SCREEN-L Archives

September 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Aaron White <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 11 Sep 1995 18:25:59 CDT
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but when a film is adapted from a
novel which has an unreliable narrator, how the filmmakers choose
to present things can indicate interesting things about the adaptation
process.  For example, in the novel Lolita, narrator Humbert rapsodises
about Lo's extraordinary beauty, but their are many indications that
she is a perfectly ordinary girl, in appearance as well as behavior.
what is one to make, then, of Kubrick's casting of lovely Sue Lyon, who
won beauty contests as a child?  Obviously he either wanted us to
understand Humbert's passion in an easy way (she IS beautiful and sexy,
rather than, she resembles his first childhood love) or he just wanted
to cast a pretty girl to keep the average moviegoers interested.  I
doubt that Dominique Swain, the new Lolita, will prove to be any less
ambiguously attractive than Sue Lyon.  It would be interesting to see
an adaptation of this novel which feutured a less attractive girl in
the role, providing a cinimatic equivalent of author Nabokov's addressing
of the unaccountable nature of passion.  Sorry if this is a bit off-topic.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2