Posted on 07/21/2006 8:47:28 AM PDT by Akeirook
I disagree that merely creating a work of art about a subject encourages it.
I have heard people say that Lolita is a masterpiece of writing, and that none of the films do it justice. I have only seen the Kubrick film, and I do find the subject rather creepy as he presented it. James Mason was great in the film, but I do think Kubrick was doing a sort of nudge-nudge, wink-wink routine with the subject. As if to say to the audience, "admit it-you'd do her!" While I admire many of Kubrick's films, I have to say that Lolita is not one I care for at all. Maybe I cannot get past the subject matter.
Kubrick softened it a little by making Sue Lyon look rather "grown up". In films she made later, after she was an adult, she did not look much different that she did in Lolita. So in Kubrick's version, Humbert is attracted to a hot-looking nymphet who looks old enough to pass for adult. However in Nabokov's novel, Lolita was only 12 and not particularly attractive. Apparently it was the fact that she was a child that attracted Humbert, and that, IMO is just sick. There may be "art" in that book, but I fail to see it. Maybe I am not sophisticated enough.
Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet is another matter. Apparently, a romance or marriage between people of that young an age was common dueing the Renaissance. As it is, Whiting was 17 or 18 when he played Romeo, and Olivia Hussey was 16 or 17, so they were either of the age of consent or near it (what is it 16 or 17?).
Not only were they shown in bed, there were flashes of nudity as well. Prude that I am, I believe the film could have done without the nudity. There is no doubt that in the "lark" scene as Shakespeare wrote it, Romeo is leaving Juliet's bed, so Zeferelli was correct in setting the scene there. There was simply no need to show bare breasts and buttocks in the scene IMO. The real star of R & J is the language, not actors' body parts. Remember that in Shakespeare's day, young boys played women's roles, so the plays about lovers were not structured so as to draw attention to the physicality of the actors, hence the reliance on poetic language to carry the passion of the story.
In any case, R & J is an inapproprate comparison (IMO) to a film about child rape. Lolita is a much better example though, and I must be too puritanical to see any artistic value in it (other than admiring specific performances, etc).
Have you read the novel? It starts when she's 12 and continues for 4 years. In 1961 there was no way to film anything like that. Kubrick later admitted that if had he known about the censor-related issues he would face he never would have attempted it. The novel is about a lot more then child abuse and is near the peak of American 20th century Art in general.
'Kids' was in the spirit of 'Scared Straight' films they used to show in middle school
I'm not sure what Clark is doing. Bully is another of his films. There's a new one that opened recently. But he's been doing this stuff for awhile. His book of photographs, Tulsa, was disturbing as well when it came out 25 years ago.
I did mention that I have not read it, and that it supposedly has a greatness that no movie has been able to capture. I am not likely to read it, but I accept that it may well be a great novel. Maybe it is an acquired taste. When I was in college, I did not care for the music of Gustav Mahler. My rrommate was constantly playing his symphonies, and I'd say "oh, no, not Mahler again! I hate that cacophany!" Now I play Mahler CDs all the time. Some people still think Mahler is a hack. From their P.O.V., that may be true.
I'm listening to Mahler now! Read Lolita it's incomparable.
Don't see anything good coming from that one.
So hollyweird has joined the UN and the muslems in the celebration of raping children. How nice.
Or an opportunity to really mess her up for life!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrr....
It was incredibly hard on me. I'm beyond being called a couch potato. I've formed a symbiotic relationship with my lazyboy.
Even as a kid I've enjoyed watching movies more than watching television. Two hours of watching a movie has always been more enjoyable to me than watching two hours of tv programming. To make matters worse, one of the criteria I've always used for judging a movie was the length, the longer ones are always better, (The Right Stuff, The Ten Commandments, The Godfather movies, etc...)
I just got to the point where I couldn't stand it any more. I think I actually started with Martin Sheen. I began boycotting his movies when the West Wing started. Wouldn't watch any of them, even if he only had a minor role. Threw away my copy of Apocalypse Now, Firestarter, and anything else I had that he was in.
I kept adding more and more of the Hollyweird liberals to my boycott list, and my movie and music collection continued to shrink as I weeded out the leftist mouthpieces I just couldn't stand to listen to or watch anymore. The last time I went to the movies was to see The Last Temptation of Christ. I support Mel Gibson movies, but unfortunately, I can't watch the Lethal Weapon movies anymore because of Danny Glover.
I'm pretty much down to only watching HGTV, Food Network, History Channel, and Sci-Fi. If there's nothing good on one of those channels, I'll read a book.
I kept adding more and more of the Hollyweird liberals to my boycott list, and my movie and music collection continued to shrink as I weeded out the leftist mouthpieces I just couldn't stand to listen to or watch anymore.
It's almost the same path I took - I can't even stand to hear the liberals do "voice overs" in commercials. When the BIG libs do a car commercial - and I hear that hateful voice, I know I'll never buy that car... Does Hollywood really think they can give half the American people the finger and still have us be loyal? Are they that stupid?
They have thought that for years, because it has been true. There are still large numbers of sheeples out there that are so caught up on Hollywood and celebrities that they will continue to throw cash at people who would spit on them if they ever got close enough. Yesterday morning I was sitting in the waiting room at the dentist's office, and picked up a copy of Time magazine. I tossed it down in disgust about 15 seconds later. There are very few options available from the mainstrame media in any format if you happen to be someone trying to make a stand on your principles. There have been some difficult adjustments for me, but I always look at the money that's still in my pocket and not in theirs, and that always makes it easier.
Her parents need to be reprimanded for only thinking about money.
I understand...
Well then maybe SHE likes little girls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.