Lolita denies the reality of abuse
By Zanny Begg
Adrian Lyne's 1997 adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's novel has been dogged by controversy. It took a year to clear US censors and it was nearly banned by Australian authorities. Much of the hype surrounding the film has focused on whether it should be banned because it depicts paedophilia.
The film's problem is not that it depicts the sexual abuse of young people (a depressingly common feature of our society) but the manner in which does so.
It is the story of Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons), a 40-year-old academic who develops a sexual obsession with his 14-year-old step-daughter, Lolita (Dominique Swain).
The story is narrated by Humbert. This forces the audience to see the unfolding relationship from his perspective. This device allows Lyne to sexualise almost every moment that Lolita graces the screen. Through Humbert's eyes, we watch water from the sprinkler soak Lolita's dress. As she undresses, the camera focuses on her legs, her red lipstick, objectifying every part of the adolescent Lolita. By constructing the film in this manner Lyne attempts to draw the audience into Humbert's world.
The shocking part about Lolita is the manner in which the film tries to make the viewer identify with Humbert. Irons plays the part with such sensitivity and pathos, you almost believe his claim to "love" Lolita.
Falling for this, film critic James Berardinelli described the relationship between Lolita and Humbert as "nominally consensual". Lyne casts Lolita as the seductress. It is the child who kisses Humbert first as he shyly stands by. It is Lolita who casually laughs as she tells Humbert, "It's called incest you know".
But of course any notion of "consent" is exploded by the reality of Lolita's life. When her mother is run over by a car, Humbert becomes her sole guardian. There are more frequent incidents of violence as Humbert struggles to keep Lolita under his control. One of the most horrifying scenes is where Lolita barters sex for a $1 raise in her pocket money. There is absolutely nothing consensual about Humbert and Lolita's relationship and the film's ambivalence on this is unjustifiable.
Although Lolita is sexually active, as many 14-year-olds are, Humbert's excuse that he was "not even her first lover" rings hollow. There is a world of difference between young people having sex with others their own age and the abuse of power involved in a sexual relationship between an adult and (essentially) a child.
Eventually, Lolita "escapes" Humbert for an other paedophile Clare Quilty (Frank Langella). In a rage, Humbert pursues his nemesis. The audience is asked to identify with the "good" paedophile Humbert, who "loved" Lolita, as opposed to the "bad" Quilty who can't even remember her name.
To avoid condoning Humbert's actions, Lyne tacks a justification for Humbert's paedophilia at the beginning of the film and a confession at the end. At the beginning we are told the story of the death of the 14-year-old Humbert's first love, Annabelle. This "froze" Humbert inside, supposedly leading to his obsession with adolescent girls. This simplistic justification is presented by Lyne at face value.
At the end, as Humbert faces the police, he confesses the real tragedy is not that Lolita is "not at his side" but that her voice was not among those of the children playing in the yard. It attempts to distance the audience from Humbert's actions via his realisation that he stole Lolita's youth.
Lyne's version of Lolita stays close to Nabokov's book. Stanley Kubrick had already done that in 1962, with Nabokov's collaboration. What a new version of Lolita might have more usefully examined is the impact of paedophilia on those who suffer from it. Twisting Lolita's crush on Humbert into "consent" denies the reality of her rape. Humbert raped Lolita, held her captive and abused her — there is nothing ambiguous about that.
Lolita is beautifully cast and filmed. But it is an appalling film.