouthern.com/archive/SKint.htm to http://www.terrysouthern.com/archive/SKint.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

X certificate
We say Although passed without cuts, Lolita was rated "X" by the British Board of Film Censors when released in 1962, meaning no one under 16 years of age was permitted to watch. The source for that now returns a 404 error but I am pretty sure BBFC X certificates were intended to restrict viewing to those aged 18 and over, not 16 and over. Can anyone confirm? - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

~ X was raised from 16 to 18 in 1970, if I remember correctly. MightyArms (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Humbert - British?
Is it ever indicated in the film that Humbert is a "British professor of French literature"? In the novel, Humbert is a "salad of genes" - born in Paris to an English mother and Swiss father of French and Austrian descent. Did Kubrick simplify Humbert's nationality, or does the article conflate the British actor with character he plays? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This question has been open for two years now without a response. I've consulted a transcript of the film, and I've found no clear reference to Humbert's nationality. He's described as "European", and Charlotte addresses him as "monsieur", so there's no reason on that basis to describe him as "British". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)