The Two Lolitas: A Comparison of The Book and The Movie
A radical adaptation of a movie can have a certain degree of liberty when it comes to the process of translation. There can be several changes made to the setting and characters. However, retention of themes, plot, motifs, and context should be present.
The Book
The essence of the book lies in the perversion of a middle-aged man who goes to a heinous extent in his pursuit of fetishized ‘nymphet’, Lolita (Dolores Haze). The book, by pacifying Lolita’s character has a multi-faceted implication. A narrative of Lolita would not allow a voyeuristic image created by Humbert. Lolita’s real name is Dolores, but Humbert calls her Lolita, stripping her of her identity. She becomes the sole object of his fetish and this pseudonym moves on to become a subliminal socio-cultural epithet that is as stripped of humanity as the character of Lolita.
The character of Lolita is presented to be unruly, childish, and to some extent, manipulative. She senses Humbert’s fixation on her and deliberately throws promiscuous advances at him. However, upon returning from camp, the trajectory of her character completely changes. She is orphaned, raped, censored, and controlled like no child of her age should be. The reader cannot help but sympathize with her.
Humbert is a complex character that is the protagonist in the book as well as the movie. Despite him committing heinous crimes against Lolita, he is able to set on a streak of tragi-comedy by indulging in self-pity when he is not able to take advantage of Lolita. He calls himself “Humbert the wounded spider” and “Humbert the humble” as a means to victimize himself. On the other hand, he also calls himself a “monster” and “Humbert the terrible” to show the self-awareness of his immoral character. He is represented as a highly unreliable narrator who blames Lolita for maneuvering to trap him. Thus, Nabokov does an exemplary job at layering a novel that could easily have been conceived as pulp-fiction erotica.
The Movie
The movie under the lens is the 1997 adaptation directed by Adrian Lyne. The eponymous movie, while following the general plot of the book, completely altered the narrative through its portrayal of the two main characters, Humbert and Lolita.
Humbert in the movie is a lot more composed and victimized. Unlike the book, he has a grave nature, does not ponder over guilt in defiling a minor, and is prosecuted by the will and whims of Lolita. It appears almost as if he did not have a choice but to fall for this Aphrodite in the form of a nymphet.
Lolita since her introduction is portrayed as a seductress. In the introductory scene, her clothes are wet and sticking to her body and the water sprinkler is strategically placed behind her rear, making her look provocative. The clothes that she is made to wear are scanty and inappropriate for both her age and the epoch. No such mention of her clothes had been made in the book, hence, it was a deliberate attempt to make her character promiscuous.
Lolita does things that go beyond the book several times. She inappropriately touches, kisses, and makes innuendos targeted toward Humbert. She laughs maniacally when Humbert is whimpering. She flirts with Clare Quilty which further perverse her character. She often makes Humbert dance at her whims which showed decadence in her character.
The epithet of Lolita today is perceived as a vile, pre-pubescent girl that has all the necessary wit to lure older men. It is a stereotype anointed over overgrown or prematurely grown girls which feeds deeper into the growing hegemony of gender. It contributes to a certain tenet of essentialism that is associated with gender. I personally believe that the mentioned epithet has almost nothing to do with Nabokov’s Lolita and everything to do with Lyne’s Lolita.
