Lolita [1962] [DVD]

Regardless of the hidden (or even obvious) peversion of James Mason's character, I felt this film was brilliantly acted and beautifully shot. Sue Lyon's portrayal of the teenage Lolita is spot on, whilst Shelley Wintar's manical and irritating mother role is painfully real. Peter Sellar's does his usual good job of injecting a little humour into the otherwise unpleasant storyline and of course James Mason is as always perfect in his role. Whether it is an insult to say he is perfect for the part I do not know, but he certainly fits the character as though the part was made for him. Watch if you want to be unhinged from normal everyday topics and taken for a little while into the taboo, dark side of unnatural relationships, at the same time enjoying the great music and awesome camera work.

Lolita: that "lovely, lyrical, wilting name". After Nabokov's novel and Kubrick's film adaptation, the name Lolita has, unfortunately, become synonymous solely with sexual precociousness. Really, we should add 'vulgar' and 'brash' to that synonymy - the real Dolores Haze (Sue Lyon) is brusque, and anything but wilting. She's known by two names; she leads two VERY different lives.

Given the reputation that follows the tale of Lolita around, it's sometimes easy to forget how funny this first (and best) film adaptation is. With Kubrick, we're in the hands of a master satirist. So when Lolita is shipped off to the hilariously named 'Camp Climax', her emotional farewell embrace with Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is cut short with what amounts to a snappy "see ya" before the camera swoops over our troubled anti-hero as he gazes longingly over the banister, full of yearning and repressed passion, while melodramatic music swells like something out of Gone With The Wind.

Humbert is an amusingly sardonic sort when he knows he's going to get what he wants; he's stroppy when he can't. So, while we're never offered any backstory to help us build a psychological justification for Humbert's infatuation, we can clearly see that his passion brings out the teenager in him: fickle, randy, playful and obstreperous.

Shelley Winters marvellously over-plays Dolores' lonesome mother, the actress's alleged poor treatement by the director pre-dating Shelley Duvall's by almost 20 years - and, similarly, it could be argued the performance is improved accordingly.

This was Kubrick's first collaboration with Peter Sellers (who plays the writer Clare Quilty). Like Dr Strangelove, there's an exhilarating unpredictability whenever the chameleonic Sellers occupies the screen. This was the first time Kubrick encouraged improvisation - it's partially this, I believe, which elevates the film to the status of the first true Kubrick classic. Paradoxically, with Lolita we're able to see the control Kubrick would wield thereon; he arrests the image, moving the actors with the precision of chess grand-master, shooting everything from the beautiful to the banal with sublime artistry.

The subject matter of Lolita naturally poses some problems for a director, but this adaptation has ultimately gone down as a victory for the censors. The original novel was almost entirely focused on the character of Humbert Humbert, his flamboyant obsession with a young girl and the increasingly ridiculous lengths he goes to in an effort to keep the object of his affections. The genius in Humbert's character was that despite the hopelessly immoral nature of his actions, the reader could always sympathise with the position he found himself in.

In the film this dimension is ultimately lost. James Mason makes an admirable attempt to play Humbert and Shelley Winters is perfect as the naive Charlotte, but divorced of its finest material the tale becomes a rather dry affair and were it not for the odd suggestive phrase now and then, you would be forgiven for thinking that Humbert was simply an overly conservative father figure. Worthy of mention is Peter Sellers who plays an amusing cameo-esque role, but it speaks volumes when the humour which was such a vital part of the novel is provided by a bit-part character (as Quilty was in the novel) and some rather absurd slapstick elements including a decidedly galling scene involving a fold out bed that could have come straight from Charlie Chaplin.

Overall, there are some good performances on display, but the film neither captures the genius of the novel nor does it provide any other motivation for the viewer to become engrossed in the plot.