Of course we will probably never see the film of Lolita that Nabokov wanted us to see, one based on the screenplay he wrote that Kubrick claimed would have been over seven hours long. Which version does everyone prefer, Lyne's or Kubrick's? Are there others?

LYNES!!!!
Dominique Swain was amazing

lyne's. jeremy irons and dominique swain work soo well together.

The one directed by Arian Lyne, ..

The original with Sue Lyon's, I barely made thru, ...

The second with Jeremy and Dominique, . I have watched a thousand times, .. and it is forever burned into my spirit, heart and soul, ..

Dominique was amazing in this film, .. as so was Jeremy, .. but without Dom, .. there would be no REAL 'Lolita' on screen in my eyes.

This movie causes me to experience a rush of a million emotions I would not otherwise feel in my life.

Thank you for a great topic!

Kubrick's did have Peter Sellers, though. If he had been in Lyne's, it would have been perfect. Jeremy Irons was a much better Humbert than James Mason.

I think it's interesting that my local video store has Kubrick's in the comedy section and Lyne's in the drama section. Every time I read the book I change my mind about whether it is a comedy or a tragedy. Someone called Lolita the "saddest of funny books and the funniest of sad ones, " so it seems fitting that it should have two so vastly different adaptations.

Has anyone read Nabokov's screenplay? I haven't been able to find it.

I am strange its a toss up but I love James as Hum and Dom as Lo. Both movies are good and I dont think I could say which I love more. They both are just personal interpretations of the same thing. They are both beautiful in my eyes.
<33333333333333333333

They both have their moments. I enjoyed both.
I shudder as I watch these clips, for as I dream of this, the turmoil for which it would place one is mind boggling.
Your heart, your head, your heart, your hear, your...

Lyne's because in Kubrick's Lo's mom calls her Lolita and only Humbert calls her that. Jeremy did a much better job at playing Humbert and Dominique was a much better Lo. Sue did not fit the description of a nymphet she looks more like a 'normal' girl men would go for. and in the book and movie Humbert says

"A normal man, given a group photograph of school girls and asked to point out the loveliest one, will not necessarily choose the nymphet among them."

And that girl would be Sue In the movie, Sue Lyon is attractive by conventional standards, but in the novel, both Charlotte and Humbert comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness, and it is hinted that this is why greater suspicion does not fall on Humbert.


Dominique is beautiful but not by conventional standerds she has something that Sue did not. She truely was a nymphet.

Red headed step child wrote:
Dominique was a much better Lo. Sue did not fit the description of a nymphet she looks more like a 'normal' girl men would go for. and in the book and movie Humbert says

"A normal man, given a group photograph of school girls and asked to point out the loveliest one, will not necessarily choose the nymphet among them."

And that girl would be Sue In the movie, Sue Lyon is attractive by conventional standards, but in the novel, both Charlotte and Humbert comment on Lolita's lack of conventional attractiveness, and it is hinted that this is why greater suspicion does not fall on Humbert.

Nabokov himself was adamant that the actress playing Lolita in Kubrick's version be (and look) older than Lolita was in the book. To have the actress be a nymphet herself was evidently too much for Vladimir. She had to be "pubescent" in the film is how he put it.

All this aside, Dominique Swain was a much better Lo.

I have to confess that I enjoyed both but the second was better.

i enjoyed the bw version better than the updated version...although the updated version had its good moments, i rather enjoyed the artfully done scenes of the bw lolita because it was more about the viewers imagination than actual imagery
-rebel-

Well, I enjoy both film adaptations, but I think Lyne's was more true to the whole story. Jeremy Irons was a perfect Humbert Humbert. He portrayed him so much better than Mason. Dominique Swain also manged to give us a more childish role of Lolita than Sue Lyon, who played Lolita as a little more sexually mature child.
And Frank Langella was the perfect Quilty for me. He played Quilty with a more darkly way than Sellers did.
And, the music! Oh, that soundtrack still got me shivering every time I hear it. One of the best works of Ennio Morricone, I think.
But this film has a flaw. Why Lyne deleted the scene where Humbert and Lo playing with the apple in the house? He deleted one of the most strong emotial scenes in the book.

Yes, much agreed...And particularly for the reasons you stated. A much better Lolita, by far. The movie was exhausting, not for the strain of it, but for the immensity and intensity of a myriad feelings. I don’t know that either film fit the book, but I recognized very little in the way of pathos from reading the book or from Kubrick’s version. Not to say I didn’t enjoy them all in different ways. But Jeremy and Dominique were able to bring out a depth of emotion with every word, and, even...gesture, and hint of "thought." Profound and heart wrenching and more things ineffable.

Lyne’s, by far.